Lenin, Stalin, Obama, and Hillary....

reply to post by beansidhe


The Zionist used race twice against America IMO , The first was the Civil war and then trying to excite a race war with the King killing . The are highly contested as a hoax . That is easy to buy until you read them and the hoax becomes reality and you see the real hoax . I also bought that book too .

reply to post by SimonPeter


Ah, the old minority uprising hoax trick, eh? Sometimes good people do good things, and it seriously pisses off people in high places.
I'm with Zero on this one, I'm afraid. The more people who agitate the system, the more it becomes the norm for people to say 'no', the stronger the people become.
In my opinion, the buck for my life stops not in the hands of some government twit, but with me.

Good luck, brother.

B x

xuenchen
"Lenin, Stalin, Obama, and Hillary...."

Different branches of the same tree.

But Hillary does seem to have better writers and better spies and better enforcers.

Infiltration undetected is the secret.

You really haven't read and digested a damned thing I said, have you?

What I said was, we DO need to change. What I said was, we need to be willing to ACCEPT change to CHANGE

Did I say we allow it to be (the bogey man we all fear in the NWO) the way any of the four mentioned above appear to desire it?

No. I absolutely did not.



Read my statements again. And think of what you had to say earlier in this thread really applies.

amfirst1
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

LOL Hilary is the 1% . In fact, she is probably the .001%.

It's fake double speak. She just wants more taxes so they can fund more corporate welfare and bailouts.

Remember the Marxist number one rule is to destroy the free market for everything else to fall in place.

edit on 25-1-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)

Again, a primary moron who is incapable of reading something that might have similar qualities to something else they've read, but see that in fact, it is an entirely different statement.

Stop regurgitating what you've read once. Or even twice.

Think for yourself. Develop your own thoughts.


And in the meanwhile, stop parroting....

beansidhe
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

We got change. And it screwed us.

But, I am fairly certain it will not stay as it is. We will change and continue to change, until things balance out.


BALANCE is essentially what we all want, right? Pay your fair share. Receive what's due to you as a citizen.

I'm not talking along partisan lines here. I am talking change. I am talking about making a difference.

To do this, we need to drop the " I'm a *THIS*" or "I'm a *THAT*" mentality. We need to think about what would be best and fair for all parties. Not just ourselves.


Am I alone in this thought pattern?

No, you're not alone Zero. We all get one shot on this earth, and each one of us has as much right to exist as the other. The nauseating greed of the few has crippled individuals, families, in fact whole countries.
We absolutely need to start looking out for each other, and caring about our own communities. I know Marx isn't popular in America, but here's another quote you may like:

“Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains.”

We don't have to accept the status quo.

edit on 25-1-2014 by beansidhe because: Added picture

Here's the problem, IMHO....

Marx, when you read his work, makes absolute sense!

But, the rotten apple in the equation?


People.


We are the virus. There is always SOMEONE who is willing to screw you over to advance themselves. I blame much of it on "group think". Corporations, groups of people (think Reps or Dems) develop either a profit at all cost attitude or an "Us VS Them" attitude....


I've never been one for being a follower. Not that I am some sort of magnanimous leader, but rather, I've been a leader before, and herding cats just isn't my gig. Instead, I look to forge my own path. To think my own thoughts, and not simply regurgitate what can only be the results of some negatively applied Hegelian Dialect....

"The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living."[2] Our Creative Diversity, UNESCO.

“'How do we get a critical mass of people doing things differently? Through the sharing of generative ideas, ideas that can change how people think and act....What we as a planet need in order to transform how our large systems work is a network of people spreading ideas of interdependency and sustainability."[3] Peter Senge.

"...absolute behavior control is imminent.... The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will... never self-consciously know that it has happened."[4] Raymond Houghton, To Nurture Humaneness, (ASCD arm of the NEA), 1970.

Interesting article containing info on Hegelian Dialect

Unfortunately, whereas I see the common sense in the first two quotes above...it's the third, am absolutely true statement, that concerns the living crap out of me.

Yet again, it points me back to the very fact that WE are our biggest enemy. BUT, I strongly feel we need to try to do SOMETHING to overcome this.

reply to post by zeroBelief


Why do we need to change?

2nd

Walkingsenseless

At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality... We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force. Che

Che Guevara had some beautiful thoughts.

It's sad that since he has died many have begun to associate him with "yet another Marxist"...

And it is also sad, that even beautiful thoughts can be perverted and twisted into the the tools of the sick men and women who simply wish to control others.

xuenchen
"Lenin, Stalin, Obama, and Hillary...."

Different branches of the same tree.

But Hillary does seem to have better writers and better spies and better enforcers.

Infiltration undetected is the secret.

You APPARENTLY missed the part where I very blatantly and SPECIFICALLY said "I AM NOT PRO-HILLARY"!!!!

So, I'll simply cut and paste my response to another Fibonacci and give it to you to chew on...if you even manage to get through my reference in calling you a "Fibonacci"......I'm sure that somehow you'll deduce that I am referring to the NWO or something else and declare me a disinfo=agent secretly attending the 1% Meetings...

Again, a primary moron who is incapable of reading something that might have similar qualities to something else they've read, but see that in fact, it is an entirely different statement.

Stop regurgitating what you've read once. Or even twice.

Think for yourself. Develop your own thoughts.


And in the meanwhile, stop parroting....

SimonPeter
reply to post by beansidhe

 

The Zionist used race twice against America IMO , The first was the Civil war and then trying to excite a race war with the King killing . The are highly contested as a hoax . That is easy to buy until you read them and the hoax becomes reality and you see the real hoax . I also bought that book too .

I am truly beginning to believe that there simply must exist a "conspiracy theory 101" book or course...and it is the foundational blocks of the high fiber ignorance that folks appear to adopt once they read something they THINK is going one direction but in reality is going a DIFFERENT direction.

Dear LORD...read something ALL THE DAMNED WAY THROUGH. STOP and THINK about what the writer is attempting to say. COMPARE it to what you are thinking, and *then* commit to the act of CONTRASTING the two.

STOP PARROTING....develop an original thought. SAY original things. Or, repeat someone if your intent is not merely for the sake of parroting alone for lack of having a truly educated and valuable thought to add to the conversation....

beezzer
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

Why do we need to change?

2nd

I read sarcasm here. But sarcasm, in and of itself, is merely a seasoning to the thought that one is attempting to convey.

Where, or what beyond the sarcasm, is your thought here?

zeroBelief

beezzer
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

Why do we need to change?

2nd

I read sarcasm here. But sarcasm, in and of itself, is merely a seasoning to the thought that one is attempting to convey.

Where, or what beyond the sarcasm, is your thought here?

What sarcasm?

I asked a question.

You want change. You state that things need to change.

If some are disenfranchised, why do ALL have to change?

Why are you promoting change for ALL when it is only a FEW that require it?

reply to post by zeroBelief


You address my single post twice.

Actually, as a matter of fact, I understand 100%

What you fail to see is that I wasn't addressing you at all.

Your tactics are obvious now.

Some more specifics about your definition of "change" might help in getting a conversation going.

beezzer

zeroBelief

beezzer
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

Why do we need to change?

2nd

I read sarcasm here. But sarcasm, in and of itself, is merely a seasoning to the thought that one is attempting to convey.

Where, or what beyond the sarcasm, is your thought here?

What sarcasm?

I asked a question.

You want change. You state that things need to change.

If some are disenfranchised, why do ALL have to change?

Why are you promoting change for ALL when it is only a FEW that require it?

In all truth, if it is not apparent to you what is wrong in our country....and you yourself are happy....

Well, I wonder why you even bother reading or posting anything in this thread.

xuenchen
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

You address my single post twice.

Actually, as a matter of fact, I understand 100%

What you fail to see is that I wasn't addressing you at all.

Your tactics are obvious now.

Some more specifics about your definition of "change" might help in getting a conversation going.

I addressed your post twice, because I came upon it once while perusing the thread, second when I was reading the responses section in my account. Upon reading it twice, I felt that I had two valid things to say to it.

What incensed me, was your simple regarding of the idea that politicians lie. That was hardly the point of my thread. The point of this thread is that against what the article was saying, I think there is a difference in what they were saying. I also stated that while I did not agree with Hillary, I agreed with the things she said in principle.

You answered this by saying "well, she has better writers", as if to attack the supposition that I personally somehow believe in Hillary. I do not.

I merely said that what she said makes sense. That it is not congruent with anything Lenin, Stalin, or Obama have said. The article likened them as being four different people, but saying essentially the same thing.

I then went so far as to say that I believe in change, and that change is uncomfortable for everyone. But, it doesn't have to end up being bad.

And all I got from your response was "well, she has better writers". And just like a few other respondents I have had to this thread, it upset me how you went for the fruit that hung so low the ants could easily get to it.

reply to post by zeroBelief


Thank you for answering my question. Your motives are apparent.

I'll keep that in mind.

beezzer
reply to post by zeroBelief

 

Thank you for answering my question. Your motives are apparent.

I'll keep that in mind.

My motives are apparent?

Dang-nabbit, my cover has been foiled again!!!

Surely, I must be an agent of disinformation!!!


Now, you are eternally my enemy...as you are keeping in mind that I am a disinformation agent....I shall take you down, one day, I shall....

Sleep well, my friend...sleep...WELL.....

reply to post by zeroBelief

I merely said that what she said makes sense. That it is not congruent with anything Lenin, Stalin, or Obama have said. The article likened them as being four different people, but saying essentially the same thing.

I then went so far as to say that I believe in change, and that change is uncomfortable for everyone. But, it doesn't have to end up being bad.

And all I got from your response was "well, she has better writers". And just like a few other respondents I have had to this thread, it upset me how you went for the fruit that hung so low the ants could easily get to it.

So, what fruit that hangs higher should I have reached for?

The definition of "Change" and the methods to obtain those changes are debatable.

Or is it all about the fruit that fell to the ground?

" I merely said that what she said makes sense. "

How so?

The definition of "Sensible" is debatable.