BellGab. We're vaguely lovable.

Yes, Little Sean and his imaginary biker gang beatdown...



If that ever happens he WILL go down!

Why did you go on about Bush's "1000 Points of Light" speech that he made 01/20/1990" when I was clearly referring to his "New World Order" Speech of 09/11/1990.  You are obviously confusing the two.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_points_of_light

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics )

"Two"?

You think there were only "two"

http://canadianliberty.com/?p=16876

President George H. W. Bush, State of the Union, 29 January 1991:

What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind–peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. . .
The end of the cold war has been a victory for all humanity. A year and a half ago, in Germany, I said that our goal was a Europe whole and free. Tonight, Germany is united. Europe has become whole and free, and America’s leadership was instrumental . . .
The world can, therefore, seize this opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order, where brutality will go unrewarded and aggression will meet collective resistance. . . . 2
Maxwell Air Force Base War College in Montgomery, Alabama on 13 April 1991:

I wanted to speak . . . about the new world taking shape around us, about the prospects for a new world order now within our reach. . . . The new world order really is a tool for addressing a new world of possibilities. . . . 3
Announcement on 16 January 1991 of allied military action in the Persian Gulf:

We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order–a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful–and we will be–we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders. . . . 4
Address before a joint session of Congress on 11 September 1990:

Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted United Nations action against aggression. A new partnership of nations has begun.
We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective–a new world order–can emerge: a new era–freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor.
Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak[!]. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. . .
Once again, Americans have stepped forward . . . At this very moment, they serve together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle and the dream of a new world order. . . . 5
Fundraiser for gubernatorial candidate Pete Wilson in San Francisco on 19 September 1990:

Ours is a generation to finally see the emergence of promising, exciting new world order which we’ve sought for generations. And we are witness to the first demonstration of this new partnership for peace: a united world response to Iraq’s aggressive ambition. . . . 6There could thousands of people who were stake holders and could have had some involvement in standing up the CIA.   Wikipedia says it was Harry Truman that "founded" the CIA. I defy you to show me something authoritative that says  Eisenhower founded the FBI. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

As often happens when those of you who have never heard a conspiracy theory you didn't like when you are challenged you wallpaper the board with highly subjective claptrap and then declare victory.   I'll leave your Luciferian conspiracy and other such theories for God to sort out because only he knows.

I am stunned that you are actually a deep state shill, - stunned!

Pouring truth on you is like water off a duck's back.
 
Fuck you very much for siding with Satan and DIAF, etc.

Drunk posts, and brig. Like having salt and pepper for a meal.

Disinformation and 14 - a natural fit.

Which one of the six actual people left on this board are you again?

And which one are YOU asshole?

Americans are easily mind controlled with burgers and soda drinks.
WTF are you talking about needing 5G technology for that.

You are so amazingly uninformed.

https://prepareforchange.net/2018/09/05/voice-to-skull-technology-is-embedded-in-5g-mind-control-reaches-its-apex/

https://steemit.com/conspiracy/@debzd/can-they-use-5g-technology-for-mind-control

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1056533/ai-warning-brain-transparency-lose-jobs-thoughts-nita-farahany-tedtalks-spt

C LEVEL celebrity I get it.

C or maybe B-, yes, something along those lines.

Here's an amusing Thai commercial:

That was VERY cool!

Your writings and visions have proven to be prophetic, please help.

Why did you decide to reanimate a year old k00k post thread?

 

Here's a thought: maybe these 911 troofers are really fellow travellers of Muslim terrorists.  Maybe THEY are disinformation agents, trying to deflect blame away from terrorist organizations.  Maybe they are infiltrating America, trying to distract us from the REAL enemy.

How long have you been with the DNC disinformation and demonization campaign, swine face?

Yeah, they do.  I love the way Tara The Cat, body-slams the dog away from the child.  Cats Rule!

Wow, I remember that one vividly. Put me down as NOT a fan of pit bulls period, ever.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO END UP WELL FOR THE US and CANADA. O NO !!!

You're right, we should cede China full control of 5G mind control technology here in America.

You commie piece of treasonous shit - DIAF!

 

I'm a registered independent.  I have criticized Republicans many times on these boards and I just recently reiterated my belief that the two party system sucks and that I would like to see a viable third party emerge.  George H.W. Bush is not BEALZABUB and you are talking through your ass again.

So you don't admit the Skull and Bones Society is a Satanic fraternity?

YOU are a complete and total shill for the Luciferian agenda!

DIAF motherfucker!

 

WTF?  Founded doesn't mean founder?  A founder has founded something or he wouldn't be a founder.  The only "subtle" distinction here is that one is a noun and one is a verb:

founder noun (1)
found·​er | \ˈfau̇n-dər  \
Definition of founder (Entry 1 of 4)
: one that founds or establishes
the founder of a company
the founder of psychoanalysis

IDIOTA!

Are you so fucking BRAIN DEAD that you can only conceive of ONE person being involved in the "founding" ?

April Gillespie said the the U.S. had no opinion on the border dispute which meant that the U.S. wasn’t taking sides.”

And yet we DID "take sides", didn't we?

That was US slant drilling tech we sold Kuwait, and when they misused it we sided with them and LIED through our ambassador to Iraq.

Deal with REALITY!

Kelly said that the U.S. had no defense agreement with Kuwait which is a true statement. Diplomats fuck  up.

Wow.

Just fucking WOW.

Let's rename you Kid False Flag, because you'll make excuses for ANYTHING we do!

How does any of this implicate Bush in a plot to start a war.  Even The New York Daily News didn’t make that leap.  Can you site one periodical or journal published contemporaneously or since that made that claim.

You mean I have to tap dance through articles to meet your bullshit appeal to false consensus through the press for the facts to remain facts?

FUCK YOU!

Obvious strawman operation is obvious strawman operation.

You really are a transparent shill for the deep state.
 

Most were Bush bashers and would have readily made such a claim if there was even a hint of that being the case?

Oh you want BOTH sides of the road - of couse. You ask me to cite articles from a media that you neatly indict as being against Bush.

So how does that work? 

Exactly what did Bush have to gain by starting a war.

1. Precedent. (see our post 911 invasion)

2. Profits. (always)

3. Payback. (no love lost between Sodem and Sr.)

If conquest for the purpose of grabbing Iraq’s oil was the aim, why didn’t he go all the way to Bagdad and unseat Sadam?

Because his deep state "allies" called him back.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169-history/36409.html


Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, By George Bush Sr.
Print
Memoryhole
April 19, 2003
On 21 September 2002, The Memory Hole posted an extract from an essay by George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, in which they explain why they didn't have the military push into Iraq and topple Saddam during Gulf War 1. Although there are differences between the Iraq situations in 1991 and 2002-3, Bush's key points apply to both. But a funny thing happened. Fairly recently, Time pulled the essay off of their site. It used to be at this link, which now gives a 404 error. If you go to the table of contents for the issue in which the essay appeared (2 March 1998), "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" is conspicuously absent.

Because of this erasure, we're posting the entire essay below the portion we originally excerpted. Below that, you'll find a copy of the actual page from the magazine, courtesy of Bruce Koball and Boing Boing.

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. I've been told that the same passage appears on page 489 of Bush and Scowcroft's book, A World Transformed (Alfred A. Knopf, 1998).

Exactly who are you responding to?

To YOU, green boi!

Only the first quote in your screed was from a post of mine.

Bullshit LIE!

It had nothing to do with points of light. The rest is from someone else’s.  You are the one doing the conflating.

So this is not YOUR full post?

Kidnostad3
 
Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Reply #78880 on: December 07, 2018, 08:08:00 PM »
Quote from: Dr. MD MD on December 07, 2018, 07:02:54 PM
Globalism, nationalism...whatevs! As long as I can root for my team. You’re either with us or against us. Hurr durr!

I'm a hard core, rock ribbed nationalist and patriot but I'm not on your side.  This all started with G.H.W Bush's "There is a New World Order Speech"  I remember listening to that speech when It was given not long after the Wall came down.  Of course there was going to be a new world order the Soviet Union had just gone tits up.  When the speech was made nobody but nobody took it to mean he was trying to sell globalism but only that it was a statement of the obvious .  That crock of shit was invented years later by a wingnut conspiracy theorist like the ones who's every word you take as gospel and it is saps like you who popularized it on the Internet.  Wild ass claims that play to one's sense of victimhood and need to feel holier than thou are the stock in trade of the guru's you follow so ardently.  Unlike you, most people understand that and apply their intelligence, life experience and common sense in evaluating what they say.  You are obviously handicapped in that respect.

That was the actual post I replied to,

I was referring to the fact one of the two world superpowers on the planet had ceased to be, the various countries that made up the Soviet Soviet Block had become independent the Berlin Wall had come down and the East and West Germany were in the process of being reunified.  That was a huge and very obvious  reshuffling of the world order.

You can't even keep up with your own disinformation here. I refuse to waste time correcting an outright LIAR, and this is who and what you are.

Again, YOUR words - no conflation, no misquote = YOUR WORDS:

Kidnostad3
 
Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Reply #78880 on: December 07, 2018, 08:08:00 PM »
Quote from: Dr. MD MD on December 07, 2018, 07:02:54 PM
Globalism, nationalism...whatevs! As long as I can root for my team. You’re either with us or against us. Hurr durr!

I'm a hard core, rock ribbed nationalist and patriot but I'm not on your side.  This all started with G.H.W Bush's "There is a New World Order Speech"  I remember listening to that speech when It was given not long after the Wall came down.  Of course there was going to be a new world order the Soviet Union had just gone tits up.  When the speech was made nobody but nobody took it to mean he was trying to sell globalism but only that it was a statement of the obvious .  That crock of shit was invented years later by a wingnut conspiracy theorist like the ones who's every word you take as gospel and it is saps like you who popularized it on the Internet.  Wild ass claims that play to one's sense of victimhood and need to feel holier than thou are the stock in trade of the guru's you follow so ardently.  Unlike you, most people understand that and apply their intelligence, life experience and common sense in evaluating what they say.  You are obviously handicapped in that respect.