hey freak accidents happen when youre about to testify in a case implicating a presidential candidate in a crime in a court of law within the next week .
No, not really. Nothing that rises to the level of convincing. I've based my comment off of this but it's not really a reliable source. I've deleted my comments since I can't back them up.
Edit: And I meant to add, I google searched the crap out of this and couldn't even find the supposed lawyer's name.
Niccolo Machiavelli gets a bad rap. Everybody reads The Prince and thinks he has a hardon for monarchy/dictatorship when in reality his life's work and passion, the Discourses on Titus Livius, we're all about self-rule, democracy, and good governance. High school students and college freshmen just read The Prince because it's less than 1/10 the size of the Discourses.
Snopes hasn't been considered a reliable source for a while now. They were at one time but they've fallen to greed just like countless sites before them.
One is black, the other white. I think the truth is grey.
On this particular matter I agree that it's clear Ashe wasn't scheduled to testify in any manner that would name Clinton in the near future. But what both Snopes and the conspiracy sensationalists leave out is that Ashe absolutely was going to testify about corruption in the State department. Knowing what I know about the Clintons, I think it's likely that testimony could eventually have lead back to Hillary.
Snopes is just other people doing research. If a reddit comment is researched and uses sound logic, why is it less valid than Snopes?
Also, do you truly believe the people at Snopes do not have their own biases? That they cannot be coerced like any other outlet? Happened to reddit, happens to every major platform at some point. Assuming infallibility is never wise.
I'd love to hear some responses instead of silent downvotes.
How could the District Attorney know what he was going to say before he said it? And just to belabor the point a bit further, assuming that the opposing view is true, would you think that they wouldn't have him in on it to help cover their asses?
i dont think so actually . if the article is correct , he died on wednesay and was supposed to be in court today . but even so , a work week at the longest .
propaganda piece. click on the reporters name to see his other articles, vast majority is either about "immigrants are scary" or about "fuck the eu".
not at all biased which means his stellae article is trustworthy.
also heres my scoop (feel free to link to this comment as irrefutable proof of this since a guy on the internet said so, if you ever want to tell others):
usa, canada and mexico are going to merge into a super-country unless trump is elected to stop it from happening!
The end of nations will be the enslavement of mankind and lead to the end of mankind... I even believe theres a 2000 year old book explaining how a ine world government plays out...
Banks won't suddenly replace states if money is viewed for what it is: nothing. All that needs to be done to remove any threat from them is to move away from capitalism, preferably toward anarchism.
Power abhors a vacuum. Bankers will be glad to pay just enough to pay police to maintain their property right against the unwashed masses. Your ideas are ill considered.
That's quite possible. But that doesn't justify inaction and the perpetuation of flawed fantasies. Something being difficult does not make it ill-considered. States have to go, as do banks.
How would a global society free of tribal flaws destroy solidarity among people? How is it that it only destroys when there's more people involved? That entire argument is baseless and ludicrous.
Groups can get along peacefully, and with a win win attitude.
Temporarily, maybe. But we're thousands of years into human history and have never stopped killing each other over petty, insignificant and ultimately pointless "issues." This is only exasperated by nationalism and capitalism. Politics are fickle and have too much impact on human lives considering that.
Humanity has been at war with itself for as long as we've existed. Tribalism is part of human nature. The only way to avoid it is to acknowledge it for what it is, and actively try to move past it. The only way to achieve that is abolishing the state on a global scale. I am positive there will be individuals and organizations that wish to appropriate the power vacuum for their sociopathic power grabs, but they are a consequence of human nature, not a consequence of state abolishment. We already have thousands, if not millions of such people under our current system. We will only have less when the main factors that enable and abet many of them are gone.
Nationalism and isolationism are poison, nothing more. They offer no benefits to the human condition, only disgusting dregs like xenophobia and jingoism. We move increasingly towards utter annihilation of both ourselves and our environment. Forsaking them is the only way to avoid this.
For the record, globalism implies that some form of government is involved. That is not what I want.
National and tribal identities are utterly perfunctory and meaningless, and inevitably lead to the desire to expand and eventually conflict with another. Culture and ethnicity will evolve, as they always have. After WWII, nations didn't suddenly not want to expand and conflict after thousands of years of doing exactly it. They couldn't do it because of globalization. Nations becoming more dependent on each other and sharing a vision of economic and political unity (through the UN and the EU) is what has largely prevented war in the West, as well as alleviated the Cold War to a degree.
Nations will always want to expand. It's in human nature, but it's an utterly dangerous way of thinking if people desire at least some measure of peace. Globalization, economic interdependence and such actively prevent conflict. For that, from a personal moral standpoint, I think they're right under the circumstances. Human nature is sometimes flawed, but we should work around it and be mindful. Knowing your neighbour more intimately holds back that innate human desire to fear "the other."
I by no means think globalism is perfect or the "end state." Every ruling and political system so far has been flawed, yet evolved. Globalism is just another rung.
Nope. Bonds form between people through common experiences. Loyalties matter.
And functionally, the larger a governed territory is, the less the government can tailor itself to specific conditions, needs, or preferences of actual people.
We can maintain our identities and culture without hating the other.
Not in the real world, I'm afraid. We can absolutely maintain individual and cultural identity, they will merely evolve through deeper connection with others throughout the world.
I don't want a singular government, at least not under human rule. Globalism is not exclusively about global governance, and the politics behind it will evolve to suit the circumstances as they always have.
No there has not. The "peace" you are so accustomed to was achieved through globalisation. And we still have many precarious situations around the world. To insinuate that peace is easy in a nationalistic world is ludicrous. History speaks for itself.
Globalism may suit the purposes of bankers or whatever. But it's not the root problem, human nature is, and greed and a lust for power are part of that. I'm not even going to bother with your "all wars are caused by bankers" nonsense. While it's true to some extent, insinuating that all human conflict is banker-bred is ridiculous. You are very ignorant of human nature and history.
These bankers you speak of also thrive in a nationalistic world. If they are the string pullers of many wars, then a political landscape that naturally breeds conflict is in their best interests. Globalism is not, particularly since the fantasy of global governance by a single entity is unfeasible.
All the big wars were started by globalist elitists themselves.
Leading the monolithic global government is the sick dream of the globalists themselves. Globalism is the full demented fruition of the human traits you claim to be against.
Even th he negative aspects of nationalism were fostered and inflamed by elitist inhuman provocateurs.
They created the wars for fun and profit you fool.
You need to take some history classes. And politics. And psychology. And sociology. And just about anything that relates to understanding people.
Also, globalism is not all about a singular world government. I've repeated this several times but you seem obsessed with it. Refrain from insults when someone doesn't take your baseless rhetoric at face value.
You need to really slap yourself in a more alert state. History and the major fields of study ha e all been corrupted by the money men and their bosses bosses, the hidden hand.
That's right. The power to create money out of thin air is inconsequential. There are no globalist think tanks that spend 24/7 dreaming up propaganda campaigns to further their goals. Put your head back in the sand.
But plenty of people do not have nearly all institutions of society under their thumb. These globalist absurdities are the source of all the trouble right now.
The importation of radicalized theocrats is an absurdity. The control freak globalists love theocracy. God said so, is a great argument, if you can get that situation going.
They factually are not. You have a poor understanding of globalism and globalization (two distinct things) as it is. Increased globalization does not mean global governance.
Economic stagnation and inevitable collapse on a global scale is unavoidable without globalization now. Many nations will simply tear themselves apart. This is a problem with the world's view of economics, not globalism. We need to review and restructure global economies, or veer away from capitalism altogether. But for now, trade enhances economic growth, and growth reduces poverty. Globalism has directly delivered a better standard of living in less developed countries. We see examples of this today with Wales and its (former) funding from the EU.
I don't know how anyone can argue against the social aspect of globalism. Being exposed to more cultures does not mean your own culture will be overwritten. Culture is not constant. It evolves, and sometimes just vanishes due to outside factors. This is not a problem, and it takes someone exceptionally weak-minded to base their identity on superficial external factors that are often out of their control. People being made more aware of superficial differences makes them much less likely to be suckered into the human flaw of hating "the other", so peace is more easily achievable.
Globalism is by no means perfect, but it is by no means the end of days or the installment of a new world order either. It can certainly take that path if enough of these people you mention will it, but that is not a predestined road and people will fight to keep it on a peaceful route of fraternity.
Haha, well if you were looking to be taken seriously, you failed. I'd like to see you on a debate show, where people present facts and real world situations and you meander with this stuff. And throw in some insults when you can't conceive a coherent counter-argument.
Implying that feminism (equality) is attempting to achieve totalitarianism sold whatever credibility you had down the river. You're just a loon.
Absolutely untrue. Feminism is an attempt to bring equality to women.
It is true that some hardcore feminists perceive themselves as superior. This is called human nature. Many people naturally wish to be superior to "the other." These are not the majority among feminists, though, just as neo-Nazis are not the majority amongst white people.
That is false. They want to be paid the same as a man in the same occupation. If they choose different careers, then they choose different careers. No woman is under the illusion that they should be paid the same as a man in a completely different field. I refuse to believe you're dense enough to believe this laughable notion.
No they don't. Please cite a source before continuing with this ludicrous tripe. Do you know any women, personally? Have you asked them this? They'd laugh in your face, and rightfully so.
It is, and this is a particularly poor conspiracy. You need to step up your game, because right now it just seems like you don't have much contact with women. You certainly don't speak for any of them.
Globalization is awesome is the papa conspiracy of them all. The climate change hoax and feminism are right up there. They're all related actually.
Globalization and a one size fits all global iron fist are marketed as the panacea for all ills. Namely climate change, and lady fairness, all spurious created agit prop campaigns.
We have actual, tangible things that point to globalization being "awesome" though. Like the active prevention of World War III. You think nukes wouldn't fly without global diplomacy?
I agree that it is marketed as a panacea. Many things are, because not everyone who supports something is versed in thinking about it beyond a superficial realm. They don't account for history, human nature, real world examples, or think about something in practice over paper. Prohibition firmly does not and has never worked at any point in human history, but people still think it's a saving grace. Even though parallel to that we know it is wholly unnecessary and only creates problems that never existed before.
Nothing is perfect, but we have to work with what we've got and continue to evolve. Regression is not the answer. You can't put the genie back in the bottle with globalization. Better to reap the benefits while keeping it on the straight and narrow.
Yes do to globalization., and it's subproject the European union destructive meddling regime, the north American union, the sucking sound of jobs headed overseas that Ross Perot predicted. Most of that cheap labor savings was split between the corporations and foreign leaders who legally enslaved their own people in wage slavery encampments. Google Apple foxconn laogai
The system posits a perfect enlightened leader, or group er who just loves the world so much ,and gosh y gosh just love people so much and would never use power for themselves. Blah blah blah. Your right about people, but the system that gives one small group so much power is also flawed. The reality is that the globalist are all genocidal freaks. Population control they call it. It's for the trees and the animal? Do you hate trees?
Culture is superficial in some respects, but a culture which advocates theocracy is more than superficially different. Rational people are right to reject it, and will not be shamed into silence by globalist shills such as yourself.
Culture is superficial in every respect. I accept religion so long as it is completely separate from governance and has no direct influence (as in politicians do not base policy on belief). But on the whole I agree with you on this point.
If the best argument you can conjure is calling someone a "globalist shill", you have already lost.
The form of "Islam" that the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda claim to adhere to does not exist. It's a bastardization passed off as ideological justification to continue and spread their barbarism and recruit the weak-minded. It is basically the Islamic version of God Hates Fags, if that organization were trained and armed by the American government. You wouldn't say GHF was represenative of Christianity, would you? It's an equivalent bastardization, warped beyond recognition and carefully selected from choice passages when are then extrapolated.
Their goal is to sow discontent with Muslims, so that they can then enlist more disenfranchised and disenchanted Muslims into their organizations in order to gain more power and eventually topple Western regimes. Their membership is a drop in a bucket in terms of the overall global Muslim population. They want to fill the bucket by pressing nations into more hardline immigration policies against Muslims. They intend to recruit those turned away from having a normal life. Again, we've seen this many times throughout history. Turning one group against another is not difficult if you manipulate the situation at even a rudimentary level.
You have no idea what you're talking about and it's quite plain to see you've never interacted with an actual Muslim, and are relying on a portrayal by a media you supposedly don't believe.
Globalisation benefits everyone, including corporations. That's due to capitalism, which I'm against. The world has always been full of theocrats. The GOP desires a fascist theocracy, for instance. It's irrelevant whether it's Christianity or Islam, both are as good or bad as each other and entirely dependant on the whim of their followers. Neither is inherently bad. You don't think the GOP wants Christianity all over?
Crazy theocratic cunts are a small proportion of any religion. The majority of people just want to live their lives.
Blah blah blah. Globalization removes all protections people may want from the whims, agendas, or profit seeking notions of the rich and powerful. Everything is for sale, and profit justifies all. It's demented and stupid.
Not if it is steered in the direction of democratic socialism, socialism, communism, and eventually a form of anarchism, in that particular order and probably missing one or two steps. While you're right that many of the rich and powerful benefit from globalization, this will end with the fall of capitalism. No path to change is unscathed.
It's Islamophobia because it's a genuine phenomenon where people fundamentally don't understand what Islam is, and their perception of it is myopic, linear, and damaging.
I'm sure there's an equal term for any other religion. The difference is that Islam is "a big deal" right now due to world events, while Christianity was neutered centuries ago. Many will still complain about how Christianity etc are criticised. Christians have taken to declaring that secularists and the liberal left have undertaken a "War on Christians."
Islam does not teach "jihad." If it did, terrorism wouldn't be limited to (comparatively) tiny organisations. Muslims are no more violent than any other people. You would know this if you knew any, or knew anything about the religion itself. You do realise there are just as many forms of Islam as there are forms of Christianity? Some are extremist, like Christianity, others are not.
Currently, "jihad" is being taught by Wahhabism. A subset of Islam that few Muslims follow, which has been actively perpetuated by Saudi Arabia and the U.S., whether directly or indirectly.
The increase in jihadis is directly correlated to invasion of the Middle East. It turns out that murdering people and taking away their political realm makes them angry. It's a fairly recent phenomenon. People haven't been blowing themselves up to kill others for a long time.
Christianity has not? Most religions are tainted in blood throughout history. You insinuate that 1.6bn Muslims are predisposed towards jihad, which is frankly untrue. You refer solely to Wahhabism, which is a mere fraction of that population.
The violent version of Islam emerged in response to European imperialism, and has become recently popular in the late 20th century and early 21st due to Soviet and American imperialism and artificial propagation of Wahhabism in the Middle East and western nations directly by Saudi Arabia, which is allowed and enabled, if not outright endorsed, by America. If the people don't want it, they will fight it. Just take a look at Vietnam.
Islam teaches it. It's not a genetic predisposition of the people. Just to clarify. You seem to be spinning, putting words in my mouth, creating a strawman argument.
I'm responding to your personal worldview, there is nothing to back up. I am still assuming you have studied the topics you speak of to at least some rudimentary extent, as it's all quite clear on its own.
And they should be allowed. Those fleeing are being killed by those fundamentalist jihadis, or a dictator. What makes you think they sympathize with them? Out of any possible number of Muslim immigrants, a miniscule fraction would be terrorists. It's already a low frequency if you count terrorists who do not conduct activities overseas or try to travel.
A world without borders is an eventuality, the sooner the better, for all.
Yet Isis said they will put jihadis amongst the migrants. I'm sure they're just kidding. Put your head back in the sand. The adults will take it from here.
I'm certainly experiencing your stupidity right now, yeah. You're utterly delusional. On the one hand you pretend to be "against the system", on the other you're a common racist and get suckered easily into that system's lies and agendas. Good job.
Jihad, like sharia, is a word that's been appropriated by the West to mean something very specific even though the word jihad is a noun meaning the act of "striving, applying oneself, struggling, persevering", and sharia loosely means "law", and not a specific one, just law.
Many Muslims disagree on the definition of jihad, but most do not think it means "holy war." The Quran refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who must be protected, so there is no intrinsic desire among Muslims to massacre other religions, just as there is not for Jews or Christians. It takes a violent leadership to go down that path, and ISIS or al-Qaeda are merely a minor fraction of Muslims just as "God Hates Fags" is a minor fraction of Christians.
If military jihad is required to "protect the faith against others" (like resisting occupation by a foreign country trying to steal natural resources and plant puppet governments), it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment. The Crusades were an act of minor jihad, because they were opposing an invading force. Likewise with the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, where the U.S. venerated and sponsored their minor jihad because they knew at the time what it meant, though now it's become a word synonymous with terrorism by racist agenda pushers you've been suckered in by.
You're a plain old racist, nothing more. Few words you've said on any subject matter has a hint of truth to it. You're as warped and delusional as the "masses" you scoff at.
Sharia can mean "way" or "path", essentially, a way of life that pleases Allah. If you asked a Muslim if they followed sharia, many would answer yes, because that is like asking a Christian if they live as God desired. There is nothing about sharia that promotes extremism, those are added after the fact by fundamentalists and Wahhabis.
Considering you are in the conspiracy subreddit, I'd expect you to have much more sympathy for Muslims as they are an inverted version of yourself and Western society. They are the result of demagogues and far-right wing fundamentalists seizing power and introducing draconian hard-line measures to enforce a specific way of life. This is happening in many nations right now. Painting Muslims as "the enemy" only helps those fundamentalists.
The West is also wholly to blame for Islamic extremism. America in particular actively promotes and perpetuates it so long as it maintains Saudi Arabia as an ally. Instead of fervently trying to pass blame onto others who are simply caught in a horrible situation and most are completely innocent, maybe you should take action yourself against your own corrupt and warmongering government.
Statistically speaking? Extremely rare. Frequency has no correlation to the number of those committing minor jihad acts. That's a fallacy you are reveling in.
And I don't think it should be forcibly abolished. They should be allowed to say and teach what they want, but the critics should be allowed to speak also without being accused of hate speech and threatened by the state.
I agree. But hate speech is called hate speech for a reason, it's hateful. It inspires conflict. It is fascist. The moment you treat someone as a flawed or lesser person, it's easier to pit others against them. History had shown us this time and time again and yet we are doing the exact same on the biggest scale yet to the entire Muslim population on a global scale, far surpassing the scale of contempt on the Jewish.
Criticism of religion is not banned. Inflammatory hate speech, insults etc are because they breed conflict and serve no purpose in reasonable discourse. Every single religion is criticised regularly.
No it isn't. Some might say that, and they're wrong. Please look up the definition of hate speech. Your generalisations are getting dull. You seem disconnected from reality.
Wtf!? We have open borders in america and many european nations and all of them are getting hit with terrorist attacks... Middle eastern citizens raging war in western nations... Yeah lets become a globalist soceity then everyone will get along
Terrorist attacks will happen anyway, open borders or not. Middle Eastern citizens (statiscally very few) "wage war" against the West because the West wages war against them to start with. If you back someone into a corner, they will fight back, and it doesn't help when you arm them to use them as tools to fight your own proxy war. History repeats when nobody learns from their mistakes.
Looking through your post history, you appear to suffer from an acute case of paranoia, and probably veering towards some form of mental illness.
So what if ISIS claim to be killing in the name of Allah? Christians claim to do a lot of heinous shit in the name of God too. The fact of the matter is that the religions are not the problem, they are also illusory constructs, which men twist and warp to suit their preconceived ideals. Just like "nationalism" and its off-spring patriotism and jingoism, signs of simple-mindedness and disconnection from reality.
Anyone can claim they believe in something. It doesn't suddenly make the belief wrong or evil. It's all about context. ISIS is operating outside the context of Islam. Yes, you can probably find references to violence or culturally out of touch elements in the Quran. But you can also find just as many, if not more, in the Bible. I'm sure you have no trouble wearing two kinds of fabrics and masturbating even though these are stated to be despised by God, and the latter is deemed worth killing over.
Flattered you claim to have looked through my post history althrough creepy and pointless maybe you learned something... Paranoia? Nope just not a sheep that assume big goberment cares about me... Absolute power corrupts absolutely... funny you bring up christians meanwhile all terrorist seem to be islam... Oh but the christians want bake a cake they are as bad as isis! Also bible says though shall not kill therefore if you murder you cant be christians meanwhile the quran is all about killing the infidels...
Uh, no. Plenty of terrorists are Christians. The media just doesn't like calling anyone a terrorist unless they're dark-skinned or Islamic, because that suits the narrative they peddle and keeps the Western world docile with a specified target to hate.
I mean it wasn't that long ago that a bunch of hicks took over a government building and held hostages, but were never labeled as terrorists and the local police shook hands with them despite threats of violence. The Quran actually says "don't kill" just like the Bible, maybe try reading it you pleb. The Bible incites violence against many types of people. You know stoning was a big thing, right?
I don't know why you keep yammering about government when what I want is an end to government.
Do you really think globalization is about the people and ethnicities? It's just a market consolidation play, aka one big complete market monopoly by a select few companies conglomerates.
If NWO globalization comes, it is going to be the death of progress and the start of an extended period of complete cultural stagnation leading to the eventual dying off of the majority of humanity. They'll just feed us glyphosate till every non-essential personel are in the dirt and the Elite can have the planet for their own.
Jokes on them because the planet's fucked either way, though.
Yeah man, I'm just so hoping the elite are genuinely smart somewhere deep down within, so they use the new world order to essentially make the planet sustainable. A man can dream
Do you really think globalization is about the people and ethnicities? It's just a market consolidation play, aka one big complete market monopoly by a select few companies conglomerates.
Jokes on them ..
Yeah.. Uh, about that..
You do realize how expensive it is to get off of this doomed planet right?
I actually do realize. That's why I believe we should try our hardest to make sure our whole planet doesn't become some absurdly rich cunt's personal fiefdom. I thought that was pretty much the whole point of this sub.
Let me make this clear: I believe that Depopulation (agenda 21, codex alimentarius, whatever) is climate change. What the elites don't realize is that by fucking up the climate to reduce the global population, they run the risk of runaway climate change, which could render the whole planet unliveable.
Big Oil knew about climate change for a long time now, just as Monsanto knows Glyphosate is a carcinogen. On one hand they want to make the big $$, on the other though, they have so much money they could invest in alternatives and then force the switch to the alternatives to become market leaders there.
I believe part of the reason they don't do this, is that they want climate change happening.
well we arent going after isis if she gets in, she will say where at war with aliens! and the only way to stop them is for everyone to send her all your money
Down vote to hell here i come! Some people are to closed minded and scared to face the fact that we are ultimately going to end up as that anyways. People are going to look at all this in 1000 years like we look back at the dark ages now. So much potential and ideas were held back because of this reason or that reason and we look at those reasons and like WTF you asshole why did you stop that?!?!? we could be 100 years more advanced now if you didn't! At least that's how i think.
Unfortunately we don't all get along, borders dividing us or not. What you described is ideal, I'm sure we all can agree. I just simply do not see it going that smooth and it easily putting and end to the same issues we have today.
Yep, completely agree. People just need to learn to get along. Not everyone thinks like you and that is okay, go find someone who does and don't force your shit on the person who doesn't. Borders are just like our currency though. They don't really exist yet they still control us.
Nah, but people will look back in 1000 years and laugh at how gullible we were, falling for everything scientists say, giving away billions of dollars to solve weather, fixing mental illnesses by cutting off body parts, etc.
Bunch of different countries is dumb? Wow so what we just all become one 3rd world nation with one government? Thats the most insane thing ive heard someone say in a really long time. Imagine if germany won the war... We would have one country however if you werent one hitlers side youd be murdered... Christians jews muslims... All murdered... Yeah lets try that again...
There's enough food resources and technology on this planet for every single man and woman to live like current day millionaires. But if everyone is a millionaire how will the ultra rich be able to show off their wealth and by proxy imply how much better they are than everyone else?
Yet its the ultra rich trying to trash the borders... World leaders, microsoft, google, facebook... Those are the ultra rich everyone hates and are also the ones demanding a union... Why? Not to give there money away... To gain power to enslave there adversaries... Mostly white conservatives and christians... Clear as day yet people wont admit it
Which part, the part about he was not going to be testifying against Clinton? Because, to be fair, that's the entire bullshit story. In other words, it does indeed detract.
he wouldnt be testifying against her , but during the course of the proceedings it would become apparent that the clintons were involved with some unsavory activities . to what extent is a question which is hard for me to answer at this point .
No, he wasn't. But as the article states, “During the trial, the prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the Clinton bagman Ng. It would have been very embarrassing. His death was conveniently timed.”
I don't know where people get off saying he was going to testify against Clinton but its obvious her and her husband would've been brought up in this relatively high profile case.
Ashe would have also testified regarding corruption in Clinton's department, which wouldn't immediately implicate her but could eventually lead to something that does.
The guy could have had dirt on numerous higher ups given the situation....why does everyone assume it is the Clinton link that got him accidentally death'ed?
Because there are a suspicious number of convenient deaths linked specifically to the Clinton Crime Syndicate, this isn't the first. Likely will not be the last.
the sole justification the media is using to support your statement is that "Ng hadnt been linked to clinton in decades" As if relationships dont go underground in DC everyday, and also like it wasnt widely reported and common knowledge he was on his way to testify the following monday
I wish it were trump supporters. Sadly it's mostly coming from bernie supporers these days. One realizes the political spectrum truly is a circle when the far lefts narrative is identical to that of Rush Limbaugh.
I wonder how long it will take before people realize some of those deaths are BS, and a few names are actually not even real people. (assuming this is the same "kill list" that is always posted on these kinds of threads). This has been debunked about 10 times that I've seen. Maybe people will finally start to realize propaganda can come from both sides.
If you want to find the ones that don't exists just search for names in the list. You won't find any information on a lot of them other than sites that posted the body list. Most of them, with very little research can be shown that they either had no affiliation with Clinton or there was absolutely no foul play involved.
This reddit post itself is a false one. He wasn't testifying against Clinton. Do your own research before calling people out.
One wiki source, that's some deep investigation! Any other sources that aren't a wiki? Perhaps news articles or a self written report on aritcles and how they connect with your debunked statement? I mean as far as facts go, a lot of these coincidences have been proven true by autistic mother fuckers. Calling them a crazy doesn't invalidate their work, it just goes to show just how detailed and precise their work is. Irrelevant of nutty people there are legitimate agencies investigating. So based on a level of probabilities I'd say that Clinton has at least committed a crime where the sentence would be life. So who cares about the details, lock that bitch up!
Do your own research. If you can't find a source that isn't a page set up for the Clinton body count then the person probably isn't real. Like honestly posts like the kill list just waste up space here on conspiracy. Everyone wants to believe them but if anything they just take recognition away from real conspiracies
I have done my own research and I don't believe the list is 100 percent accurate. In my own conclusion HRC has committed an act which would be criminal life sentence. I don't care about small details, lock the bitch up.
I think it would be foolish to assume she killed someone with her own hand. Is directly related in the death of innocent people? Meaning she knew of a murder before it occurred, then yes. To say she initiated the murder would be too difficult since we don't know, but to say she knew or was apart is not that difficult of a connection to make. Again I'm leaning more towards conspiracy to commit murder/first degree murder.
How do you know what he was going to testify to before he got to testify? Also, do you think that he would not have been told to tell exactly that? Presuming they are willing to execute a potentially harmful witness, would they not also be willing to coerce to cover up?
Because a helpful tip is to not assume things without basis especially when evidence points against it. Sure, there is an extremely slight chance. Unless there is actual evidence for the other side of the argument then it shouldn't be assumed
I'm just saying, him saying that is also not evidence that it is not be true. As is being posited. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying the evidence presented is not evidence.
You might in fact be right, but you sure go about it in a dickish manner.
For you to claim that someone asking politely for you to give some background to your contrary opinion is "calling you out" is asinine.
I don't have time to spend hours on the internet. You having done the research already are able to provide some info in a quarter of the time.
Sorry it was mainly about how every other person on here won't believe the facts and gets really butt hurt when when they see something against their beliefs. Your post sounds very sarcastic the way it's worded and I've been used to that while reading on conspiracy
I've just gotten tired of seeing the kill list post here my bad man.
Dude not trump supporters but people that dont trust any rich politician any further then they can throw em because deep down were all perfectly aware of the evil that can lurk in human hearts
If "trust" is what you're after, why jump on a bunch of bullshit? There are many legitimate concerns with Hillary, parroting straight up lies makes you just look silly and uninformed.
lol this is a perfect example of why uninformed people would vote for Hillary, they simply dont care that she lies and behaves like a sociopath....because they think her "goals" justify the means. What you dont realize is that her goals are in direct counter to anyone else on this planet.
If you want to lie in order to hypothetically do something which will benefit us all in the long run but does not have widespread support---such as lying about the massive, crippling amount of transitional unemployment we would have by switching away from fossil fuels--then thats probably OK..but when you lie in order to pump more money into the clinton foundation and start for-profit wars, then yeah, we should all be against you lying to achieve your goal.
What are you talking about, "perfect example." This entire story is a lie being used to paint another lier in a bad light. Doesn't that seem a little off to you?
It's not technically a "lie"---its simply a very misleading title. Idk where youve been for the past decade but that's the era of click-oriented journalism we live in. Conversely, trying to paint a misleading picture that she had him killed, while baseless, pales in comparison to the innumerable amount of 100% true/verifiable infractions and truly evil behavior Clinton has perpetrated over her tenure as a politician.....in fact, articles such as this only gain traction because her reputation is so horrendous (for good reason) that something like this actually happening is believable
I don't know where you've been for the past forever, but saying someone is "set to testify" against someone you know they are absolutely not set to testify against is technically a lie.
Why, given what you say about things being 100% true/verifiable, is it in any necessary to spew bullshit about a bullshitter? It weakens your position.
No, the Clintons are the family that House of Cards is modeled after. You're thinking of the Sopranos, who are modeled after the DeCavalcante crime family of New Jersey.
Specifically a brench press. Of all the lifts people die performing this is probably the most common. However it makes you wonder why a man in his position, who I'm assuming could afford proper equipment, would be doing one of the most dangerous lifts you can do alone, without a proper safety setup.
But it happens a few times a year, so I don't think we can conclude either way unless we saw his setup.
Yep, as I said it is pretty rare and it's usually some kid who has shitty equipment and is lifting alone in their parents basement or something like that.
I'd like to know the details from the report and see exactly how it happened. They said it was asphyxiation so it means the barbell fell on his neck and did not kill him immediately, but he was unable to get out from under it.
This can happen if you collar the weights and are in some sort of rack that wouldn't let you dump the bar to the side far enough to get out.
I guess it could have broken his neck and then he was unable to lift it and it asphyxiated him. But again, lifting enough weight to break your neck without any safeties or a spotter/family member nearby to call for? Strange and tragic indeed.
Ashe was due in court Monday with his Chinese businessman co-defendant Ng Lap Seng, who is charged with smuggling $4.5 million into the US since 2013 and lying that it was to buy art and casino chips.
Ng was identified in a 1998 Senate report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration. (Ng was not charged with any crime.)
Ng and Trie had visited the White House several times for Democratic fund-raising events and were photographed with then-President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton.
One source told me, “During the trial, the prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the Clinton bagman Ng. It would have been very embarrassing. His death was conveniently timed.”
Never fear, ShitpostJesus is here! They want disinformation as the top post on this subreddit? Why don't we take control of this post and have an actual discussion on real conspiracies?
US military studied how to influence Twitter and Reddit users in Darpa-funded research
A German man committed to a high-security psychiatric hospital after being accused of fabricating a story of money-laundering activities at a major bank is to have his case reviewed after evidence has emerged proving the validity of his claims.
obama admitting to a mk ultra like program in cuba involving hip hop.... yea it was mentioned for like a hour then gone. then all the sudden we cool with cuba...
True, but in order to make a stronger case against Ng it would seem appropriate to get any testimony linking him to former acts of political corruption. In this case, it seems he was to testify about the link Ng had to the Clintons.
So while he wasn't testifying against the Clintons, it's very possible he was going to speak about their involvement.
"A former president of the U.N. General Assembly awaiting trial in a bribery scandal died in a weightlifting accident when a barbell he was lifting from a bench dropped on his neck, an autopsy revealed Thursday."
He was only slated to attend a pre trial interview. Official court documents state that he was never scheduled to testify against Clinton at all. I can't discount it entirely as I don't have all the information, but I can draw a reasonable conclusion that this story is not representative of the truth. Especially since the initial rumour was fabricated by a renowned fake news syndicate.
Hm, I can't find anywhere that talks about him testifying against Clinton. Only something about going on trial soon on bribery charges.....have any other info?
I love how there is zero info in the "article" on the ridiculous claims being made in the title. When and where exactly was this crook supposed to testify against Hillary?
One source told me, “During the trial, the prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the Clinton bagman Ng. It would have been very embarrassing."
This sub is interested in nothing but an agenda. You guys dont value information, or neutrality, or the truth. You all are just the same as any Trump, Hilary or Bernie supporter. Nice job.
STOP SHARING THIS SHIT. he wasn't testifying against Clinton, I haven't been able to find any connection to her besides a handshake and as far as I can tell no one else can either.
I lift by myself all the time. Most people who have been lifting a while tend to use dumbbells nowadays. Bench press can cause injuris to the shoulder and dumbbells are much safer to use alone. I doubt he was lifting beyond what he could. Could be wrong but smells like bs.
So, here's the key line from the article. After noting that the man had been to a Clinton fundraising party once:
One source told me, “During the trial, the prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the Clinton bagman Ng.
From this unnamed source and a nebulous "linkage" (which could have been nothing or simply that he contributed to the fundraiser) we immediately leap to this idea that he was testifying against Clinton?! That seems rather extreme.
I've been linked to many bad people in my life, and I'm not even in politics.
Let's wait for actual charges in this case before leaping to conclusions based on "endthefed.com", which though I'm sure it's an unbiased news source...
I found it strange that that snopes article is literally the first article on google when you search "John Ashe". It's true that he was facing a separate trial not affiliated with the current Hillary FBI thing, but that's not what's being claimed. The idea is that in the process of parsing through his corruption the details of the co-defendant Ng Lap Seng's interaction with the Clintons could come to light.
I don't see anything on Ng on that page so this may fill you in. Either way I feel using a single websites' analysis to shutdown an argument is kinda shady.
Is anyone else getting the weird feeling that House of Cards is not actually an entertaining show, and neither of the main characters is anywhere near as attractive as in fiction?
You need to take some history classes. And politics. And psychology. And sociology. And just about anything that relates to understanding people.
Also, globalism is not all about a singular world government. I've repeated this several times but you seem obsessed with it. Refrain from insults when someone doesn't take your baseless rhetoric at face value.
Culture is superficial in some respects, but a culture which advocates theocracy is more than superficially different. Rational people are right to reject it, and will not be shamed into silence by globalist shills such as yourself.
Absolutely untrue. Feminism is an attempt to bring equality to women.
It is true that some hardcore feminists perceive themselves as superior. This is called human nature. Many people naturally wish to be superior to "the other." These are not the majority among feminists, though, just as neo-Nazis are not the majority amongst white people.
339 comments
427 mockassin 2016-06-27
hey freak accidents happen when youre about to testify in a case implicating a presidential candidate in a crime in a court of law within the next week .
120 [deleted] 2016-06-27
[deleted]
28 vezokpiraka 2016-06-27
Maybe the Universe really wants all the people who want to testify against Clinton to die. Like a weird universal constant. /s
21 OB1_kenobi 2016-06-27
I saw the last four words of the headline and got all excited for a second.
3 DorasOscailte 2016-06-27
We live in hope.
1 JimineyCrickets78 2016-06-27
me too!
2 Trollygag 2016-06-27
Yea, just like in The Omen with the coming of the antichrist.
Hillar yDiane Rodham.
1 Alliwantisaname 2016-06-27
The whore of Babylon.
1 HE_Pennypackerjr 2016-06-27
It's what Dark Matter actually is!
2 Butchtherazor 2016-06-27
What is this that you are talking about? I'm being serious, and not a smartass
2 juloxx 2016-06-27
i believe you, but can you provide the links to these claims? This would be awesome to share on FB
1 TParis00ap 2016-06-27
No, not really. Nothing that rises to the level of convincing. I've based my comment off of this but it's not really a reliable source. I've deleted my comments since I can't back them up.
Edit: And I meant to add, I google searched the crap out of this and couldn't even find the supposed lawyer's name.
-143 TheJackFroster 2016-06-27
Breaking News: People die.
48 kristamhu2121 2016-06-27
Have you seen the Clinton death toll? 1 or 2 might be a coincident but they are racking them up like calories at a buffet
5 missbarajaja 2016-06-27
Does anyone have a list of all the deaths?
20 YoropicReddit 2016-06-27
I've seen plenty on this site from just browsing.
Edit: Searching on /r/Conspiracy for Clinton Death
Result you're looking for: http://i.imgur.com/4P5SFk9.jpg
I've seen others that also explains the circumstances before death.
edit2: Found a post that explains the list a bit better.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3c9o7g/the_clinton_killing_machine/
3 amisamiamiam 2016-06-27
Someone needs to tell them to chill the freak out. Machiavellian's!
10 hasapoint 2016-06-27
Niccolo Machiavelli gets a bad rap. Everybody reads The Prince and thinks he has a hardon for monarchy/dictatorship when in reality his life's work and passion, the Discourses on Titus Livius, we're all about self-rule, democracy, and good governance. High school students and college freshmen just read The Prince because it's less than 1/10 the size of the Discourses.
7 LemonScentedCandle 2016-06-27
Where there's a fuck ton of smoke there's fire.
6 Abandon_The_Thread_ 2016-06-27
Unless a rare snoop dogg appears
0 Tour_Lord 2016-06-27
Honestly, he'd be a president we need, not the president US deserve, which probably is hrc
30 plasmaflare34 2016-06-27
21 times so far actually.
2 Wagner4221 2016-06-27
Is that just people set to testify? Any source?
11 dropamusic 2016-06-27
http://www.snopes.com/un-official-john-ashe-killed-the-day-before-he-was-to-testify-against-hillary-clinton/
6 pants_full_of_pants 2016-06-27
Snopes hasn't been considered a reliable source for a while now. They were at one time but they've fallen to greed just like countless sites before them.
5 RedditsNewGuy 2016-06-27
Once you noticed that their evidence often didn't agree with your conclusions?
2 [deleted] 2016-06-27
[deleted]
2 pants_full_of_pants 2016-06-27
One is black, the other white. I think the truth is grey.
On this particular matter I agree that it's clear Ashe wasn't scheduled to testify in any manner that would name Clinton in the near future. But what both Snopes and the conspiracy sensationalists leave out is that Ashe absolutely was going to testify about corruption in the State department. Knowing what I know about the Clintons, I think it's likely that testimony could eventually have lead back to Hillary.
1 DerpSherpa 2016-06-27
Not disagreeing with you but want to understand. What kind of greed? From advertising or ....?
3 uofajoe99 2016-06-27
Snopes > Random Reddit user
1 lord_empty 2016-06-27
Snopes is just other people doing research. If a reddit comment is researched and uses sound logic, why is it less valid than Snopes?
Also, do you truly believe the people at Snopes do not have their own biases? That they cannot be coerced like any other outlet? Happened to reddit, happens to every major platform at some point. Assuming infallibility is never wise.
I'd love to hear some responses instead of silent downvotes.
0 lord_empty 2016-06-27
How could the District Attorney know what he was going to say before he said it? And just to belabor the point a bit further, assuming that the opposing view is true, would you think that they wouldn't have him in on it to help cover their asses?
8 lakdaddy 2016-06-27
Was he due to testify the next day?
16 mockassin 2016-06-27
i dont think so actually . if the article is correct , he died on wednesay and was supposed to be in court today . but even so , a work week at the longest .
4 Colonelforbingh 2016-06-27
Not to mention the un is making a massive power grab after brexit... Superstate new world order here we come
2 mockassin 2016-06-27
if you could link me something id appreciate it .
5 Colonelforbingh 2016-06-27
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit
3 mockassin 2016-06-27
CHEERS
1 firebearhero 2016-06-27
propaganda piece. click on the reporters name to see his other articles, vast majority is either about "immigrants are scary" or about "fuck the eu".
not at all biased which means his stellae article is trustworthy.
also heres my scoop (feel free to link to this comment as irrefutable proof of this since a guy on the internet said so, if you ever want to tell others):
usa, canada and mexico are going to merge into a super-country unless trump is elected to stop it from happening!
1 Colonelforbingh 2016-06-27
Just a story today on drudge a proposal for a north american union... Really scary stuff
0 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Eh, the abolition of states and nations is essential and unavoidable at some point. Just a hangover from our tribal nature.
4 Colonelforbingh 2016-06-27
The end of nations will be the enslavement of mankind and lead to the end of mankind... I even believe theres a 2000 year old book explaining how a ine world government plays out...
1 DarthPeanutButter 2016-06-27
Funny how that works, isn't it?
-1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
No it won't. The end of nations will, at best, free humanity from illusory constructs that perpetuate meaningless conflict.
2 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
What is a real construct that has real power? The global banking cartel.
Alternatives to our banker despotism have power if we give it to them.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Yes, and they should be ended too.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Only states have power over them. So now what?
-1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Banks won't suddenly replace states if money is viewed for what it is: nothing. All that needs to be done to remove any threat from them is to move away from capitalism, preferably toward anarchism.
2 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Power abhors a vacuum. Bankers will be glad to pay just enough to pay police to maintain their property right against the unwashed masses. Your ideas are ill considered.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
That's quite possible. But that doesn't justify inaction and the perpetuation of flawed fantasies. Something being difficult does not make it ill-considered. States have to go, as do banks.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
People banding together for increased survival benefits is not a fantasy.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
No, but in an increasingly global world, tribal mentality has no place. It's eventually going to boil down to one or none.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
People helping people will always be here. Globalist are anti human freaks who want to destroy solidarity amongst people.
Where did you get your one or none zealotry? Groups can get along peacefully, and with a win win attitude.
Globalism itself is a greedy banker constructed concept. It's a war on humanity.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
How would a global society free of tribal flaws destroy solidarity among people? How is it that it only destroys when there's more people involved? That entire argument is baseless and ludicrous.
Temporarily, maybe. But we're thousands of years into human history and have never stopped killing each other over petty, insignificant and ultimately pointless "issues." This is only exasperated by nationalism and capitalism. Politics are fickle and have too much impact on human lives considering that.
Humanity has been at war with itself for as long as we've existed. Tribalism is part of human nature. The only way to avoid it is to acknowledge it for what it is, and actively try to move past it. The only way to achieve that is abolishing the state on a global scale. I am positive there will be individuals and organizations that wish to appropriate the power vacuum for their sociopathic power grabs, but they are a consequence of human nature, not a consequence of state abolishment. We already have thousands, if not millions of such people under our current system. We will only have less when the main factors that enable and abet many of them are gone.
Nationalism and isolationism are poison, nothing more. They offer no benefits to the human condition, only disgusting dregs like xenophobia and jingoism. We move increasingly towards utter annihilation of both ourselves and our environment. Forsaking them is the only way to avoid this.
For the record, globalism implies that some form of government is involved. That is not what I want.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
What do you want?
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
No government.
I'm fond of ASI's, though.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Internationalist fascism. Power to the corporations. Good for you, but you are utterly lost.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
A world without capitalism doesn't require corporations.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
So you want to merely dissolve all national, tribal, ethnic, cultural identities. That's insane.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
National and tribal identities are utterly perfunctory and meaningless, and inevitably lead to the desire to expand and eventually conflict with another. Culture and ethnicity will evolve, as they always have. After WWII, nations didn't suddenly not want to expand and conflict after thousands of years of doing exactly it. They couldn't do it because of globalization. Nations becoming more dependent on each other and sharing a vision of economic and political unity (through the UN and the EU) is what has largely prevented war in the West, as well as alleviated the Cold War to a degree.
Nations will always want to expand. It's in human nature, but it's an utterly dangerous way of thinking if people desire at least some measure of peace. Globalization, economic interdependence and such actively prevent conflict. For that, from a personal moral standpoint, I think they're right under the circumstances. Human nature is sometimes flawed, but we should work around it and be mindful. Knowing your neighbour more intimately holds back that innate human desire to fear "the other."
I by no means think globalism is perfect or the "end state." Every ruling and political system so far has been flawed, yet evolved. Globalism is just another rung.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Nope. Bonds form between people through common experiences. Loyalties matter.
And functionally, the larger a governed territory is, the less the government can tailor itself to specific conditions, needs, or preferences of actual people.
We can maintain our identities and culture without hating the other.
Your insane globalist mindset hates "all".
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Not in the real world, I'm afraid. We can absolutely maintain individual and cultural identity, they will merely evolve through deeper connection with others throughout the world.
I don't want a singular government, at least not under human rule. Globalism is not exclusively about global governance, and the politics behind it will evolve to suit the circumstances as they always have.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Yes in the real world. There has been peace between nations, and people.
The ones who have engineered all the wars are the globalist royals, and bankers themselves.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
No there has not. The "peace" you are so accustomed to was achieved through globalisation. And we still have many precarious situations around the world. To insinuate that peace is easy in a nationalistic world is ludicrous. History speaks for itself.
Globalism may suit the purposes of bankers or whatever. But it's not the root problem, human nature is, and greed and a lust for power are part of that. I'm not even going to bother with your "all wars are caused by bankers" nonsense. While it's true to some extent, insinuating that all human conflict is banker-bred is ridiculous. You are very ignorant of human nature and history.
These bankers you speak of also thrive in a nationalistic world. If they are the string pullers of many wars, then a political landscape that naturally breeds conflict is in their best interests. Globalism is not, particularly since the fantasy of global governance by a single entity is unfeasible.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
All the big wars were started by globalist elitists themselves.
Leading the monolithic global government is the sick dream of the globalists themselves. Globalism is the full demented fruition of the human traits you claim to be against.
Even th he negative aspects of nationalism were fostered and inflamed by elitist inhuman provocateurs.
They created the wars for fun and profit you fool.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
You need to take some history classes. And politics. And psychology. And sociology. And just about anything that relates to understanding people.
Also, globalism is not all about a singular world government. I've repeated this several times but you seem obsessed with it. Refrain from insults when someone doesn't take your baseless rhetoric at face value.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
You need to really slap yourself in a more alert state. History and the major fields of study ha e all been corrupted by the money men and their bosses bosses, the hidden hand.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Okay, so you are frankly delusional. It was nice discussing with you.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
That's right. The power to create money out of thin air is inconsequential. There are no globalist think tanks that spend 24/7 dreaming up propaganda campaigns to further their goals. Put your head back in the sand.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
You've taken up all the space already.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
You've gone to pure ad hominem attacks.
In a real discussion you would have inquired thusly.:
"What globalist think tanks are you referring to?"
"What do you mean about royals, aren't they dead and gone?"
"What do you mean about creating money?"
You already know I'm right, so you just attack me. You're a fraudulent participant in this discussion, a bad actor.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Fantasies do not interest me.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
That's right. Bankers, royals, and propaganda-producing think tanks don't exist.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Oh they can exist just fine, fantasy is not exclusive to the totally imaginary.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
And they have an agenda, and economic power.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Plenty of people do, and this infeasible global government agenda you fret about is the least of the world's worries right now.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
But plenty of people do not have nearly all institutions of society under their thumb. These globalist absurdities are the source of all the trouble right now.
The importation of radicalized theocrats is an absurdity. The control freak globalists love theocracy. God said so, is a great argument, if you can get that situation going.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
They factually are not. You have a poor understanding of globalism and globalization (two distinct things) as it is. Increased globalization does not mean global governance.
Economic stagnation and inevitable collapse on a global scale is unavoidable without globalization now. Many nations will simply tear themselves apart. This is a problem with the world's view of economics, not globalism. We need to review and restructure global economies, or veer away from capitalism altogether. But for now, trade enhances economic growth, and growth reduces poverty. Globalism has directly delivered a better standard of living in less developed countries. We see examples of this today with Wales and its (former) funding from the EU.
I don't know how anyone can argue against the social aspect of globalism. Being exposed to more cultures does not mean your own culture will be overwritten. Culture is not constant. It evolves, and sometimes just vanishes due to outside factors. This is not a problem, and it takes someone exceptionally weak-minded to base their identity on superficial external factors that are often out of their control. People being made more aware of superficial differences makes them much less likely to be suckered into the human flaw of hating "the other", so peace is more easily achievable.
Globalism is by no means perfect, but it is by no means the end of days or the installment of a new world order either. It can certainly take that path if enough of these people you mention will it, but that is not a predestined road and people will fight to keep it on a peaceful route of fraternity.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Wrong.
It's a war on humanity.
The globalists are usinng jihad and feminism to achieve totalitarianism.
You're a dolt, trying to use long winded prattling to dull the mind. You're not thoughtful.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Haha, well if you were looking to be taken seriously, you failed. I'd like to see you on a debate show, where people present facts and real world situations and you meander with this stuff. And throw in some insults when you can't conceive a coherent counter-argument.
Implying that feminism (equality) is attempting to achieve totalitarianism sold whatever credibility you had down the river. You're just a loon.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Feminism is an attempt to reduce men to a mere utilitarian object, with no rights, contrary to their stated agenda.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Absolutely untrue. Feminism is an attempt to bring equality to women.
It is true that some hardcore feminists perceive themselves as superior. This is called human nature. Many people naturally wish to be superior to "the other." These are not the majority among feminists, though, just as neo-Nazis are not the majority amongst white people.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
They want o be paid the same as a man, even if the man is a physicist, and she is a part time daycare helper.
The wage gap statistics don't take into account that men and women choose different careers. That's special treatment, not equality.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
That is false. They want to be paid the same as a man in the same occupation. If they choose different careers, then they choose different careers. No woman is under the illusion that they should be paid the same as a man in a completely different field. I refuse to believe you're dense enough to believe this laughable notion.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
The statistic are not calculated not that way. They lump it all together.
That why they strategically say equal work, meaning the amount t of time. They do not mean the same job. Weasel words
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
No they don't. Please cite a source before continuing with this ludicrous tripe. Do you know any women, personally? Have you asked them this? They'd laugh in your face, and rightfully so.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Yes they do. You cite. This the conspiracy forum.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
It is, and this is a particularly poor conspiracy. You need to step up your game, because right now it just seems like you don't have much contact with women. You certainly don't speak for any of them.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Globalization is awesome is the papa conspiracy of them all. The climate change hoax and feminism are right up there. They're all related actually.
Globalization and a one size fits all global iron fist are marketed as the panacea for all ills. Namely climate change, and lady fairness, all spurious created agit prop campaigns.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
We have actual, tangible things that point to globalization being "awesome" though. Like the active prevention of World War III. You think nukes wouldn't fly without global diplomacy?
I agree that it is marketed as a panacea. Many things are, because not everyone who supports something is versed in thinking about it beyond a superficial realm. They don't account for history, human nature, real world examples, or think about something in practice over paper. Prohibition firmly does not and has never worked at any point in human history, but people still think it's a saving grace. Even though parallel to that we know it is wholly unnecessary and only creates problems that never existed before.
Nothing is perfect, but we have to work with what we've got and continue to evolve. Regression is not the answer. You can't put the genie back in the bottle with globalization. Better to reap the benefits while keeping it on the straight and narrow.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
World war iii is prevented? Why didn't you say so?
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Might not be a big deal in the fantasy realm you hail from but it is in reality.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Lol at globalisation's positive benefits.point at the world on fire😉 all economies are failing.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Not due to globalisation, though.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Yes do to globalization., and it's subproject the European union destructive meddling regime, the north American union, the sucking sound of jobs headed overseas that Ross Perot predicted. Most of that cheap labor savings was split between the corporations and foreign leaders who legally enslaved their own people in wage slavery encampments. Google Apple foxconn laogai
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
That's a lot like seeing communism as evil based on Stalin and Mao. The system isn't broken, the people are.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
I think those are excellent reasons to consider communism evil.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
The system posits a perfect enlightened leader, or group er who just loves the world so much ,and gosh y gosh just love people so much and would never use power for themselves. Blah blah blah. Your right about people, but the system that gives one small group so much power is also flawed. The reality is that the globalist are all genocidal freaks. Population control they call it. It's for the trees and the animal? Do you hate trees?
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Actual communism has no leader.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Yeah ok. Whatever you say.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
I would actually like to see that data broken out by profession. Should be easy
Select profession, gender, avg(salary) from data group by profession, gender
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
So you admit you've never actually seen any statistics? Surely you're aware of them already.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Do I?
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Culture is superficial in some respects, but a culture which advocates theocracy is more than superficially different. Rational people are right to reject it, and will not be shamed into silence by globalist shills such as yourself.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Culture is superficial in every respect. I accept religion so long as it is completely separate from governance and has no direct influence (as in politicians do not base policy on belief). But on the whole I agree with you on this point.
If the best argument you can conjure is calling someone a "globalist shill", you have already lost.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
You should recognize Islam as a threat then.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
The form of "Islam" that the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda claim to adhere to does not exist. It's a bastardization passed off as ideological justification to continue and spread their barbarism and recruit the weak-minded. It is basically the Islamic version of God Hates Fags, if that organization were trained and armed by the American government. You wouldn't say GHF was represenative of Christianity, would you? It's an equivalent bastardization, warped beyond recognition and carefully selected from choice passages when are then extrapolated.
Their goal is to sow discontent with Muslims, so that they can then enlist more disenfranchised and disenchanted Muslims into their organizations in order to gain more power and eventually topple Western regimes. Their membership is a drop in a bucket in terms of the overall global Muslim population. They want to fill the bucket by pressing nations into more hardline immigration policies against Muslims. They intend to recruit those turned away from having a normal life. Again, we've seen this many times throughout history. Turning one group against another is not difficult if you manipulate the situation at even a rudimentary level.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
They actually are theocrats, they want Islam all over.
I argue against the social aspects of globalization when these control freaks insist the entire world import theocrats.
The economics of globalization mostly benefit corporations.
I call globalist zealotry internationalist fascism, because it's accurate.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
You have no idea what you're talking about and it's quite plain to see you've never interacted with an actual Muslim, and are relying on a portrayal by a media you supposedly don't believe.
Globalisation benefits everyone, including corporations. That's due to capitalism, which I'm against. The world has always been full of theocrats. The GOP desires a fascist theocracy, for instance. It's irrelevant whether it's Christianity or Islam, both are as good or bad as each other and entirely dependant on the whim of their followers. Neither is inherently bad. You don't think the GOP wants Christianity all over?
Crazy theocratic cunts are a small proportion of any religion. The majority of people just want to live their lives.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Blah blah blah. Globalization removes all protections people may want from the whims, agendas, or profit seeking notions of the rich and powerful. Everything is for sale, and profit justifies all. It's demented and stupid.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Not if it is steered in the direction of democratic socialism, socialism, communism, and eventually a form of anarchism, in that particular order and probably missing one or two steps. While you're right that many of the rich and powerful benefit from globalization, this will end with the fall of capitalism. No path to change is unscathed.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
And I'm not a republican. I'm a populist. All organized religions are mind poison.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Why are dems libs progressives unable to identify the ideology behind these attacks? Because they love theocracy and want to give it cover.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Not at all. Most liberals tend to be atheist and agree with you that religion should be abolished, but to do so is fascist and authoritarian.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Except they won't say it about islam for some reason.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
They do. In fact many high profile atheists target Islam with far more criticism than usual. Hitchens, Dawkins, etc.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
But progressives or liberals call it islamophibia they can only criticize Christianity for some reason
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
It's Islamophobia because it's a genuine phenomenon where people fundamentally don't understand what Islam is, and their perception of it is myopic, linear, and damaging.
I'm sure there's an equal term for any other religion. The difference is that Islam is "a big deal" right now due to world events, while Christianity was neutered centuries ago. Many will still complain about how Christianity etc are criticised. Christians have taken to declaring that secularists and the liberal left have undertaken a "War on Christians."
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
They do understand. It teaches jihad. You're just a pro Islamic propagandist refusing to be honest.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Islam does not teach "jihad." If it did, terrorism wouldn't be limited to (comparatively) tiny organisations. Muslims are no more violent than any other people. You would know this if you knew any, or knew anything about the religion itself. You do realise there are just as many forms of Islam as there are forms of Christianity? Some are extremist, like Christianity, others are not.
Currently, "jihad" is being taught by Wahhabism. A subset of Islam that few Muslims follow, which has been actively perpetuated by Saudi Arabia and the U.S., whether directly or indirectly.
The increase in jihadis is directly correlated to invasion of the Middle East. It turns out that murdering people and taking away their political realm makes them angry. It's a fairly recent phenomenon. People haven't been blowing themselves up to kill others for a long time.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
You're from outer space dude. You're unfit for rational discourse.
Should I be arrested for saying Islam teaches jihad?
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
No you shouldn't. You're not wrong, just terribly inaccurate. Nobody has been arrested for saying that.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
They have been jihading since before the wahabists. Islam's history is soaked in blood and has always been spread by the sword.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Christianity has not? Most religions are tainted in blood throughout history. You insinuate that 1.6bn Muslims are predisposed towards jihad, which is frankly untrue. You refer solely to Wahhabism, which is a mere fraction of that population.
The violent version of Islam emerged in response to European imperialism, and has become recently popular in the late 20th century and early 21st due to Soviet and American imperialism and artificial propagation of Wahhabism in the Middle East and western nations directly by Saudi Arabia, which is allowed and enabled, if not outright endorsed, by America. If the people don't want it, they will fight it. Just take a look at Vietnam.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Islam teaches it. It's not a genetic predisposition of the people. Just to clarify. You seem to be spinning, putting words in my mouth, creating a strawman argument.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Islam does not teach it. Wahhabism and maybe some fundamentalists do. It's a corrupted version of Islam.
You accuse me of spin but have yet to back up a single claim you've made.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Yes it does.
It's not a corrupted version. That is a lie.
You also have backed nothing up.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
I'm responding to your personal worldview, there is nothing to back up. I am still assuming you have studied the topics you speak of to at least some rudimentary extent, as it's all quite clear on its own.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Yes. Quite. Ditto.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
More importantly are the immigrants flooding in shamelessly from the maybe some fundamentalist areas taught jihad? Yes.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
And they should be allowed. Those fleeing are being killed by those fundamentalist jihadis, or a dictator. What makes you think they sympathize with them? Out of any possible number of Muslim immigrants, a miniscule fraction would be terrorists. It's already a low frequency if you count terrorists who do not conduct activities overseas or try to travel.
A world without borders is an eventuality, the sooner the better, for all.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Yet Isis said they will put jihadis amongst the migrants. I'm sure they're just kidding. Put your head back in the sand. The adults will take it from here.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Yes they will. And how many? 10 out of 100,000? You keep blaming Muslims when they are not to blame for Islamic extremism, America is.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
You're lost.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Better lost than stupid.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
You should know, experiencing both often.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
I'm certainly experiencing your stupidity right now, yeah. You're utterly delusional. On the one hand you pretend to be "against the system", on the other you're a common racist and get suckered easily into that system's lies and agendas. Good job.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
You're tripping. Of course Islam teaches jihad.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Jihad, like sharia, is a word that's been appropriated by the West to mean something very specific even though the word jihad is a noun meaning the act of "striving, applying oneself, struggling, persevering", and sharia loosely means "law", and not a specific one, just law.
Many Muslims disagree on the definition of jihad, but most do not think it means "holy war." The Quran refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who must be protected, so there is no intrinsic desire among Muslims to massacre other religions, just as there is not for Jews or Christians. It takes a violent leadership to go down that path, and ISIS or al-Qaeda are merely a minor fraction of Muslims just as "God Hates Fags" is a minor fraction of Christians.
If military jihad is required to "protect the faith against others" (like resisting occupation by a foreign country trying to steal natural resources and plant puppet governments), it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment. The Crusades were an act of minor jihad, because they were opposing an invading force. Likewise with the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, where the U.S. venerated and sponsored their minor jihad because they knew at the time what it meant, though now it's become a word synonymous with terrorism by racist agenda pushers you've been suckered in by.
You're a plain old racist, nothing more. Few words you've said on any subject matter has a hint of truth to it. You're as warped and delusional as the "masses" you scoff at.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Oh yeah, and like sharia isn't, like, a thing.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
It's not what you think it is.
Sharia can mean "way" or "path", essentially, a way of life that pleases Allah. If you asked a Muslim if they followed sharia, many would answer yes, because that is like asking a Christian if they live as God desired. There is nothing about sharia that promotes extremism, those are added after the fact by fundamentalists and Wahhabis.
Considering you are in the conspiracy subreddit, I'd expect you to have much more sympathy for Muslims as they are an inverted version of yourself and Western society. They are the result of demagogues and far-right wing fundamentalists seizing power and introducing draconian hard-line measures to enforce a specific way of life. This is happening in many nations right now. Painting Muslims as "the enemy" only helps those fundamentalists.
The West is also wholly to blame for Islamic extremism. America in particular actively promotes and perpetuates it so long as it maintains Saudi Arabia as an ally. Instead of fervently trying to pass blame onto others who are simply caught in a horrible situation and most are completely innocent, maybe you should take action yourself against your own corrupt and warmongering government.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Can mean?
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
You do realize in most languages, one word can mean several things? Context matters heavily.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
But sharia is specifically Muslim based law. Regardless of what could be.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
You seem to have missed out on having a point.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Point can mean different things.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Very rare. Lol.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Statistically speaking? Extremely rare. Frequency has no correlation to the number of those committing minor jihad acts. That's a fallacy you are reveling in.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
And I don't think it should be forcibly abolished. They should be allowed to say and teach what they want, but the critics should be allowed to speak also without being accused of hate speech and threatened by the state.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
I agree. But hate speech is called hate speech for a reason, it's hateful. It inspires conflict. It is fascist. The moment you treat someone as a flawed or lesser person, it's easier to pit others against them. History had shown us this time and time again and yet we are doing the exact same on the biggest scale yet to the entire Muslim population on a global scale, far surpassing the scale of contempt on the Jewish.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
You're not really for free speech. Some o e being offended is just tough shit. You're a thought totalitarian.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
The right to be offended is a segment of free speech. They're not mutually exclusive.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
You said abolishing religion would be fascist. Banning criticism of religion is equally so. Can you really not see that?
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Criticism of religion is not banned. Inflammatory hate speech, insults etc are because they breed conflict and serve no purpose in reasonable discourse. Every single religion is criticised regularly.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
But any criticism of Islam is called hate speech by you progressive, or whatever you are, brain damage victims.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
No it isn't. Some might say that, and they're wrong. Please look up the definition of hate speech. Your generalisations are getting dull. You seem disconnected from reality.
0 Colonelforbingh 2016-06-27
Wtf!? We have open borders in america and many european nations and all of them are getting hit with terrorist attacks... Middle eastern citizens raging war in western nations... Yeah lets become a globalist soceity then everyone will get along
2 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Terrorist attacks will happen anyway, open borders or not. Middle Eastern citizens (statiscally very few) "wage war" against the West because the West wages war against them to start with. If you back someone into a corner, they will fight back, and it doesn't help when you arm them to use them as tools to fight your own proxy war. History repeats when nobody learns from their mistakes.
-1 Colonelforbingh 2016-06-27
They are killing in the name of allah! Seriously do you even understand what isis believes in... I cant talk with you clearly an nwo globalist shill
2 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Looking through your post history, you appear to suffer from an acute case of paranoia, and probably veering towards some form of mental illness.
So what if ISIS claim to be killing in the name of Allah? Christians claim to do a lot of heinous shit in the name of God too. The fact of the matter is that the religions are not the problem, they are also illusory constructs, which men twist and warp to suit their preconceived ideals. Just like "nationalism" and its off-spring patriotism and jingoism, signs of simple-mindedness and disconnection from reality.
Anyone can claim they believe in something. It doesn't suddenly make the belief wrong or evil. It's all about context. ISIS is operating outside the context of Islam. Yes, you can probably find references to violence or culturally out of touch elements in the Quran. But you can also find just as many, if not more, in the Bible. I'm sure you have no trouble wearing two kinds of fabrics and masturbating even though these are stated to be despised by God, and the latter is deemed worth killing over.
-1 Colonelforbingh 2016-06-27
Flattered you claim to have looked through my post history althrough creepy and pointless maybe you learned something... Paranoia? Nope just not a sheep that assume big goberment cares about me... Absolute power corrupts absolutely... funny you bring up christians meanwhile all terrorist seem to be islam... Oh but the christians want bake a cake they are as bad as isis! Also bible says though shall not kill therefore if you murder you cant be christians meanwhile the quran is all about killing the infidels...
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Uh, no. Plenty of terrorists are Christians. The media just doesn't like calling anyone a terrorist unless they're dark-skinned or Islamic, because that suits the narrative they peddle and keeps the Western world docile with a specified target to hate.
I mean it wasn't that long ago that a bunch of hicks took over a government building and held hostages, but were never labeled as terrorists and the local police shook hands with them despite threats of violence. The Quran actually says "don't kill" just like the Bible, maybe try reading it you pleb. The Bible incites violence against many types of people. You know stoning was a big thing, right?
I don't know why you keep yammering about government when what I want is an end to government.
1 Colonelforbingh 2016-06-27
End of government by having a global government that makes sense...
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
I don't want any form of government.
-8 pewpewlasors 2016-06-27
Good. Be like Star Trek. Having a bunch of different countries is dumb.
9 VLXS 2016-06-27
Do you really think globalization is about the people and ethnicities? It's just a market consolidation play, aka one big complete market monopoly by a select few
companiesconglomerates.If NWO globalization comes, it is going to be the death of progress and the start of an extended period of complete cultural stagnation leading to the eventual dying off of the majority of humanity. They'll just feed us glyphosate till every non-essential personel are in the dirt and the Elite can have the planet for their own.
Jokes on them because the planet's fucked either way, though.
1 Abatrax 2016-06-27
Yeah man, I'm just so hoping the elite are genuinely smart somewhere deep down within, so they use the new world order to essentially make the planet sustainable. A man can dream
-1 EGThroeIsLife 2016-06-27
Yeah.. Uh, about that..
You do realize how expensive it is to get off of this doomed planet right?
5 VLXS 2016-06-27
I actually do realize. That's why I believe we should try our hardest to make sure our whole planet doesn't become some absurdly rich cunt's personal fiefdom. I thought that was pretty much the whole point of this sub.
Let me make this clear: I believe that Depopulation (agenda 21, codex alimentarius, whatever) is climate change. What the elites don't realize is that by fucking up the climate to reduce the global population, they run the risk of runaway climate change, which could render the whole planet unliveable.
Big Oil knew about climate change for a long time now, just as Monsanto knows Glyphosate is a carcinogen. On one hand they want to make the big $$, on the other though, they have so much money they could invest in alternatives and then force the switch to the alternatives to become market leaders there.
I believe part of the reason they don't do this, is that they want climate change happening.
7 labajada 2016-06-27
That's exactly what those guys in ISIS think.
0 Elseerian 2016-06-27
Yeah but they are doing it for a stupid ass reason.
1 rathskellar 2016-06-27
So are the ruling elite; so they can have all the wealth and luxuries to themselves.
1 Elseerian 2016-06-27
So a good idea becomes a bad one because the people trying to do it are dicks.
-2 jimjim404 2016-06-27
well we arent going after isis if she gets in, she will say where at war with aliens! and the only way to stop them is for everyone to send her all your money
2 Elseerian 2016-06-27
Down vote to hell here i come! Some people are to closed minded and scared to face the fact that we are ultimately going to end up as that anyways. People are going to look at all this in 1000 years like we look back at the dark ages now. So much potential and ideas were held back because of this reason or that reason and we look at those reasons and like WTF you asshole why did you stop that?!?!? we could be 100 years more advanced now if you didn't! At least that's how i think.
3 schniederzero 2016-06-27
Unfortunately we don't all get along, borders dividing us or not. What you described is ideal, I'm sure we all can agree. I just simply do not see it going that smooth and it easily putting and end to the same issues we have today.
4 Elseerian 2016-06-27
Yep, completely agree. People just need to learn to get along. Not everyone thinks like you and that is okay, go find someone who does and don't force your shit on the person who doesn't. Borders are just like our currency though. They don't really exist yet they still control us.
1 NorthBlizzard 2016-06-27
Nah, but people will look back in 1000 years and laugh at how gullible we were, falling for everything scientists say, giving away billions of dollars to solve weather, fixing mental illnesses by cutting off body parts, etc.
2 gjones33 2016-06-27
yeah and for that matter, why have states in america?? just let the federal government rule everything!
2 Colonelforbingh 2016-06-27
Bunch of different countries is dumb? Wow so what we just all become one 3rd world nation with one government? Thats the most insane thing ive heard someone say in a really long time. Imagine if germany won the war... We would have one country however if you werent one hitlers side youd be murdered... Christians jews muslims... All murdered... Yeah lets try that again...
2 godlameroso 2016-06-27
There's enough food resources and technology on this planet for every single man and woman to live like current day millionaires. But if everyone is a millionaire how will the ultra rich be able to show off their wealth and by proxy imply how much better they are than everyone else?
1 Colonelforbingh 2016-06-27
Yet its the ultra rich trying to trash the borders... World leaders, microsoft, google, facebook... Those are the ultra rich everyone hates and are also the ones demanding a union... Why? Not to give there money away... To gain power to enslave there adversaries... Mostly white conservatives and christians... Clear as day yet people wont admit it
2 stmfreak 2016-06-27
Proximity to power is risky.
1 mockassin 2016-06-27
agree there , yet , moths to the flame...
2 NorthBlizzard 2016-06-27
Hillary must be the luckiest person alive considering how many freak accidents and deaths follow those who have something against or on her.
2 ARCHA1C 2016-06-27
Especially when it's a candidate that is heavily invested in by establishment media and corrupt corporations.
1 mockassin 2016-06-27
true , but to be fair , what presidential candidate is not involved with these entities to some extent ?
2 ARCHA1C 2016-06-27
early on in the primaries there are plenty, but, of course, we don't hear about them because...
1 mockassin 2016-06-27
yep , its a quandary . but we both know what it takes to get exposure out there.
-1 Fistlegs 2016-06-27
Donald Trump?
1 JimmyRichards 2016-06-27
Especially a Clinton.
-9 TheInternetCat 2016-06-27
Now I'm no Hillary fan, but you should look into how misleading this is.
4 mockassin 2016-06-27
meh , its a slight exaggeration . doesnt detract from the facts of the case.
-3 TheInternetCat 2016-06-27
Which part, the part about he was not going to be testifying against Clinton? Because, to be fair, that's the entire bullshit story. In other words, it does indeed detract.
0 mockassin 2016-06-27
he wouldnt be testifying against her , but during the course of the proceedings it would become apparent that the clintons were involved with some unsavory activities . to what extent is a question which is hard for me to answer at this point .
-7 TheInternetCat 2016-06-27
Good lord, don't you have any integrity at all?
7 mockassin 2016-06-27
you'll have to be more specific with that question if you expect an answer.
-9 TheInternetCat 2016-06-27
No further answer needed, you've been quite clear.
7 mockassin 2016-06-27
thank you
i wish you a good evening
9 HiemJew 2016-06-27
That quickly turned to nonsense. What was that even about lol
1 mockassin 2016-06-27
cant tell for certain . at least it didnt come to blows. haha .
1 WarmCrumb 2016-06-27
Hahah the outrage!! Never in all my years!
1 im_joe 2016-06-27
I don't recall.
139 [deleted] 2016-06-27
[deleted]
49 rykorotez 2016-06-27
No, he wasn't. But as the article states, “During the trial, the prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the Clinton bagman Ng. It would have been very embarrassing. His death was conveniently timed.”
I don't know where people get off saying he was going to testify against Clinton but its obvious her and her husband would've been brought up in this relatively high profile case.
8 pants_full_of_pants 2016-06-27
Ashe would have also testified regarding corruption in Clinton's department, which wouldn't immediately implicate her but could eventually lead to something that does.
2 lafeeverte17 2016-06-27
The guy could have had dirt on numerous higher ups given the situation....why does everyone assume it is the Clinton link that got him accidentally death'ed?
3 apimpnamedgekko 2016-06-27
Because there are a suspicious number of convenient deaths linked specifically to the Clinton Crime Syndicate, this isn't the first. Likely will not be the last.
8 Doobz87 2016-06-27
But government! /s
1 returnofN 2016-06-27
the sole justification the media is using to support your statement is that "Ng hadnt been linked to clinton in decades" As if relationships dont go underground in DC everyday, and also like it wasnt widely reported and common knowledge he was on his way to testify the following monday
1 lord_empty 2016-06-27
How do you know what would have been in his testimony before he gave it?
-4 Ventorpoe 2016-06-27
Trump supporters are going balls to the wall tinfoil hat just to push their agendas.
2 DannyPinn 2016-06-27
I wish it were trump supporters. Sadly it's mostly coming from bernie supporers these days. One realizes the political spectrum truly is a circle when the far lefts narrative is identical to that of Rush Limbaugh.
54 CoffeeNpoptarts 2016-06-27
I could have sworn I saw this a week ago.
118 TheGlew 2016-06-27
You feel that way because people who oppose Hillary are dying every week.
12 HockeyBalboa 2016-06-27
Or because it was posted a week ago.
-36 truth_kills 2016-06-27
I wonder how long it will take before people realize some of those deaths are BS, and a few names are actually not even real people. (assuming this is the same "kill list" that is always posted on these kinds of threads). This has been debunked about 10 times that I've seen. Maybe people will finally start to realize propaganda can come from both sides.
10 wantsneeds 2016-06-27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
yeah, really nice lady
4 joshuay 2016-06-27
If we ask nicely maybe? Could you give a source or two?? Please?
10 mnmkdc 2016-06-27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Vince_Foster - Tells doctor he's depressed, leaves suicide note single gunshot, private investigators found no foul play.
If you want to find the ones that don't exists just search for names in the list. You won't find any information on a lot of them other than sites that posted the body list. Most of them, with very little research can be shown that they either had no affiliation with Clinton or there was absolutely no foul play involved.
This reddit post itself is a false one. He wasn't testifying against Clinton. Do your own research before calling people out.
1 Verhaz 2016-06-27
One wiki source, that's some deep investigation! Any other sources that aren't a wiki? Perhaps news articles or a self written report on aritcles and how they connect with your debunked statement? I mean as far as facts go, a lot of these coincidences have been proven true by autistic mother fuckers. Calling them a crazy doesn't invalidate their work, it just goes to show just how detailed and precise their work is. Irrelevant of nutty people there are legitimate agencies investigating. So based on a level of probabilities I'd say that Clinton has at least committed a crime where the sentence would be life. So who cares about the details, lock that bitch up!
1 mnmkdc 2016-06-27
Do your own research. If you can't find a source that isn't a page set up for the Clinton body count then the person probably isn't real. Like honestly posts like the kill list just waste up space here on conspiracy. Everyone wants to believe them but if anything they just take recognition away from real conspiracies
1 Verhaz 2016-06-27
I have done my own research and I don't believe the list is 100 percent accurate. In my own conclusion HRC has committed an act which would be criminal life sentence. I don't care about small details, lock the bitch up.
0 mnmkdc 2016-06-27
I think she's done things to endanger our country but I dont think she's killed a single person
2 Verhaz 2016-06-27
I think it would be foolish to assume she killed someone with her own hand. Is directly related in the death of innocent people? Meaning she knew of a murder before it occurred, then yes. To say she initiated the murder would be too difficult since we don't know, but to say she knew or was apart is not that difficult of a connection to make. Again I'm leaning more towards conspiracy to commit murder/first degree murder.
0 JimmyRichards 2016-06-27
All of those could be fake bar one. People get life for premeditated murder.
1 lord_empty 2016-06-27
How do you know what he was going to testify to before he got to testify? Also, do you think that he would not have been told to tell exactly that? Presuming they are willing to execute a potentially harmful witness, would they not also be willing to coerce to cover up?
1 mnmkdc 2016-06-27
Because a helpful tip is to not assume things without basis especially when evidence points against it. Sure, there is an extremely slight chance. Unless there is actual evidence for the other side of the argument then it shouldn't be assumed
1 lord_empty 2016-06-27
I'm just saying, him saying that is also not evidence that it is not be true. As is being posited. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying the evidence presented is not evidence.
1 joshuay 2016-06-27
You might in fact be right, but you sure go about it in a dickish manner. For you to claim that someone asking politely for you to give some background to your contrary opinion is "calling you out" is asinine. I don't have time to spend hours on the internet. You having done the research already are able to provide some info in a quarter of the time.
1 mnmkdc 2016-06-27
Sorry it was mainly about how every other person on here won't believe the facts and gets really butt hurt when when they see something against their beliefs. Your post sounds very sarcastic the way it's worded and I've been used to that while reading on conspiracy I've just gotten tired of seeing the kill list post here my bad man.
2 joshuay 2016-06-27
Hey thanks man. Bizarre, but this apology from an anonymous stranger actually has me feeling good. Good on ya! Take care.
3 FuckDeeper 2016-06-27
The whole thing is illusion anyways so might as well just go eat some grapes
1 WyzeGye 2016-06-27
White or Purple?
1 FuckDeeper 2016-06-27
I like white ones :)
2 shemp33 2016-06-27
Ha. Found our local "correct the record" intern.
1 returnofN 2016-06-27
than it should be easy to link one
-1 CaseyTwist 2016-06-27
Sorry, Truth kills :)
7 CantStopWhitey 2016-06-27
Last night.
9 CoffeeNpoptarts 2016-06-27
It was this. But only 4 days ago. http://nypost.com/2016/06/23/ex-un-general-assembly-chief-dies-amid-bribery-scandal/
-8 [deleted] 2016-06-27
[deleted]
6 Low_town_tall_order 2016-06-27
Dude not trump supporters but people that dont trust any rich politician any further then they can throw em because deep down were all perfectly aware of the evil that can lurk in human hearts
-1 TheInternetCat 2016-06-27
If "trust" is what you're after, why jump on a bunch of bullshit? There are many legitimate concerns with Hillary, parroting straight up lies makes you just look silly and uninformed.
2 1917211198 2016-06-27
Hillary straight up lies about many things that makes her supporters look silly and uninformed. I'm not supporting Trump either.
-2 TheInternetCat 2016-06-27
So you're against lying to achieve a goal?
6 gjones33 2016-06-27
lol this is a perfect example of why uninformed people would vote for Hillary, they simply dont care that she lies and behaves like a sociopath....because they think her "goals" justify the means. What you dont realize is that her goals are in direct counter to anyone else on this planet.
If you want to lie in order to hypothetically do something which will benefit us all in the long run but does not have widespread support---such as lying about the massive, crippling amount of transitional unemployment we would have by switching away from fossil fuels--then thats probably OK..but when you lie in order to pump more money into the clinton foundation and start for-profit wars, then yeah, we should all be against you lying to achieve your goal.
1 TheInternetCat 2016-06-27
What are you talking about, "perfect example." This entire story is a lie being used to paint another lier in a bad light. Doesn't that seem a little off to you?
2 gjones33 2016-06-27
It's not technically a "lie"---its simply a very misleading title. Idk where youve been for the past decade but that's the era of click-oriented journalism we live in. Conversely, trying to paint a misleading picture that she had him killed, while baseless, pales in comparison to the innumerable amount of 100% true/verifiable infractions and truly evil behavior Clinton has perpetrated over her tenure as a politician.....in fact, articles such as this only gain traction because her reputation is so horrendous (for good reason) that something like this actually happening is believable
1 TheInternetCat 2016-06-27
I don't know where you've been for the past forever, but saying someone is "set to testify" against someone you know they are absolutely not set to testify against is technically a lie.
Why, given what you say about things being 100% true/verifiable, is it in any necessary to spew bullshit about a bullshitter? It weakens your position.
1 Low_town_tall_order 2016-06-27
Im not upset that you lied to me, im upset that from now on i can't believe you. -some guy
1 Low_town_tall_order 2016-06-27
What are you talking about? How does my comment in anyway parrot a lie? I was simply making a commen sense statement about the situation in general
28 CantStopWhitey 2016-06-27
He died in a "weight-lifting accident".
20 cashnobucks 2016-06-27
So nobody plays Hitman anymore ?
This is eriely similar to a silent assassination whilst in the game.
3 Big_Ol_Johnson 2016-06-27
Was there a bald man spotted several times wearing several different outfits?
2 StoneTheKrow 2016-06-27
Reminds me of the toxic avenger movie.
-3 grungebot5000 2016-06-27
I, too, base my impression of the political world on video games
2 RocKiNRanen 2016-06-27
Something, something, video games impersonate real life.
1 perfect_pickles 2016-06-27
might want to read Greene's 'Our Man in Havana', then revisit the Cuban missile crisis...
or do a comparison between 'Victor Crabbe' and Ted Kennedy.
life imitates art, or maybe certain types borrow from art.
1 grungebot5000 2016-06-27
none of those sound like video games
0 IntensePretense 2016-06-27
Yeah! We should watch some TV shows to gain a better understanding of the political world. House of Cards sound good?
0 grungebot5000 2016-06-27
ain't that the show about the mobster family
1 apimpnamedgekko 2016-06-27
No, the Clintons are the family that House of Cards is modeled after. You're thinking of the Sopranos, who are modeled after the DeCavalcante crime family of New Jersey.
11 returnofN 2016-06-27
that no one sees the absurdity of "weight lifting accident" dsiturbs me..
4 shadowofashadow 2016-06-27
Specifically a brench press. Of all the lifts people die performing this is probably the most common. However it makes you wonder why a man in his position, who I'm assuming could afford proper equipment, would be doing one of the most dangerous lifts you can do alone, without a proper safety setup.
But it happens a few times a year, so I don't think we can conclude either way unless we saw his setup.
12 [deleted] 2016-06-27
It's just suspicious that he just happened to die in a freak accident that is incredibly rare and 100% preventable.
5 shadowofashadow 2016-06-27
Yep, as I said it is pretty rare and it's usually some kid who has shitty equipment and is lifting alone in their parents basement or something like that.
I'd like to know the details from the report and see exactly how it happened. They said it was asphyxiation so it means the barbell fell on his neck and did not kill him immediately, but he was unable to get out from under it.
This can happen if you collar the weights and are in some sort of rack that wouldn't let you dump the bar to the side far enough to get out.
I guess it could have broken his neck and then he was unable to lift it and it asphyxiated him. But again, lifting enough weight to break your neck without any safeties or a spotter/family member nearby to call for? Strange and tragic indeed.
2 perfect_pickles 2016-06-27
it was the water cooler falling on his head afterward that raised eyebrows.
1 stmfreak 2016-06-27
I've got BINGO!
20 UcDat 2016-06-27
Ashe was due in court Monday with his Chinese businessman co-defendant Ng Lap Seng, who is charged with smuggling $4.5 million into the US since 2013 and lying that it was to buy art and casino chips.
Ng was identified in a 1998 Senate report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration. (Ng was not charged with any crime.)
Ng and Trie had visited the White House several times for Democratic fund-raising events and were photographed with then-President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton.
One source told me, “During the trial, the prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the Clinton bagman Ng. It would have been very embarrassing. His death was conveniently timed.”
INDEED http://pagesix.com/2016/06/26/disgraced-ex-un-officials-death-conveniently-timed/
-1 ginger_bredman 2016-06-27
Page Six, and indeed anything related to the New York Post, is a lousy source.
14 PseudoNinja 2016-06-27
Honestly what is the Clinton body count up to?
2 JMaboard 2016-06-27
Do you count Bengazi?
-8 HarryParatesties 2016-06-27
Tree fiddy!
1 The_wet_band1t 2016-06-27
+/- bout
-23 grungebot5000 2016-06-27
still zero, last I checked
14 Badger_Storm 2016-06-27
This was already posted, and it's not true.
31 ShitPostJesus 2016-06-27
Never fear, ShitpostJesus is here! They want disinformation as the top post on this subreddit? Why don't we take control of this post and have an actual discussion on real conspiracies?
US military studied how to influence Twitter and Reddit users in Darpa-funded research
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/darpa-social-networks-research-twitter-influence-studies
The “Cuban Twitter” Scam Is a Drop in the Internet Propaganda Bucket
https://theintercept.com/2014/04/04/cuban-twitter-scam-social-media-tool-disseminating-government-propaganda/
A German man committed to a high-security psychiatric hospital after being accused of fabricating a story of money-laundering activities at a major bank is to have his case reviewed after evidence has emerged proving the validity of his claims.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/28/gustl-mollath-hsv-claims-fraud
They want to take /u/moose away from us and turn his subreddit into a Shillary advertisement? Go to the back up subreddit!
/r/remembermoose
1 fdajj 2016-06-27
Naw man, these are too real. We need to go deeper.
1 jimjim404 2016-06-27
obama admitting to a mk ultra like program in cuba involving hip hop.... yea it was mentioned for like a hour then gone. then all the sudden we cool with cuba...
13 911bodysnatchers322 2016-06-27
5 jerrycasto 2016-06-27
Saw that and my heart skipped a beat
There's still time for justice to be served though. Pls FBI
2 mastigia 2016-06-27
Christmas in July
1 Capt_Skyhawk 2016-06-27
She can't die, she's a vampire! Just look at those wrinkles
10 BillyWaz 2016-06-27
http://www.snopes.com/un-official-john-ashe-killed-the-day-before-he-was-to-testify-against-hillary-clinton/
1 MiauFrito 2016-06-27
Is snopes reliable? Politifact is compromised...
7 titsandwich 2016-06-27
This has been on here multiple times this week. The death is suspicious but he was not set to testify against Clinton.
2 KatanaPig 2016-06-27
True, but in order to make a stronger case against Ng it would seem appropriate to get any testimony linking him to former acts of political corruption. In this case, it seems he was to testify about the link Ng had to the Clintons.
So while he wasn't testifying against the Clintons, it's very possible he was going to speak about their involvement.
4 Tim_from_IT 2016-06-27
Did you really expect any different? Clinton is part of one of the most successful racketeering groups in the world.
4 Ninebythreeinch 2016-06-27
"A former president of the U.N. General Assembly awaiting trial in a bribery scandal died in a weightlifting accident when a barbell he was lifting from a bench dropped on his neck, an autopsy revealed Thursday."
Yeah, hate when that happens...
3 rowrowthegreat 2016-06-27
He was only slated to attend a pre trial interview. Official court documents state that he was never scheduled to testify against Clinton at all. I can't discount it entirely as I don't have all the information, but I can draw a reasonable conclusion that this story is not representative of the truth. Especially since the initial rumour was fabricated by a renowned fake news syndicate.
3 wiseprogressivethink 2016-06-27
A new addition to the Clinton Body Count!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php
1 SchlangeHatRecht 2016-06-27
Bad case o' barbellitis, more deadly than flesh eating bacteria
1 perfect_pickles 2016-06-27
or multiple self inflicted nailgun nails
'two the head and five to the torso, just to make sure'
1 ProfWhite 2016-06-27
"Ruled a suicide"
1 fizzlehack 2016-06-27
Ya'll enjoy all the lists you were just added to.
1 readingsbyautumn 2016-06-27
Part of me wants to believe that these people didn't die but were all put in the witness protection program...I want to beleive...
1 calculator174 2016-06-27
werent heaps of people saying this was bullshit last night lol its on /r/woldpolitics
1 Yomama3000 2016-06-27
I thought this meant that Hilary was found dead.
1 Scroon 2016-06-27
So how about that cause of death, y'all? Barbell dropped on his neck. That's right up there with "falling off a parking garage".
1 dropamusic 2016-06-27
http://www.snopes.com/un-official-john-ashe-killed-the-day-before-he-was-to-testify-against-hillary-clinton/
1 dingman58 2016-06-27
This should get more visibility
1 shitbric 2016-06-27
The Gods favor thr Clintons! sigh
1 DuckDuckVelociraptor 2016-06-27
Can't find a single mainstream news source for it - I don't know if New York Post counts - but they don't even mention that he was set to testify.
http://nypost.com/2016/06/23/ex-un-general-assembly-chief-dies-amid-bribery-scandal/
1 fdajj 2016-06-27
Hm, I can't find anywhere that talks about him testifying against Clinton. Only something about going on trial soon on bribery charges.....have any other info?
1 NOT_TIRED_WINNING 2016-06-27
It's been awhile since I visited this sub. I love you guys
1 Tam-Honks 2016-06-27
Seems like a reliable source.
1 thegr8rambino13 2016-06-27
Did someone like rig the weights or something? Lol
1 Nuwanda84 2016-06-27
I love how there is zero info in the "article" on the ridiculous claims being made in the title. When and where exactly was this crook supposed to testify against Hillary?
Great journalism right there.
1 nuesuh 2016-06-27
Shit happens😂😂😂
1 baecomeback 2016-06-27
But feminist are smaht
1 drax117 2016-06-27
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4q0fbr/hopefully_this_will_make_the_frontpage_but_im/d4pi5zo
This sub is interested in nothing but an agenda. You guys dont value information, or neutrality, or the truth. You all are just the same as any Trump, Hilary or Bernie supporter. Nice job.
1 sepseven 2016-06-27
STOP SHARING THIS SHIT. he wasn't testifying against Clinton, I haven't been able to find any connection to her besides a handshake and as far as I can tell no one else can either.
1 SpaceshotX 2016-06-27
What would happen if the people started a Kickstarter campaign to fund the assassin to turn on his/her employer?
1 Sbornot2b 2016-06-27
Snopes says nope.
1 Rudolf895 2016-06-27
Fucking trump. That's our option now? Reset this election please.
1 gotpot1289 2016-06-27
I know but I enjoy the stampede.. And why fuck not lead the sheep off the cliff
1 Amos_Quito 2016-06-27
Woah! I read the headline while still half asleep... the last four words seemed to jump off the screen ...
/Need coffee...
1 gotpot1289 2016-06-27
Am I viral yet?
1 crunkisifoshizi 2016-06-27
They are dealt with.
1 Mannford 2016-06-27
Was he wearing workout clothes?!? Ask the important questions people.
1 Cymdai 2016-06-27
My god. And it isn't even being reported on. I swear to god, there is no such thing as investigative journalism anymore in the United States.
Even her speech made me physically ill. "It's time we just move along now..."
Yes, of course. Why worry about people like John Ashe and Berta Caceres; you need to go win the election you paid for.
1 PenisPeddler 2016-06-27
http://www.snopes.com/un-official-john-ashe-killed-the-day-before-he-was-to-testify-against-hillary-clinton/
1 Catdaddy74 2016-06-27
As usual, lies and distortions built to bring her down. Like you're really going to get the truth from a conspiracy website. You silly people!
http://www.snopes.com/un-official-john-ashe-killed-the-day-before-he-was-to-testify-against-hillary-clinton/
1 techrich 2016-06-27
http://www.snopes.com/un-official-john-ashe-killed-the-day-before-he-was-to-testify-against-hillary-clinton/
1 satisfyinghump 2016-06-27
didn't Snopes say this was debunked?
1 barictj 2016-06-27
I lift by myself all the time. Most people who have been lifting a while tend to use dumbbells nowadays. Bench press can cause injuris to the shoulder and dumbbells are much safer to use alone. I doubt he was lifting beyond what he could. Could be wrong but smells like bs.
1 gotpot1289 2016-06-27
Yup! :D I love how this has played out. Keep posting you guys! So much fun! Lolz
1 gotpot1289 2016-06-27
The lizard people are really George bushes
0 Elzendobob 2016-06-27
Vince Foster them all !!!!!
0 aaronsherman 2016-06-27
So, here's the key line from the article. After noting that the man had been to a Clinton fundraising party once:
From this unnamed source and a nebulous "linkage" (which could have been nothing or simply that he contributed to the fundraiser) we immediately leap to this idea that he was testifying against Clinton?! That seems rather extreme.
I've been linked to many bad people in my life, and I'm not even in politics.
Let's wait for actual charges in this case before leaping to conclusions based on "endthefed.com", which though I'm sure it's an unbiased news source...
-1 toneii 2016-06-27
Linkage? Oh, that's bad. That's almost as bad as being "tied to" something, in the world of conspiracies...
0 Doobz87 2016-06-27
Lol this sub is crazy. Literally
12 trumpetspieler 2016-06-27
I found it strange that that snopes article is literally the first article on google when you search "John Ashe". It's true that he was facing a separate trial not affiliated with the current Hillary FBI thing, but that's not what's being claimed. The idea is that in the process of parsing through his corruption the details of the co-defendant Ng Lap Seng's interaction with the Clintons could come to light.
I don't see anything on Ng on that page so this may fill you in. Either way I feel using a single websites' analysis to shutdown an argument is kinda shady.
2 abortionlord252 2016-06-27
It actually makes a lot of sense.
-12 Doobz87 2016-06-27
a /r/conspiracy user naturally would.
0 banthetruth 2016-06-27
nothing will be done by anyone.
0 lyzabit 2016-06-27
Is anyone else getting the weird feeling that House of Cards is not actually an entertaining show, and neither of the main characters is anywhere near as attractive as in fiction?
0 howleg 2016-06-27
I'd rather take Hillary over Trump, and I know I'll be wishing for Bernie, but this just isn't the way to go about addressing concerns.
-1 HulaguKan 2016-06-27
"Breaking"
Happened a couple of days ago.
-1 thewiremother 2016-06-27
He was not going to testify against Clinton, and it was a pre-trial hearing.
-4 TacticalOyster 2016-06-27
This isn't true he wasn't set to testify
-10 want2playzombies 2016-06-27
fuck this sub really is fuilled with nut jobs
i bet you guys dont think the moon landing was real and belive in reptilians.
what a bunch of wankers
3 MitchMan3687 2016-06-27
Reptilians are actual creatures.
If you meant lizard people, say lizard people.
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2016-06-27
Rule 10 only warning.
-12 Doobz87 2016-06-27
a /r/conspiracy user naturally would.
2 abortionlord252 2016-06-27
It actually makes a lot of sense.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
You need to take some history classes. And politics. And psychology. And sociology. And just about anything that relates to understanding people.
Also, globalism is not all about a singular world government. I've repeated this several times but you seem obsessed with it. Refrain from insults when someone doesn't take your baseless rhetoric at face value.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Wrong.
It's a war on humanity.
The globalists are usinng jihad and feminism to achieve totalitarianism.
You're a dolt, trying to use long winded prattling to dull the mind. You're not thoughtful.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Culture is superficial in some respects, but a culture which advocates theocracy is more than superficially different. Rational people are right to reject it, and will not be shamed into silence by globalist shills such as yourself.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
Absolutely untrue. Feminism is an attempt to bring equality to women.
It is true that some hardcore feminists perceive themselves as superior. This is called human nature. Many people naturally wish to be superior to "the other." These are not the majority among feminists, though, just as neo-Nazis are not the majority amongst white people.
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
That's a lot like seeing communism as evil based on Stalin and Mao. The system isn't broken, the people are.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
Yeah ok. Whatever you say.
0 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
They actually are theocrats, they want Islam all over.
I argue against the social aspects of globalization when these control freaks insist the entire world import theocrats.
The economics of globalization mostly benefit corporations.
I call globalist zealotry internationalist fascism, because it's accurate.
1 Talkytalktalk 2016-06-27
But progressives or liberals call it islamophibia they can only criticize Christianity for some reason
1 News_Bot 2016-06-27
You seem to have missed out on having a point.