NEWS: Here Comes Fire Tongue!

The network folks will have their fingers on the bleep button. Or else the whole thing will be run with a 10 second delay.

Well the 1st clip from the Dem candidate debate was pretty good, I was almost in disbelief that an American politician was making such a comic though apt description of "Rudy".....
The 2nd clip was not so spectacular a display of his "sharp tongue" lest you get excited cause a swear got through the censors; the last one relied way to much on rhetoric rather then substantial factual accounts that underlay that which I even consider pretty much true.

Maybe Biden conciously chose those words due to time contsraints on what would actually be aired. Though it seems to me that he was more constrained by the fact that Israel is not happy with the candidate that has emerged from the dem and the proposed policy towards Iran and Iraq directly coflicts with Israel and their 8-16 years of being of the leash and in preffered company of the republican war hawks(or clintons).

I dont know with the repuclican meltdown that they're going to have the capability to put biden in such policy hot seats like the CNN clip, never the less I would be brushing up on concrete examples of neffarious foreign policy of the last 8 years lest the republicans get a brain storm.....

every video i see of this guy speaking makes me like him more. i really, really can't wait to watch him put foot to ass on the campaign trail.

That makes perfect sense to me. It's not as though they didn't have plenty of time to prepare it.

In fact, that on its own might be enough to stop any Dem presidential candidate picking hir final opponent as VP-candidate.

McCain's airing these ads basically calling out Obama for not picking Hillary as his VP. I hope Biden calls him on his hypocritical bullshit when he doesn't pick Huckabee.

He hasn't aired one of those ads. They were only given to the press and put online. They are hoping the "controversy" will cause the press to air them on tv for discussion.

Nope. I saw one of them on CNN earlier today.

Good call, damn straight, he's a good addition to the ticket, with his solid tradition of endorsing new world order management theories.

I guess that is why he wrote an op-ed in 1992, literally called "How I learned to love the new world order" in the Wall St. Journal.<--- For real, it isn't on the internet but you can go to your local library and pull it up on microfiche - April 23, 1992 - WSJ.

Later on that same year, 1992, he also gave an archived speech, still hosted on University of Delaware's website - about how great the new world order that he loves and endorses is.

Why does this term constantly come up? Who invented it? Why do influential people use it? What does it even mean? Why are you told that if you disagree with the platform of politicians who constantly propose a "new world order" - that suddenly even acknowledging the existence of the phrase is itself a "conspiracy theory" and that "a new world order" doesn't exist or is something made up by crazy people? If it doesn't exist why is it so prevalently used in high level politics on the global stage?


This is how the plan/agenda/blueprint/attack pattern that so many of you use the loaded term "conspiracy theory" actually operates in practice :

The oligarchs coordinating world events trot out an expendable front group (in this case the neocon coterie fronted by the stammering fraudulent "folksy" figurehead Bush) to fuck things up and pursue transparently obvious atrocities. A certain percentage of knuckledragging, open conduit, zombie, talk radio types, etc... will go along with it no matter what so long as it is packaged in a flag, but the vast majority (actually footing the bill and absorbing the costs btw) will recoil and want no association with the corporate excesses, the torture, the global pariah status, the parasitic gutting of their own economies, etc... and that is where the same nasty over class presents a steam valve fraud who sounds like a reasonable alternative. When the public (rightfully) regurgitates their initial and unpalatable strawman - they'll eat up anything, so long as it is as less toxic.

I tried to tell you about this fucking bullshit "Iraq solution" nearly two years ago.

The ultimate plan of the London/New York banking axis is to partition and manage the whole Islamic world, breaking it into tiny, corrupt fiefdoms, sympathetic theocracies or monarchies that amount to nothing more than controllable puppet states, and tiny sectarian, ethnic enclaves and duchies, so that there is no potential for the region to ever amount to anything other than a resource rich cesspool having its levers pulled by the first world while its populations are perpetually condemned to the third world.

When the neo-cons propose the idea, like that which I mentioned above, everyone gets in a tizzy and agrees it is "bad."

But when you get someone like a Biden, who gets up there and declares that fracturing Iraq into ethnic enclaves is the only way out of Iraq ------ suddenly you, like the neocons, are all for it.

That is how manipulation works kids. That is called the casino. That is the rigged game.

They are getting their way so long as you continue to mindlessly file yourself into the engineered binary paradigm.

If one of your endeared figures proposes it - you love it. When one of your proponents propose it - you are against it. Never mind that it has the same effect.

...Now that is some "change I can believe in."

Huh. Well that's what I read on some asshole's blog.

vermicious_knid said:

bean said:
I think he's got a pretty good handle on it, as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Don't think so? See for yourself:

Good call, damn straight, he's a good addition to the ticket, with his solid tradition of endorsing new world order management theories.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

I guess that is why he wrote an op-ed in 1992, literally called "How I learned to love the new world order" in the Wall St. Journal.<--- For real, it isn't on the internet but you can go to your local library and pull it up on microfiche - April 23, 1992 - WSJ.

Later on that same year, 1992, he also gave an archived speech, still hosted on University of Delaware's website - about how great the new world order that he loves and endorses is.

Why does this term constantly come up? Who invented it? Why do influential people use it? What does it even mean? Why are you told that if you disagree with the platform of politicians who constantly propose a "new world order" - that suddenly even acknowledging the existence of the phrase is itself a "conspiracy theory" and that "a new world order" doesn't exist or is something made up by crazy people? If it doesn't exist why is it so prevalently used in high level politics on the global stage?


This is how the plan/agenda/blueprint/attack pattern that so many of you use the loaded term "conspiracy theory" actually operates in practice :

The oligarchs coordinating world events trot out an expendable front group (in this case the neocon coterie fronted by the stammering fraudulent "folksy" figurehead Bush) to fuck things up and pursue transparently obvious atrocities. A certain percentage of knuckledragging, open conduit, zombie, talk radio types, etc... will go along with it no matter what so long as it is packaged in a flag, but the vast majority (actually footing the bill and absorbing the costs btw) will recoil and want no association with the corporate excesses, the torture, the global pariah status, the parasitic gutting of their own economies, etc... and that is where the same nasty over class presents a steam valve fraud who sounds like a reasonable alternative. When the public (rightfully) regurgitates their initial and unpalatable strawman - they'll eat up anything, so long as it is as less toxic.

I tried to tell you about this fucking bullshit "Iraq solution" nearly two years ago.

The ultimate plan of the London/New York banking axis is to partition and manage the whole Islamic world, breaking it into tiny, corrupt fiefdoms, sympathetic theocracies or monarchies that amount to nothing more than controllable puppet states, and tiny sectarian, ethnic enclaves and duchies, so that there is no potential for the region to ever amount to anything other than a resource rich cesspool having its levers pulled by the first world while its populations are perpetually condemned to the third world.

When the neo-cons propose the idea, like that which I mentioned above, everyone gets in a tizzy and agrees it is "bad."

Well, fuck, upon revisiting that thread - there are actually a number of you that agree with the neocons that it is good.

But when you get someone like a Biden, who gets up there and declares that fracturing Iraq into ethnic enclaves is the only way out of Iraq ------ suddenly you, like the neocons, are all for it.

That is how manipulation works kids. That is called the casino. That is the rigged game.

They are getting their way so long as you continue to mindlessly file yourself into the engineered binary paradigm.

If one of your endeared figures proposes it - you love it. When one of your proponents propose it - you are against it. Never mind that it has the same effect.

...Now that is some "change I can believe in."

do you ever review what you've written and think "jesus h. christ with a prehensile tail, i'm just crazy as shit aren't i?"