(February 6, 2016 at 10:59 pm)Sterben Wrote:

(February 6, 2016 at 10:51 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: Except fuck that! I'm twenty three. I vote. I'll punch out anyone who tries to take my say in things away. Secondly that's ableist as hell, there are nonviolent forms of PTSD and schizophrenia, and  I doubt anyone with delusions is going to flip out in the voting box. As for people with Downs they don't understand voting after it's been explained to them there's no real need for the blanket ban.

     I know, it was just a rough outline of what should be done. The reasons why I put in the PTSD and Schizophrenia was for the violent forms of it, and as far the downs are concerned that was just to put in for those are not competent of themselves or lacks an ability for basic independent thinking. If you don't blanket ban them they can be taken advantage of by others to take actions they don't compered.

Most people with PTSD and schizophrenia aren't violent, most who are would not intentionally harm one who was not really attacking them, and then none of this says anything on their ability to make a competent decision at the polls, so other than being dickish with these groups, what was your purpose in filtering them out?

(February 6, 2016 at 11:26 pm)scoobysnack Wrote:

(February 6, 2016 at 10:52 pm)Sterben Wrote:      Why? We need a leader who has a better background then an American to be able to show us the way of others. What good does our ways do to the rest of world? Buying elections in other countries, forcing our greedy ways on to others, and a pleura of purely illegal actions done to people. Watch the film Drones and you will see that more innocent people get hurt and increases the growing number of terrorist's. You really want to send a message to the rest of world that we are growing up and we will not drop high explosives on you unless there is clear cut evidence of ill-harm to us.

What do you think of the idea of national sovereignty? Do you think the United States should rule itself, or should a world leader or world governing body rule all nations?

By the way I have seen drones, watched the other day on netflix, and agree, we have done a lot of harm in the world. Part of this was due to the project for the new American century, which believed it was better for the US to dominate the whole world, so no nation could rise up against it and threaten our dominance.

        The idea of national sovereignty is becoming an archaic concept in my opinion. It serves little purpose since we in the digital age, were one the last hold outs who still maintain this concept. I don't think a governing body should in place but, there needs a form of it that has more power then the U.N to hold power house nations like Russia, China, and America accountable for there actions.

(February 6, 2016 at 11:27 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 6, 2016 at 10:59 pm)Sterben Wrote:      I know, it was just a rough outline of what should be done. The reasons why I put in the PTSD and Schizophrenia was for the violent forms of it, and as far the downs are concerned that was just to put in for those are not competent of themselves or lacks an ability for basic independent thinking. If you don't blanket ban them they can be taken advantage of by others to take actions they don't compered.

Most people with PTSD and schizophrenia aren't violent, most who are would not intentionally harm one who was not really attacking them, and then none of this says anything on their ability to make a competent decision at the polls, so other than being dickish with these groups, what was your purpose in filtering them out?

    My intent is to remove those with serve mental issues from voting in order to protect them from groups that would mislead them. When your seeing people that aren't there as well hearing voices in your head it will cause a lot confession for them to understand the issues since there not mentally all there. I was not trying to exclude all forms of PTSD, just the ones that makes a person very unstable.

(February 7, 2016 at 12:00 am)Sterben Wrote:

(February 6, 2016 at 11:26 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: What do you think of the idea of national sovereignty? Do you think the United States should rule itself, or should a world leader or world governing body rule all nations?

By the way I have seen drones, watched the other day on netflix, and agree, we have done a lot of harm in the world. Part of this was due to the project for the new American century, which believed it was better for the US to dominate the whole world, so no nation could rise up against it and threaten our dominance.

        The idea of national sovereignty is becoming an archaic concept in my opinion. It serves little purpose since we in the digital age, were one the last hold outs who still maintain this concept. I don't think a governing body should in place but, there needs a form of it that has more power then the U.N to hold power house nations like Russia, China, and America accountable for there actions.

I used to think the same thing, but after a lot of research, found out those that want to destroy national sovereignty, just want to be able to control the world, and not just various nations. Earth is full of a diverse amount of people and cultures, and how do you know that if we relinquish our national sovereignty, we will be ruled by people that agree with our principles? I'm sure you wouldn't want to live under Shariah law for example, so it's important for each nation to rule itself. However obvious problems arise because nations are competing against each other which will cause conflicts. The answer is not to give up our ability to be free and hand it over to the UN or some other world body. It would be guaranteed suicide and we would end up as slaves on a global plantation. Especially if you look at the powerful banking interests behind this plan.

Be careful what you wish for, but it's likely to happen our lifetime. 

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." 

David Rockefeller,
( founder of the Trilateral Commission), 
in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, 
in June, 1991. 

"The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species." 
Richard A. Falk, 
in an article entitled 
"Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions," 
in the book On the Creation of a Just World Order (1975)

"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." 

Harpers, July l958

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."
-Arnold Toynbee, "The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International Affairs, November 1931, p. 809

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler from his book, and , UN NGO


"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." 
-- Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

"The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'" -- Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- New York Times (February 1962)

"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of 
them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." -- H. G. Wells, in his book entitled "The New World Order" (1939)

(February 7, 2016 at 12:24 am)scoobysnack Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 12:00 am)Sterben Wrote:         The idea of national sovereignty is becoming an archaic concept in my opinion. It serves little purpose since we in the digital age, were one the last hold outs who still maintain this concept. I don't think a governing body should in place but, there needs a form of it that has more power then the U.N to hold power house nations like Russia, China, and America accountable for there actions.

I used to think the same thing, but after a lot of research, found out those that want to destroy national sovereignty, just want to be able to control the world, and not just various nations. Earth is full of a diverse amount of people and cultures, and how do you know that if we relinquish our national sovereignty, we will be ruled by people that agree with our principles? I'm sure you wouldn't want to live under Shariah law for example, so it's important for each nation to rule itself. However obvious problems arise because nations are competing against each other which will cause conflicts. The answer is not to give up our ability to be free and hand it over to the UN or some other world body. It would be guaranteed suicide and we would end up as slaves on a global plantation. Especially if you look at the powerful banking interests behind this plan.

Be careful what you wish for, but it's likely to happen our lifetime. 

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." 

David Rockefeller,
( founder of the Trilateral Commission), 
in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, 
in June, 1991. 

"The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species." 
Richard A. Falk, 
in an article entitled 
"Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions," 
in the book On the Creation of a Just World Order (1975)

"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." 

Harpers, July l958

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."
-Arnold Toynbee, "The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International Affairs, November 1931, p. 809

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler from his book, and , UN NGO


"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderlhttp://atheistforums.org/newreply.php?tid=41364&replyto=1197519y and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." 
-- Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

"The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'" -- Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- New York Times (February 1962)

"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of 
them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." -- H. G. Wells, in his book entitled "The New World Order" (1939)

      You do make some good points but I have to disagree with you on some of them. I'm not saying for countries to give there national sovereignty, I'm just calling for a better system when other countries commit such acts as contributing financially to other countries elections. This form of power brokering should not be not be tolerated. If a invasion of others country is not provoked as in America's invasion of Iraq, the actions done by The Bush administration was an injustice to Iraq. Rigging some evidence together and launching an invasion for your own befit is a war crime. We had no right to take away Iraq's national sovereignty as we do not have a right to control the world as an Empire. Internal disputes inside of country is hardly a concern, unless there is formal alliance between two powers and the other requests assistance. I think of it this way, if your out with friends and one couple starts fighting in front of you. Should you try to deescalate the situation? If your out with a friend and you see a couple fighting, it's there sovereignty your invading if you try to interfere based on your views that a major
issue is at hand.

(February 7, 2016 at 12:57 am)Sterben Wrote:       You do make some good points but I have to disagree with you on some of them. I'm not saying for countries to give there national sovereignty, I'm just calling for a better system when other countries commit such acts as contributing financially to other countries elections. This form of power brokering should not be not be tolerated. If a invasion of others country is not provoked as in America's invasion of Iraq, the actions done by The Bush administration was an injustice to Iraq. Rigging some evidence together and launching an invasion for your own befit is a war crime. We had no right to take away Iraq's national sovereignty as we do not have a right to control the world as an Empire. Internal disputes inside of country is hardly a concern, unless there is formal alliance between two powers and the other requests assistance. I think of it this way, if your out with friends and one couple starts fighting in front of you. Should you try to deescalate the situation? If your out with a friend and you see a couple fighting, it's there sovereignty your invading if you try to interfere based on your views that a major
issue is at hand.

I think it comes down to a human rights issue as well, and even that gets sketchy. To your example of seeing a couple fighting should I intervene. I would say yes, but at the same time I wouldn't know the whole story, but I would still try to deescalate as you mentioned. Problem with applying that to nations is that we for example will claim a regime is a threat to their own people and world stability, so we intervened in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc, based on what the government was saying, and in the end, they lied but took us to war anyway. Should there be consequences for that? Absolutely!

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement, and I don't know if you are familiar with the psyop called the false flag. Basically a nation will attack itself and blame it on another nation as an excuse to justify war. Happens quite a bit actually, and it taught in the special forces as a way to implement psychological warfare.

Saddam for example wanted to start selling oil in Euros instead of dollars, which is actually the reason we took him out and put them back on the petrodollar. Same thing happened with Ghadafi, he wanted to start a new African Union currency backed by gold. In fact the main reason we go to war is because of the petrodollar dominance which was an agreement made by Kissinger with OPEC in the 1970's that all oil had to be purchased in US dollars. So all nations had to buy our currency, and bonds in order to trade for oil. This is why the House of Saud is our ally, as it was them who we made the agreement with. This is what guaranteed the US supremacy and full spectrum dominance in the world.

This is now coming to an end, as nations are abandoning that agreement, with Russia now selling oil and natural gas to China in their own currencies. If you really want to get to the bottom of all war, it comes down to the banking systems, which is why they want the world order on their terms.

(February 7, 2016 at 1:40 am)scoobysnack Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 12:57 am)Sterben Wrote:       You do make some good points but I have to disagree with you on some of them. I'm not saying for countries to give there national sovereignty, I'm just calling for a better system when other countries commit such acts as contributing financially to other countries elections. This form of power brokering should not be not be tolerated. If a invasion of others country is not provoked as in America's invasion of Iraq, the actions done by The Bush administration was an injustice to Iraq. Rigging some evidence together and launching an invasion for your own befit is a war crime. We had no right to take away Iraq's national sovereignty as we do not have a right to control the world as an Empire. Internal disputes inside of country is hardly a concern, unless there is formal alliance between two powers and the other requests assistance. I think of it this way, if your out with friends and one couple starts fighting in front of you. Should you try to deescalate the situation? If your out with a friend and you see a couple fighting, it's there sovereignty your invading if you try to interfere based on your views that a major
issue is at hand.

I think it comes down to a human rights issue as well, and even that gets sketchy. To your example of seeing a couple fighting should I intervene. I would say yes, but at the same time I wouldn't know the whole story, but I would still try to deescalate as you mentioned. Problem with applying that to nations is that we for example will claim a regime is a threat to their own people and world stability, so we intervened in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc, based on what the government was saying, and in the end, they lied but took us to war anyway. Should there be consequences for that? Absolutely!

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement, and I don't know if you are familiar with the psyop called the false flag. Basically a nation will attack itself and blame it on another nation as an excuse to justify war. Happens quite a bit actually, and it taught in the special forces as a way to implement psychological warfare.

Saddam for example wanted to start selling oil in Euros instead of dollars, which is actually the reason we took him out and put them back on the petrodollar. Same thing happened with Ghadafi, he wanted to start a new African Union currency backed by gold. In fact the main reason we go to war is because of the petrodollar dominance which was an agreement made by Kissinger with OPEC in the 1970's that all oil had to be purchased in US dollars. So all nations had to buy our currency, and bonds in order to trade for oil. This is why the House of Saud is our ally, as it was them who we made the agreement with. This is what guaranteed the US supremacy and full spectrum dominance in the world.

This is now coming to an end, as nations are abandoning that agreement, with Russia now selling oil and natural gas to China in their own currencies. If you really want to get to the bottom of all war, it comes down to the banking systems, which is why they want the world order on their terms.

        You forgot one the best example of false flag, the Reichstag fire.

(February 7, 2016 at 1:55 am)Sterben Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 1:40 am)scoobysnack Wrote: I think it comes down to a human rights issue as well, and even that gets sketchy. To your example of seeing a couple fighting should I intervene. I would say yes, but at the same time I wouldn't know the whole story, but I would still try to deescalate as you mentioned. Problem with applying that to nations is that we for example will claim a regime is a threat to their own people and world stability, so we intervened in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc, based on what the government was saying, and in the end, they lied but took us to war anyway. Should there be consequences for that? Absolutely!

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement, and I don't know if you are familiar with the psyop called the false flag. Basically a nation will attack itself and blame it on another nation as an excuse to justify war. Happens quite a bit actually, and it taught in the special forces as a way to implement psychological warfare.

Saddam for example wanted to start selling oil in Euros instead of dollars, which is actually the reason we took him out and put them back on the petrodollar. Same thing happened with Ghadafi, he wanted to start a new African Union currency backed by gold. In fact the main reason we go to war is because of the petrodollar dominance which was an agreement made by Kissinger with OPEC in the 1970's that all oil had to be purchased in US dollars. So all nations had to buy our currency, and bonds in order to trade for oil. This is why the House of Saud is our ally, as it was them who we made the agreement with. This is what guaranteed the US supremacy and full spectrum dominance in the world.

This is now coming to an end, as nations are abandoning that agreement, with Russia now selling oil and natural gas to China in their own currencies. If you really want to get to the bottom of all war, it comes down to the banking systems, which is why they want the world order on their terms.

        You forgot one the best example of false flag, the Reichstag fire.

Oh yeah I know about that one for sure.

"The continuous consolidation of money and power into higher, tighter and righter hands."
---- George H.W. Bush in 1992, answering a question of what Iran-Contra was all about
 
“If the American people ever knew the whole story about Iran Contra we Bushes would be chased down in the streets and lynched.”
----- George Bush Sr., interview with Sarah McClendon

Have you seen Terrorstorm? Great video documenting the major false flags in recent history:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrXgLhkv21Y

(February 4, 2016 at 2:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The problem is that the constitution uses the phrase "natural born citizen" and never defines it.

The problem is that dummies wrote the Constitution.  Most of the States and a lot of foreign countries have much better written constitutions where the meaning is a lot clearer.  That's why we have nine idiots voting on what the damn thing means.

(February 4, 2016 at 3:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: For the record, Martin Van Buren (#8) was the first president of the United States who was not born a British subject.... FWIW.

(Perhaps that is why they did not bother to define the term?)

Technically all white people in the country became official citizens of the United States in 1781 when they adopted the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.  So Van Buren could have been from Russia and he would have became an American in 1781 if he had wanted to and there wouldn't have been any bar to him becoming President.