addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

San Diego 9/11 Truth Message Board › The Obama Deception- new film by Alex Jones (trailer)

The Obama Deception- new film by Alex Jones (trailer)

A former member
Post #: 294
http://www.youtube.co...­

Looks interesting but will likely be preaching to the choir, and the gun in the room is not being exposed (I'm guessing that AJ's conclusion is that the Obama administration is evil and if we just had "good guys" in government everything would be just great.)
Peter H.
user 3471076
San Diego, CA
Post #: 314
the gun in the room being...
A former member
Post #: 24
There's barely any objectivity to the newly coronated globalist we call our president...it's so great that he's doing this!
Peter H.
user 3471076
San Diego, CA
Post #: 315
Could you qualify "barely any objectivity" a bit? Because to my mind it somewhat discredits our group if we don't at least aknowledge the positive things that people do, such as Obama's decision to close Guantanamo, his decision to stand against torture, etc... Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of the criticism's voiced in that trailer regarding the types of people he has surrounded himself with, as well as various aspects of the globalist agenda, but painting these issues with too broad a brush will not help people take our arguments seriously. Put differently, there must always be some means of rapport between us and those we are trying to convince of our 9/11 Truth hypothesis, and using stark language like "barely any objectivity" makes it hard for people to connect with what we're saying. You know what I'm sayin? I feel like I didn't say that very clearly.
A former member
Post #: 296
Could you qualify "barely any objectivity" a bit? Because to my mind it somewhat discredits our group if we don't at least aknowledge the positive things that people do, such as Obama's decision to close Guantanamo, his decision to stand against torture, etc... Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of the criticism's voiced in that trailer regarding the types of people he has surrounded himself with, as well as various aspects of the globalist agenda, but painting these issues with too broad a brush will not help people take our arguments seriously. Put differently, there must always be some means of rapport between us and those we are trying to convince of our 9/11 Truth hypothesis, and using stark language like "barely any objectivity" makes it hard for people to connect with what we're saying. You know what I'm sayin? I feel like I didn't say that very clearly.

Peter,
The gun in the room is the gun of government that we all have pointed at us. Government has to use violence and coercion to do exist. Therefore, Alex Jones is challenging Obama as president, but again, his solution is to just vote "good guys" into office. Unfortunately this is a pipe dream- those who are typically attracted to positions of power are typically authoritarians, sociopaths, crooks, liars, thieves, and overall bad people (a few exceptions of course). So while I agree with Jones that Obama is a bad guy and is already killing people in the middle east, stealing money from citizens to give to the banks and auto companies, and surrounding himself with evil. What Jones is not doing is striking the root cause of the problem- government itself.

As far as closing Gitmo- this is symbolic at best. As far as I know it still hasn't happened. And there is no plan for the prisoners- where will they go? So what if Gitmo is closed if these people end up at some secret prison in eastern europe? Or Afghanistan? How as that changed anything?

And standing against torture is great, but McCain also stood against torture- yet, it continued. I hope that there is no longer any torcher but I don't count on that, as long as we have a government and a CIA.

Kevin
Peter H.
user 3471076
San Diego, CA
Post #: 320
Hey Kevin,
I agree with your point about those who seek power, but I can't say I agree with your overall condemnation of government itself. To me the elegance of our constitutional system (when it's actually in practice) lies in the checks and balances, which exist in direct acknowledgment of power's corruptive influence. Put differently, I still believe in democracy, and I see restoring the rule of law and fairness as expressed in the constitution as one of the principle objectives of this group.

Moreover, there are two problems I have with condemning all forms of government.

1) It doesn't make sense to me. Are you advocating rule of the jungle? And is not any alternative whatsoever (including rule of the jungle) just a different form of governance? For example, I may not love the DMV, and I oppose whatever device they're trying to put in our ID's, but can't we agree that some form of regulation over who's on the road is important? Basically I just don't get it. Even after that long discussion with Wes, anarchy still makes no sense to me.

2) It doesn't seem helpful. The idea behind this group is that we're trying to educate and organize people for the purpose of healing our institutions and improving the quality of life on this planet, so approaching people with such a far reaching concept seems counterproductive to the process of coalescing support around these issues. It's important that as a group we aren't just complaining about what's going on, but also presenting the better way, and if that better way strikes people as too unrealistic, we are going to struggle in growing support. Americans are psychologically predisposed to the idea of restoring the constitution, and not at all ready for what you are proposing. Many years from now perhaps we will have evolved as a species to the point where we can eliminate governement, sothere is definitely philisophical value in having these types of discussions, but hopefully our public identity can be built around restoring the concepts and values our country was founded upon.



A former member
Post #: 297
Hey Kevin,
I agree with your point about those who seek power, but I can't say I agree with your overall condemnation of government itself.
If you agree and yet still support the idea of government, then you are okay with having your life run by criminals?

To me the elegance of our constitutional system (when it's actually in practice) lies in the checks and balances, which exist in direct acknowledgment of power's corruptive influence.
How well has that worked out? And, if it is a great system, why must violence be used to enforce it? People will gladly join a group that benefits their own lives. But with this "group", we never had a choice. Can I opt out?

Put differently, I still believe in democracy, and I see restoring the rule of law and fairness as expressed in the constitution as one of the principle objectives of this group.

The constitution has been a complete failure at upholding freedom. It hasn't been just in the last 10 years either. In the early days of our country we still had slavery! A few hundred thousand people died in the civil war, the federal reserve and income tax have just about destroyed us....the list can go on and on. Government will always grow as long as we allow it power. Writing something down on a piece of paper and expecting that it will hold up for centuries or even decades is a waste of time. They change the rules as they see fit (and yes this even happened in the early days of the U.S.)

Moreover, there are two problems I have with condemning all forms of government.

1) It doesn't make sense to me. Are you advocating rule of the jungle? And is not any alternative whatsoever (including rule of the jungle) just a different form of governance? For example, I may not love the DMV, and I oppose whatever device they're trying to put in our ID's, but can't we agree that some form of regulation over who's on the road is important? Basically I just don't get it. Even after that long discussion with Wes, anarchy still makes no sense to me.

I'm advocating a voluntary society without coercion and violence. No, I don't agree on "regulation", which is just another term for government force. We own ourselves. If you as an individual want to hire someone to say, protect you, you should have that right. However, you do NOT have the right to decide to force me to pay for your protection. We could go on and on here but it comes down to using violence to run a society vs. freedom and liberty (spontaneous order). A very simple video explaining the concept of voluntarism is the Philosohpy of Liberty: http://www.youtube.co...­

2) It doesn't seem helpful. The idea behind this group is that we're trying to educate and organize people for the purpose of healing our institutions and improving the quality of life on this planet, so approaching people with such a far reaching concept seems counterproductive to the process of coalescing support around these issues. It's important that as a group we aren't just complaining about what's going on, but also presenting the better way, and if that better way strikes people as too unrealistic, we are going to struggle in growing support. Americans are psychologically predisposed to the idea of restoring the constitution, and not at all ready for what you are proposing. Many years from now perhaps we will have evolved as a species to the point where we can eliminate governement, sothere is definitely philisophical value in having these types of discussions, but hopefully our public identity can be built around restoring the concepts and values our country was founded upon.

I can see why you would think that, and "restoring the constitution" does sound nice for many people, but seeing that working within the current system has been an abysmal failure, we need to look deeper at the problem. "America" was not attacked on 9/11. There was a mass murder of 3,000 innocent people. The collective mentality is what has gotten us into this mess. We are a country (and a world) of individuals. Nobody can "represent" me; I am not part of some group but rather, I represent myself and my own interests. If you believe that people are generally good and do the right thing most of the time, then where is the need to giving an elite group the monopoly on violence? If you believe that people are generally evil, then why would you want to give a collection of evil people the monopoly on violence?

We can actually run ourselves, we do not need leaders to steal half of our money and make decisions for us. If you feel that you need a leader in your life, great! You can choose one or several leaders for yourself. But how is it peaceful to force your leaders on me?

K
A former member
Post #: 26
Could you qualify "barely any objectivity" a bit? Because to my mind it somewhat discredits our group if we don't at least aknowledge the positive things that people do, such as Obama's decision to close Guantanamo, his decision to stand against torture, etc... Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of the criticism's voiced in that trailer regarding the types of people he has surrounded himself with, as well as various aspects of the globalist agenda, but painting these issues with too broad a brush will not help people take our arguments seriously. Put differently, there must always be some means of rapport between us and those we are trying to convince of our 9/11 Truth hypothesis, and using stark language like "barely any objectivity" makes it hard for people to connect with what we're saying. You know what I'm sayin? I feel like I didn't say that very clearly.


Very well, I will clarify my point. The way I see Obama right now is that he is an agent of great deception. He has created a cult of personality. Something never-before-seen since the days of Adolf Hitler's rise to power. So many people are jaded into thinking that because a new face, a new party, and a new color takes office, that everything will return to normal, money will rain out of the sky, everyone will be taken care of by him, and that we will be in some great Utopia so long as we allow the central bank to rape the economy. The mainstream media have their own brush they like to paint people with and the brush this much broader. Obama's popularity has been fueled mostly by that. He is very hard to pin down the issues on. When they talk about how he signed an executive order closing Guantanamo, and putting an end to torture, that sounds great! But what about all the black sites? What about the fact that many of the people from Guantanamo are just going to simply be sent to other facilities around the world and in the US? Shutting down Guantanamo is just a political stunt. It looks like, among many other problems, he's not "Nipping it in the bud" as they say. He only partially solves the popular problems for publicity to keep his CFR/banker/bilderberg friends and the brainwashed public happy.

My point (And I'm sure many others in our "Group" would agree with) is that there is way to much hype and nobody is standing up to say "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!". We need to be that engine to do such a thing. Why should we water down this issue?
Peter H.
user 3471076
San Diego, CA
Post #: 321
Thank you for the replies, I will respond to them shortly..
Peter H.
user 3471076
San Diego, CA
Post #: 326
The formatting was getting messy, so I have put my original comments in green.

Me: I agree with your point about those who seek power, but I can't say I agree with your overall condemnation of government itself.
Kevin: If you agree and yet still support the idea of government, then you are okay with having your life run by criminals?

I agree that power corrupts, but it's too simplistic to call all the people who have chosen public service as a profession "criminals". The state of our current system is obviously corrupted, allowing criminals to rise in power, but if we had a properly operating media and an informed public (with the internet we can achieve this), the best people would move up and the worst would be weeded out.

Me: To me the elegance of our constitutional system (when it's actually in practice) lies in the checks and balances, which exist in direct acknowledgment of power's corruptive influence.
Kevin: How well has that worked out? And, if it is a great system, why must violence be used to enforce it? People will gladly join a group that benefits their own lives. But with this "group", we never had a choice. Can I opt out?

It hasn't worked (which is why we have this group) but we must not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. I say that because from my analysis, the reason the system failed was because it was attacked via our financial institutions and our media, not because the political system itself was flawed. Furthermore, and I think we've gone into this before, violence may be a large part of our current system, but it is not a necessary part of healthy governance. Until people stop committing violent crimes, we will always need law enforcement, but violence against innocent people is merely a symptom of the corruption, not an intrinsic quality of all governance.

Me: Put differently, I still believe in democracy, and I see restoring the rule of law and fairness as expressed in the constitution as one of the principle objectives of this group.

Kevin: The constitution has been a complete failure at upholding freedom. It hasn't been just in the last 10 years either. In the early days of our country we still had slavery! A few hundred thousand people died in the civil war, the federal reserve and income tax have just about destroyed us....the list can go on and on. Government will always grow as long as we allow it power. Writing something down on a piece of paper and expecting that it will hold up for centuries or even decades is a waste of time. They change the rules as they see fit (and yes this even happened in the early days of the U.S.)

The Constitution empowers the will of the people, so we cannot judge it for slavery, the income tax, etc.. because those were ultimately on some level manifestations of the people's will. If the majority of people in this country do not support freedom, the constitution and it's amendments will reflect that. So I agree that our most important piece of paper does not itself ensure freedom, but what's significant is that that paper does empower us, so that if enough people choose peace and freedom, we can get it.

Me: Moreover, there are two problems I have with condemning all forms of government.

1) It doesn't make sense to me. Are you advocating rule of the jungle? And is not any alternative whatsoever (including rule of the jungle) just a different form of governance? For example, I may not love the DMV, and I oppose whatever device they're trying to put in our ID's, but can't we agree that some form of regulation over who's on the road is important? Basically I just don't get it. Even after that long discussion with Wes, anarchy still makes no sense to me.


Kevin: I'm advocating a voluntary society without coercion and violence. No, I don't agree on "regulation", which is just another term for government force. We own ourselves. If you as an individual want to hire someone to say, protect you, you should have that right. However, you do NOT have the right to decide to force me to pay for your protection. We could go on and on here but it comes down to using violence to run a society vs. freedom and liberty (spontaneous order). A very simple video explaining the concept of voluntarism is the Philosohpy of Liberty: http://www.youtube.co...­

I still don't get it, so perhaps another specific example will help. Answer me this: how could a voluntary society enforce drunk driving laws?

message continues in next... (stupid character limit)
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy