2008 TTLG Mock presidential election. Poll included

Stereoprismatic on 31/10/2008 at 22:19

Quote:

please inform us more on this illuminating point of view you have

ah-ha! You've got it, right there.

The Illuminati exist and have influence in most every high office and media outlet on earth, though I don't believe they are the only ones. Every society has a certain ambitious group of people who manifest their influence in certain ways. The Freemasons, Skull & Bones, the Bilderberg Group, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission... all of these things exist and obviously have vast influence on governmental policy, given their membership. Collectively, I and others call it the New World Order, which is just what Daddy Bush called it:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo)

The date (september 11 1991) I believe is inaccurate in that video. I think he delivered that speech on march 6, but I'm not sure.

The New World Order is really just a resurrection of the Old World Order, meaning, totalitarian oligarchy. One World Government.

Obviously, take all this with a grain of salt. It's nothing that's ever going to be proven or disproven, unless they accomplish their goals in our lifetime. I'm not preaching anything here. At the very least, it's interesting to discuss.

Not to say that we as people have no control. We do have control, it's just that so often people don't utilize it. I don't believe in rising up or rebelling against any government, because I feel it's a fruitless venture unless you can accomplish it the same way the Founders formed America. That kind of revolution seems kind of impossible at this point, though.

As far as how Obama ties in, his wife is on the Board of Directors for the Chicago branch of the Council on Foreign Relations:
(http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chicago_council_board_directors.php)

Obama is a pawn of the elite, as much as McCain, Hillary, Romney, or any of them. They're all members of the CFR, they're all globalists (meaning the intention of the formation of a totalitarian world government), and none of them care about the Constitution.

Don't write me off as an Alex Jones guy, either. AJ for the most part has ok info, but he delivers it like a fearmonger. I look at it from a more Christian perspective, as a lot of what's going on right now is alluded to in Revelation.

SD on 31/10/2008 at 22:25

Boy, am I glad I waited an hour... I was going to write a serious reply to your economics post.

Trance on 31/10/2008 at 22:29

hahahahahaha

just when he showed promise

Fringe on 31/10/2008 at 22:35

Oh my god, I was joking.

I was joking!

Stereoprismatic on 31/10/2008 at 22:41

Quote Posted by SD

Boy, am I glad I waited an hour... I was going to write a serious reply to your economics post.

I don't see why my other post should deter you. If you have a better point or idea to share on economics, by all means, share it. I don't intend for this to be an "I know more than you" game. I just enjoy the exchange of ideas, regardless. I'm not attacking anyone personally, here, except maybe Krugman ; )

It's this guilt by association thing that's messing up society. So, apparently, if you disagree with my analysis of global events, it invalidates anything else I say? Ante up and share your opinion, man. To me, that's what this is all about.

Stitch on 31/10/2008 at 22:59

Quote Posted by Stereoprismatic

It's this guilt by association thing that's messing up society. So, apparently, if you disagree with my analysis of global events, it invalidates anything else I say? Ante up and share your opinion, man. To me, that's what this is all about.

Yeah, but at a certain point engaging in debate with a gibbering tinfoil hat disciple yields diminishing returns.

Stereoprismatic on 31/10/2008 at 23:38

Wow, thanks for the personal attack. That really adds to the discussion.

Rug Burn Junky on 1/11/2008 at 00:14

Because I'm feeling generous tonight, I'll distill into about 5 sentences a couple of the simpler reasons why you're wrong*:

For one thing, the idea that gold doesn't fluctuate is manifest error. It is, like any other commodity, subject to the law of supply and demand. Hell, do you really want your economic future tied to advances in dentistry? (think about it, real hard).

For another, having a fixed monetary standard would be tantamount to fixing exchange rates with other countries. In terms of international trade, this is suicide.

*Oh, and by wrong I mean

UTTERLY FUCKING RETARDED.

I'm sure you think that that doesn't add to the discussion, but, thankfully, for any rational person with a basic understanding of economics (don't forget dentistry! :)), I pretty much just ended the discussion. Run the fuck along. Now, I'm about to go get drunk, smoke some pot and hang out with my adopted Mardi Gras Family, anyone want to tag along?

demagogue on 1/11/2008 at 00:19

Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky

Hell, do you really want your economic future tied to advances in dentistry? (think about it, real hard).

I liked the example of the value of our currency being at the mercy of Mali discovering some fluke massive deposit, just like the value tanked with the Californian and Australian gold rushes.

Stereoprismatic on 1/11/2008 at 00:27

I already noted that supply and demand attribute to gold. I was talking about gold's value in relation to the dollar. Internationally, who knows what it would do. I obviously don't know as much as you about that. I go about this from a moral perspective more than anything. If you want to stay in your pithy collectivist mindset, go ahead.

I think I'm being a good bit more rational than you, as I don't feel the need to use caps to speak. Plus, there is no real rebuttal here. You're taking what I posted, rejecting it, and feeling the need to try to belittle me. I don't care if you believe what I'm referencing or reject it, but the absence of a sound argument to disprove what I'm referencing seems to mean that you have no defense against it but to resort to name calling. Good for you.