Random Politics & Religion #02

I know exactly why! ... Oh wait.. That was directed at me.. xD

Why don't you people quit insulting, goading, slinging mud at, and *** with each other in general?

Also, stop saying stupid ***if you can't handle someone calling you out on it.

Something that gingerly approaches reality. Then runs far, far away.

I don't think it even approached reality.

I mean, it assumes that people in power are smart enough to even engineer such events. Have you even seen our current pool of politicians? I wouldn't trust them to screw in a light bulb correctly, let alone plan and implement social chaos.

Assuming the "powers that be" are "politicians".

Oh, I keep forgetting that people believe in the urban legends, like Illuminati and Doma.

It's time...

FOR REPORT!! *spams button*

Why is this considered far-fetched?
There are events in history, mainstream history, that do outright show Government invest time into social engineering and everything else mentioned in the "gingerly approach" to reality.

To suggest that there isn't some hidden, organized group(s) out there is more insane than assume there isn't.

Everything in documented history shows that conspiracies are a certainty and the most likely reality.

So in the past 100 years the following has happened across the globe:

1. JFK - RFK - MLK
2. Hitler's rise to power - Was a conspiracy that worked. See History's note on how Hitler turned the public against the Communists.
3.Black Wall St.
4. 9/11 - if you believe the official story or dont believe the official story, both sides of the fence believe in conspiracy. One just thinks the Government did it, and the other thinks some kids from the middle east did it. Either way, both sides believe it was a conspiracy


Have you read about Edward Bernaise? I would highly recommend you read into propaganda and PR and Philip Morris. This is the prime example of social engineering that has been documented accurately in recent history.

That's the thing, nobody has been able to prove that a "hidden" organization is responsible for all of the ills in the world. It's popular belief with people who like to blame their own inadequacies on others (i.e. "It's not my fault I'm <insert negative character trait>!"), that's all.

So? All 3 guys were assassinated by idiots. That's your proof that there's a "hidden" organization out there? Because 2 of them were liberals and one wanted to change the social structure of the time that ended up changing anyway (not fully, but somewhat). All 3 of them were murdered by bigots, plain and simple.

Not going Godwin Law on this. Seriously, you should look better into historical records of Germany between 1920 and 1934. People seem to forget that when they mention Hitler's rise to power.

There's a black Wall Street? That's the first I heard of this. Can you elaborate more on this conspiracy?

9/11 is not a conspiracy, it's an actual event. Maybe you were asleep at the time, maybe even too young to understand the events, but 9/11 was a real event.

Never heard of him.

I'll play since conspiracies are fascinating.


If it was proven it wouldn't be a conspiracy anymore, (I.E. The Government is watching you) also, if a group(s) actually does exists that regularly pulls stuff like this off, they are pretty damn smart.

You kinda shot yourself in the foot here. Lacky or fall guy can easily replace "idiots"

same.

It's interesting you should look it up. http://www.google.com

Nobody said it wasn't. You misread the question or have nothing to discredit his opinions.

He is to thank for Herd mentality ideas. He wasn't wrong... Not quite sure how it fits into the conspiracy thing.

Another fascinating conspiracy would be the Titanic going down so the federal reserve could be created.

In other news.

#THECHALKENING

Guessing you've never heard of HAARP then. Everything is explained!

They aren't.

Power brokers are the ones running each party, it's not a conspiracy or anything, just people trying to get whats best for them. They are the ones choosing the candidates and directing the parties resources. Generally speaking they don't like holding public office as it opens them up to scrutiny and attack.

Didn't he invent that terrible yellow sauce people ruin steaks with?

The hypocrisy from the left is amazing isn't it? Sorry to bring up a old topic but I had too. People cannot refuse service to people violating religious rights, ie bakery but all these lefties can withhold services.



Tweet is verified can be seen on his twitter

I'm confused. Why is Michael Moore rewarding North Carolina?

We agree on something!

Can't make this stuff up.

Hopefully he will boycott Illinois as well. Nobody cares about Michael Moore.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dems-justified-blocking-supreme-court-nominee-gop-president/story?id=38406202

White House press secretary Josh Earnest raised eyebrows during today's press briefing by suggesting that Democrats would be “justified” to take revenge on the GOP blockade against Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland by blocking a possible GOP president’s nomination for the president's full term.

Earnest was recalling a suggestion President Obama made in an interview with Fox News Sunday in which he said if Republicans continued blocking Garland until he left office then “it is almost impossible to expect” that Democrats wouldn’t retaliate if given the opportunity.

"What's to stop Democrats who are in charge of the Senate when a Republican is in office, from saying, 'Well, we're just going to wait the four years to fill the vacancy.' There is no material difference in that argument. That would represent a breakdown of the process," Earnest said.

But Earnest went just a bit further, after a reporter asked, “Would they really do that?”

“They would be justified in doing it, based on what Republicans have done so far,” Earnest said, adding “Hopefully, they -- it won't come to that.”

If the GOP-controlled Senate doesn't confirm a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia and Senate Democrats subsequently block a potential Republican president's nominee until after 2020, it would by far mark the longest Supreme Court vacancy in U.S. history. The current record dates back to 1844 when a Whig-controlled Senate refused to confirm a nominee for 841 days, more than two years.

The longest vacancy in the past 30 years, however, is just 267 days. That landmark would be easily passed if Republicans block any nominee until after Obama leaves office.

When asked if his comments were meant as a threat, Earnest responded saying since he isn’t a sitting U.S. senator, he wouldn't have the "standing” for it to be a threat.


IKR!

Nothing wrong with Earnest saying that, it doesn't mean anything.

Considering it is completely wrong and borderline insane. Probably a good thing it doesn't mean anything right!

How is it different than the current Senate not even holding hearings for a nominee? Is that completely wrong and borderline insane?

Do you need me to explain why it is different because you have no clue or are you just being obtuse again?