Fall of the Republic movie

[Chris McKinley]

I don't have a horse in this race, and I'm not tacitly giving approving to Darth comments to be sure, but I've seen both Michael and Chris now, and not for the first time, employ the entirely illegitimate arguments of "Personal attacks to discredit the author is a common tactic among censors and thought police", and "Your comments are similar to comments that people who like to bury their head in the sand often make", respectively. Such childish statements blatantly ignore the other side of the coin that would allow the recipient of such critique to return fire just as fairly, and just as unproductively, with "Those are the kind of comments that people who are prone to believing and spreading bullshit conspiracy theories make".

Either set of comments may or may not be true about the person against whom it is being leveled, but neither is legitimate criticism without objective evidence particular to that person. Further, whether or not either set is an accurate criticism, it's entirely irrelevant as to the veracity of the claims of the conspiracy being put forth. IOW, it's a classic case of non sequitur ad hominem, or your basic strawman insult.

[Chanchu]

Off topic a bit but pertains to fall of our Republic

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/19/lo ... o-america/

Interesting information on Copenhagan meeting on global warning and world Gov't given by the most excellent Lord Monckton. A lord who is now trying to save the rebels...

Fall of the Republic?? No one voted to sign the papers in Copenhagan that I know of....

[Chris Fleming]

I don't have a horse in this race, and I'm not tacitly giving approving to Darth comments to be sure, but I've seen both Michael and Chris now, and not for the first time, employ the entirely illegitimate arguments of "Personal attacks to discredit the author is a common tactic among censors and thought police", and "Your comments are similar to comments that people who like to bury their head in the sand often make", respectively. Such childish statements blatantly ignore the other side of the coin that would allow the recipient of such critique to return fire just as fairly, and just as unproductively, with "Those are the kind of comments that people who are prone to believing and spreading bullshit conspiracy theories make".

Either set of comments may or may not be true about the person against whom it is being leveled, but neither is legitimate criticism without objective evidence particular to that person. Further, whether or not either set is an accurate criticism, it's entirely irrelevant as to the veracity of the claims of the conspiracy being put forth. IOW, it's a classic case of non sequitur ad hominem, or your basic strawman insult.

I can understand your position, but you yourself have said similar things to "darth" and wonder why you get the response you get. The attitude is (which I have read from you as well): something along the lines of questioning the level of intelligence the other person has, and along with that, something along the lines of "what possible proof could you have anyway" and something along the lines of "well go ahead and tell me your ignorant and stupid opinion". That IS the common tactic of people who just bury their head in the sand--when the ATTITUDE begins with the incredulous and ends with vague insult RATHER than simply discussing an issue. Regardless of if this response is trained or conditioned, demanding that the other side not respond by pointing this out is yet another dodge of the real issue.

To be perfectly clear, I would welcome disagreements about this issue, the vaccines, the economy or anything. But when you or some pathetic example of a frightened child hiding on the internet or anyone WON'T address the issue at all, REGARDLESS of any and all attempts to reasonably address his posts and just goes into name calling, I have absolutely no problem with saying that yes, they are using the common tactic of simply ignoring the issue and calling names. Common tactic indeed. For some reason you and others think that when I say "common tactic" that immediately I am referring to an allegiance to something, but I am merely referring to the common tactic of dodging the issue when in reality you have nothing to say at all but still want to appear as "right". Those who squawk the loudest and write the most think that by doing so it makes them right, for some reason.

[Michael]

Interesting information on Copenhagan meeting on global warning and world Gov't given by the most excellent Lord Monckton. A lord who is now trying to save the rebels...

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton
Lord Monckton gave a 1½ hour presentation on global warming arguing against man-made influence on climate change. Here is the full video of Lord Monckton’s presentation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
You can download his slideshow in PDF format and follow along with the video just as it was originally presented.

Lord Monckton has been requesting a debate from Al Gore for years, who has never even responded. Gore really doesn't like answering questions, as demonstrated here when a reporter's microphone is cut off in the middle of trying to get Gore to answer. Phelim McAleer questions Gore on "An Inconvenient Truth" during a press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jqcnBugnl8

[Teazer]

Interesting information on Copenhagan meeting on global warning and world Gov't given by the most excellent Lord Monckton. A lord who is now trying to save the rebels...

He has quite the wiki entry ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
<<During the autumn of 2009, Monckton embarked on a tour of North America to campaign against the December 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. His warning that US President Barack Obama intended to sign a treaty at the conference which would "impose a communist world government on the world" was picked up by numerous commentators on the American right and "rocketed around the fringe" of right-wing websites, prompting Glenn Beck to invite him on his radio show again. Writing in Salon, Alex Koppelman criticized Monckton's assertions about the conference's framework for negotiation as being "woefully inaccurate. And that's a nice way of putting it." [21][22] The St. Petersburg Times's PolitiFact.com described his assertions as "not only unsupported but preposterous" and awarded him a special rating of "britches on fire".[23] Ethan Baron of the Canadian newspaper The Province criticized Monckton's assertions as the product of a "whacked-out, far-right ideology, combined with an ego the size of the Antarctic ice sheet."[24]>>

[Chanchu]

The most excellent Lord Monckton. The lord who is now trying to save the rebels...
Said this....

"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” — because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it — now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it."

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it."



*The Province criticized Monckton's assertions as the product of a "whacked-out, far-right ideology, combined with an ego the size of the Antarctic ice sheet."[24

You could argue that the Al Gore /Obama veiw is far left whacked out thinking...

[The K Prodigy]

It doesn't matter if Obama signs the treaty or not, only congress can ratify treaties.

Oh, and what makes Alex Jones a respectable source? Does anyone know what he did in a prior life? Does anyone know why he's trying to help? I've heard some tin foils even doubt him because now he's too mainstream.

[Chanchu]

That's why IMHO it is very important, that in the next elections we vote the congressional big brother bastards OUT!

[Chris Fleming]

"Does anyone know what he did in a prior life?"

Were you a prodigy in a prior life?

"That's why IMHO it is very important, that in the next elections we vote the congressional big brother bastards OUT!"

That would be great except for the fact that they are ALL big brother bastards. They wouldn't be in politics if they weren't. At some point you have to play the game and corrupt yourself to remain in politics. That's why there is NO DIFFERENCE between democrats and republicans. Doesn't matter who gets elected. Recent case in point: Bush starts wars, dems run for next election with the claim that they will cut the funding, get elected into office, and instead of keeping their promise they fund and EXPAND the war effort. Same with Obama--ran on the same promises, didn't deliver. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Rather than being disappointed, I've come to see this as expected.

[Chanchu]

"They are ALL big brother bastards."

Yes, you are right, but some are better than others IMO. I will vote.

[Chris Fleming]

"They are ALL big brother bastards."

Yes, you are right, but some are better than others IMO. I will vote.

I'm not telling you not to vote or anything like that, but I've seen this line of thinking often, that some are better than others, and would like to explore it. Mainly, how do you know? Considering how every politician says one thing to one group and then the opposite to the opposing group to get the votes, or, agrees with the general feeling of the country only to betray the promises given once in office, how can you know who is better or who will fuck things up the least, as was expressed somewhat in a past thread?

[zenshiite]

Man, from my perspective... the vaunted "republic" was so corrupt at the foundations it's hard to fathom giving a rip about "saving" it. Honestly. Ain't never been any solution to this mess but a real revolution to overturn it all and build something with far more just foundations.

[Michael]

No person, no country is perfect, but the USA is a constitutional republic that successfully established and nurtured all of these: rule by law; severely limiting government power in general; specifically recognizing rights of individuals as not coming from government, but being inherent and inalienable; the premise from the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."

There are flaws, corruption, and other problems in the USA, as there are everywhere in the world, but I believe it is still a great country based on ideas that are beneficial to everyone, ideas which have spread throughout the world. The Constitution provides a way for governmental improvement and individual freedom allows people to live as they wish and make their own progress. The beneficial ideas of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (self-reliance) from our founding documents are the essence of the country and are absolutely worth saving and should be carried forward into the future regardless of what may come in the next few years.

IOW, there was a lot more good in the foundation of the republic than there was corruption, so don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The USA was overall progressive until perhaps the death of Pres. Kennedy, and led the way in many areas of social reform, albeit with some notable failures. The noble spirit of progress will be strong in America as long as we have the courage to seek the truth and the freedom to interpret it as individuals.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Michael - which people are to determine whether or not the government should be abolished? Because the majority of the people clearly support the existing government.

There are flaws and corruptions in any power structure anywhere. There are a lot of great countries.

the US was established with the help of France and modeled themselves after British rule of law and followed suit on virtually every British innovation in industry, law and governance. Many successful countries follow that path as a matter of fact.

You make claims that sound as if America is totally unique in being a republic with rule of law. There are many countries like this.

I'm not sure how much is propaganda and how much is truth, but then, it doesn't really matter does it? I go to work, I pay my taxes, I do my shopping and pay my bills and live my life more or less like anyone else does in a modern industrialized and developed nation.

I am thankful I don't live in a war torn country where the problems are infinitely greater than anything a North American could worry about or even think of.

A fat person in a fridge full of food worrying about his next meal is ridiculous, but it is a good metaphor for the current insanity that is American fear of losing their "traditional" way. What rot.

[Michael]

I don't support the abolition of the USA and I don't believe that an abolition movement is coming from the bottom up. I support specific reforms, such as tax reform, monetary system reform, and a reduction in the size of the federal government, especially in the military and federal police. As I understand it, there was a small group, as few as 5% of the population of the British Colonies that revolted against England, so it's possible for a determined minority to lead a change in government, even a radical one.

However, the only people in a position to abolish the USA are those who prefer a world with no sovereign nations, but instead a single world government, world court, world military, one-world currency, etc. They do not hide their ultimate goal and meet openly in places like the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and The Bilderbergs. They push their agenda through the United Nations, and through the Executive Branch of the USA having had tremendous influence on every US President since Wilson. One of their leaders, David Rockefeller, Jr., wrote in his autobiography that he wants to end the USA. So it's not "the people" who want to abolish the USA—we want to fix it—it's the social planners, also called the globalists, who want to abolish it.

Gerald Celente of the Trends Research Institute predicted in Dec. 2007 that a 2nd American Revolution will occur.

COME THE REVOLUTION

Over the intervening years, having watched the evidence develop and unfold, it is now not a matter of “if” revolution will happen. It’s only a matter of when. The time is fast approaching for people to take to the streets, actively seeking redress for getting their pockets picked and/or revenge against those they believe responsible for their misery. We do not forecast a 1776-style revolution to spontaneously erupt. It will happen in stages, it will spread among the classes and be waged in many forms … over the Internet, in town halls, on the ballot as well as at the barricades. What will be the spark that ignites it? A final straw bailout? Another tax hike? Disappearing entitlements? Or will it be the ultimate “let them eat cake” policy that pushes people past the breaking point? Who will break first?

• The former middle class that lost their jobs, 401ks, IRAs, pensions … and even their homes?
• Jobless, blue-collar, and paycheck-to-paycheck workers, their credit maxed out and heading toward homeless?
• The young and restless with dead-end jobs or no jobs, who believe their future has been stolen and want revenge?
• The artists and intellectuals on one hand, the hardcore conservatives and impassioned patriots on the other, united in outrage at Big Brotherhood’s control of the entire socioeconomic and political system?

One of the above? Some of the above? All of the above? Who will fire the shot heard around the world? As the New Year begins, revolution is not part of the public discourse. Why should it be? “The Collapse of ’09” and the “Greatest Depression,” the steps leading up to revolution are denied, ignored or go unseen, and are thus also absent from public discourse. Are there any foreseeable mitigating factors? Can anyone or anything reverse these trends? Many people believe there is someone.