Quote Originally Posted by zenbudda View Post
of course you have your right to your opinion of my position of bush, but by your statement, it seems you may have over interpreted my stance on the list that was posted earlier in this thread and my understanding of both of bush's policies. of course, maybe i interpreted your response in the wrong way.
No, I didn't misinterpret what you said. I was merely commenting. Conspiracy theory is, of itself lame and wasteful. I guess you don't really know where I am coming from. Try going over to the Anomalies Forums and reading the YEARS worth of stuff I've written on this or that conspiracy. In my mind anyone touting a conspiracy (even me!) hasn't read up on the subject well enough to be informed and is making vague, usually inconsistent statements about "connections" to make their conspiracy "work".

Any New World Order conspiracy is coming out of the mouths of people who want to see the United States isolate itself completely. This comes from two types of people. Those who are Americans (and usually Libertarian, or pretending to be) and those who are outside the United States and want us "out of the world business, off the world stage and knocked down to a third world nation". There are very, very few others who spout NWO stuff... unless they are just merely ignorant of the world, and how it works.

I agree with your statements on one point Bush Jr spent a lot of money.

Bush Sr. however was not a "NWO" guy. I know him personally. He's about as "Capitalist" as they come. He's an oil man from way back. He is a decent, honorable human being and to lump him in with socialists like Barak Obama is just ignorance and unknowing. It means, Zen, that you've not actually read something HE has written as opposed to, say, what the MEDIA (or the Left) has written about him.

there were 2 points being made by my statement. 1 was about the list posted above that included the bush's names (bush jr's spending wasn't exactly conservative). 2 was about the use of words New World Order.
I'll address each of these in turn:

1 was about the list posted above that included the bush's names (bush jr's spending wasn't exactly conservative).
Agreed about Bush Jr. Not about Sr. Remember, I worked directly for the man as a Senior Radio Tech for the White House Communications Agency while he was Vice President (as well as for Reagan, later for Bush as President, Dan Quayle as well. I've also had the opportunity to meet Carter, Nixon, Ford, as well as Bush Sr., Reagan and numerous other people in higher offices over the years).

Bush Sr. policies on taxation were like those of Reagan. He campaigned on "no new taxes". In fact, he did "go back on his word" AFTER a major battle with Congress (which was controlled by the Demoncrats. I mean Democrats). He used the tax increase to REDUCE the deficit. That's well and good, because it wasn't that big then. Now, we have a President who deliberately has increased the deficit to TRILLIONS of dollars and now wants to erase that by taking 50% of everything every American makes. There's a big damned difference is balancing a budget and increasing the budget to the point of enslaving Americans. BIG DIFFERENCE.

2 was about the use of words New World Order.
As I stated in the beginning, George Bush Sr used those words in a speech. That speech was when we were headed into the First Gulf War. Read the SPEECH to see what he was saying, NOT what others say about him. He said the new "order" in lower case, by the way (not in upper case like the bozos preaching this nonsense say) was as I stated in my above message. Those were his EXACT words about what his idea of a "new order" was.

in my eyes, there is no need to rally a flash mob due to these points/questions, at least nothing to sigh about. but after reading your posts i see you have been around a while and probably think i'm a typical NWO conspiracy naysayer. i'm not. i may entertain conspiracy theory notions to keep myself honest, and honestly, i believe there are very interesting facts to be pointed out by certain conspiracies.
As you say, I have indeed been around awhile. I've been involved with politics since I was a young lad in high school. I've campaigned for both democrats and republicans. I've been registered as both. I've voted for both sides at various times in my life. I've voted for independents as well.

In fact, I voted for Carter the first time, and Reagan the next time around (I learned a hard lesson when 8 innocent men died because of Carter's incompetence...) - Desert One. Check that out sometime to get the whole story.

I have myself, run for office (School board, probably one step above "Dog Catcher". I didn't win one of the four seats, but acquitted myself well by coming in 5th out of 15 candidates. I decided NOT to run for other offices since I never desire or have the diplomacy skills required to be in a public office.

So - in essentially no, I do NOT see you as "a typical NWO conspiracy naysayer." Not at all. (My /sigh and other comments weren't really directed AT YOU per se, just the idea of it all.)

I see you're questioning the idea of NWO theory, as you SHOULD be. Life, the world and politics is significantly more complex than most people make it out to be (including myself at times.... I'd just nuke North Korea into submission and tell China they are next if it were me..... )

Honestly, giving into these theories is taking the easy path, you are "running with the wind" when you do this, instead of "beating against the wind". When running with the wind, you hoist your sails, wing them out and let the wind push you (usually to the west, and indeed perhaps looking at a map, to the LEFT). When you are beating, you're trying to sail into the wind. It is impossible to sail INTO the wind, thus you must tack, go a little off the wind for one space of time and distance, then come back going the other way to keep on course. On map, you might actually be going West to East (and therefore, to the RIGHT).

Beating is much more difficult, it requires much work, study and understanding of the subject (being the wind, oceans and currents). The wind can be fickle, currents are generally steady, and in the same directions and oceans can get tossed about by a combination of the wind and currents. Storms happen, and you have to get through them.

Politics is very much like sailing in this respect. To come to an understanding of the sea - or politics - you mus work hard, study long and gain an understanding of the topic. Simply listening to, and believing everything you read isn't sufficient.

While I spend a great deal of time here reading, as well as posting I do not post anywhere near as much as I read. No one does I believe. That is a good thing. But BELIEVING what you read wholly without any other verification, considering mitigating factors and merely "putting it all together in pieces" is exactly, precisely what "Conspiracy Theorists" do. EXACTLY!

(Don't believe me? Ask Brian Baldwin, Ryan Ruck, Backstop, Malsua and many other of the regulars here who also have known me for many, many years and they can verify pretty much all I've ever said about Conspiracy Theory).

A conspiracy theory ONLY holds together while people "believe" in it. Never when there is documented, supporting evidence to ascertain that a person has committed a crime (or conspired with others) to perform something detrimental to the rest of us.

Did Bush and others CONSPIRE to cause a "New World Order" (some as-yet unseen entity) to take over the world, create one currency, to take us all into serfdom?

No... it hasn't happened. While many would love to believe it, remember this, those who spout this NWO stuff WANT the US to become separate states, or worse to fall apart. They WANT the government to declare martial law so they can say "I TOLD YOU SO!" and take up arms - or more importantly so people like you and me will take up arms against our so-called "evil government" so that they can run and hide like rabbits in their hidey holes, complete with nuclear fallout and three years worth of survival rations (which they were selling on some radio show - just heard RECENTLY in fact...)

When you start studying, in depth, some of these conspiracies, you certainly will find some truth in them. But, it's not the little truths, and the connections that make them concrete. In fact, in most cases the truth is there, but taken out of context (as was Bush's "NWO" speech). Other things that are just plain WRONG are the connections.

The connections are the glue that holds together a good conspiracy. If you start by looking at these connections and finding falsehoods that intersperse within, you can WATCH a Conspiracy falling to pieces before your eyes.

The very fact that I rail on them should be sufficient impetus for YOU (and others) to get off your duffs and do the research yourselves.

I am NOT going to take people by the hand and walk them through conspiracies. I don't have that much time left in the world to correct them and show the falsehoods. But, I can help point people to LEARNING for themselves.

Over the last 20 years I have been accused of being "brainwashed". I'm ANYTHING but brainwashed.

In fact, my personal "beliefs" are based solely on factual, scientific and real, hard data points that I can discover for MYSELF without someone pointing me to them.

My politics is based on COMMON SENSE. Not the fallacy of "belief". Ask ANYONE on the left what they "believe in" and they will give you some flighty, lofty words like "world peace, green trees, free energy" and some other such bullshit. There's nothing pragmatic to their "beliefs".

Ask me what I believe and I will tell you "Nothing, unless I can prove it to be true". PROVING something to be false is a lot more difficult. But sometimes you can determine something isn't true simply by researching the subjects.

obama recently started using New World Order in his speeches (or am I being fooled by the media on that one). I wanted to make sure i understand what "new world order" actually means. i'm not making a connection between those words and those who use them...yet.
He in fact used a similar phrase.. but not precisely. He said, and I quote:

So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by your side in Afghanistan and around the globe. As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions.



This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times –- countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing wounds. If we are successful in these tasks, that will lessen conflicts around the world. It will be supportive of our efforts by our military to secure our country.


Remarks by the President at United States Military Academy at West Point Commencement,Michie Stadium, West Point, New York


Fox News made an issue out of a "New world order" speech by Obama. Well, the honest answer is he didn't SAY new world order in that speech to West Point grads.



Is Obama hoping for and pushing for a "New World Order"? Perhaps he is. Is there PROOF of this? What exactly (as you have asked) does "new world order" MEAN anyway? Who is defining this phrase? Where did it come from? Who started it?


The questions, as you can see go on and on, but the answers are rare and difficult to ascertain.