Context: George Bush's New World Order quotes.
- Thread starter Steviev55
- Start date
What's to debunk? It's genuine quotes. The "New World Order" was Bush's favorite phrase in 1991 to 1992, he was talking about the change in the world due to the democratization of the former communist states, the first Gulf War, and other changes in Europe. You can read the full speeches here:
I'd recommend you actually read some before asking what they mean.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=19222
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
It's always in the same context as the point of this thread, and the George H. W. Bush example.
Here is a short YT video clip that misquotes President Obama, in the headline. This is rather typical of the conspiracy "theory" promoters:
And, the "NWO theory" as presented by the "believers" makes little sense, because it isn't exactly covert, if every prominent politician or world leader uses the phrase. Again, it's about context. And phrasing. And punctuation.
Like, "Let's eat, Grandma" is an entirely different context when you remove that little comma.....
Melbury's Brick
Senior Member.
And, the "NWO theory" as presented by the "believers" makes little sense, because it isn't exactly covert, if every prominent politician or world leader uses the phrase. Again, it's about context. And phrasing. And punctuation.
Like, "Let's eat, Grandma" is an entirely different context when you remove that little comma.....
Or the difference betyeen "Knowing your shit" and "Knowing you're shit".
Steviev55
New Member
In a statement, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) called the move “consistent with other efforts the U.S. and our allies are making to promote a free and open Internet, and to preserve and advance the current multi-stakeholder model of global Internet governance.” is that the same as this then ??
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
"...global Internet governance..."
Hmm...sounds more like just talking about the Internet in general, note the phrase "free and open Internet".
Ah....here is the relevant article:
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control
Hmm...sounds more like just talking about the Internet in general, note the phrase "free and open Internet".
Ah....here is the relevant article:
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control
No. It's actually about decentralization. As the internet has historically been ruled by the US. While the US loses some power here, it had ALL the power before. It would be like if Texas were in charge of all the electricity in the US.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
'Shudder!' What a frightening thought! I'm going to have nightmares tonight.
Although the US's dictatorship of the internet has been pretty benign really. So maybe more like Wisconsin.
Credible theorist
Member
O my God you didn't by into the crap they told you did you?
Let me explain why the NWO he was talking about is the NWO you think(You know about Global powers controlling the world)He said he wanted a new world order envisioned by the "UN".What kind of new world order are they going to bring?!They are the ones who invented Agenda 21,the people who push for gun control,the people who love drones,the people Ted Turner funded $1 billion dollars back in 99'!And Ted Turner is the guy thinks the world is overpopulated.You got the Rockefellers funding the UN also and they like Bush talk about a new world order.
Stick to facts and follow the money.Look at what's happening in the world at this time.We're losing more rights every day.Gun registration in CT?It's coming and you people are veering people like Steve off the subject.When the NWO gets here you are all going to look very foolish.We are spied on by our own government!All this stuff is nothing huh?
Steve go to you tube and check out TeamWakeEmUP and Mark Dice videos to get real facts.
Do you have any evidence to support your claims?
Credible theorist
Member
SR1419
Senior Member.
what rights have you lost?
Citizens have always been spied on by their governments- even in the US...same as it ever was.
SR1419
Senior Member.
no, its just you trying to connect disparate dots of lies, innuendos, half truths and meme-biased "facts".
Credible theorist
Member
So we had all of our phone records spied on,all of our E-Mails spied on and had our gun rights attacked to make us defenseless?I don't think so.
Credible theorist
Member
Haha!You people are such shills!
"You're connecting disparate dots"
No I'm not.Bush and these other's say they want a new world order ruled over and envisioned by the UN so I'm showing what the UN does and wants.Now would you like to live in a "New World" envisioned by these people?
Your denial is disturbing.But that just shows that you are a shill.
SR1419
Senior Member.
I am not condoning surveillance...but its not new. its not evidence of anything more than the govt collecting data- The fact that you jump from that to the NWO says more about your biases than actual facts or evidence?
As for guns- sorry...your "gun rights" have not been attacked- Guns are still widely available to almost all citizens. I trust you are stockpiling.
SR1419
Senior Member.
of course, when you start to attack the person and make it personal, you lose all credibility.
Good luck with that.
Credible theorist
Member
Credible theorist
Member
I'm not attacking you.You are fine.But you are in denial.Your blatant diversion from my points shows that A)you are in denial B)you deny for fun or C)You are a shill.
Melbury's Brick
Senior Member.
It was clear from your very first post that you would eventually degenerate into infantile name calling. It's the direction most conspiracy theorists take when they have no coherent argument other than their own bias driven interpretation.
If "The Government
" or their sneaky pals do decide to come for you they won't be giving you the heads up in a series of speeches!
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Or D) your 'points' are baseless and lack any ability to convince people with higher standards.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
"Conspiracy is no more..."??
No, actually there are certainly plenty of conspiracies afoot at any given moment ( ever seen HBO's "Game of Thrones"?
)I know...fiction. But, joking aside. The point is that Humans WILL "conspire" in some ways and shapes, it's in our nature (it seems). The trick is to separate the wheat from the chaff, to use a colorful metaphor.
"Just the facts, Ma'am." ("Dragnet" reference!)
Cbrian
New Member
You do know Texas has it's own power grid separate from the rest of the U.S.? I have lived here for 35 years and experienced about the same amount of interruption during that length of time as I did during my 2 years in California as a Marine.
We are one of the fastest growing States with 3 of the top ten fastest-growing cities in the country. I would argue our political diversity is beyond that of other States due to the controls each City is afforded by our State Constitution. If you are liberal leaning you move to Austin or San Antonio, where they have strict gun laws for example. If you like a diversity of political ideas and cultures mixed together you move to Houston for that urban mixture. If making money and embracing capitalism is more your style we have Dallas. Then there are all the little towns in between. I am not sure why so many educated people who are knowledgeable enough to second guess conspiracy theories are so eager to accept false conceptions and rumors about a State they have probably never visited.
To understand Texans attitudes toward Federal Government you have to have an understand our Strong belief in the Tenth Amendment. Many here believe each State should have the right to do as it's people see fit through electing officials to carry out their wishes. So for example if you want to be a welfare state and have no guns or even keep guns out of your State through interstate travel, then so be it, just don't ask other States to pay for your programs. Let each State decide for itself and time will pick the winners. How wonderful would it be to have a choice of 50 States to pick from depending on your preference? I would think it much better than a one size fits all approach taken by a Federal Government that has noway of knowing what is best for over 300 million individuals.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
No....I did not. And, sorry for being a snick but...sometimes the apostrophe is over-used...."it's" is the contraction of two words, "it" and "is".
The pronoun "its" needs no apostrophe. Common mistake.
NOW, with that behind me.....Texas (I'm rather familiar with much of its culture)....I have found, in my travels, that Austin is my favorite city in that State of our Union....San Antonio being my second fave.
I also am well aware of some of the fierce, fierce devotion by devotees of the State of Texas. I cheer all of them on, IN that devotion. I grew up in California, and lived through many disparaging remarks about my State (often, from residents of Texas) who referred to CA as "The Land of Fruits and Nuts".
So....am I biased? I try not to be....but, I am also worldly enough to know that one CANNOT judge based solely on some stupid common stereotype...although this does (unfortunately) tend to prevail, in Human society, all too often.
Cbrian
New Member
I am definitely biased, but that is healthy. You should love where you live. I was not making an argument for Texas being better, whether I believe it or not. I was simply trying to clear up any misconceived notions that we are all rednecks with armadillos for dogs. California was great, of course I was there as Military, so my experience would not be the same as a permanent resident ( I got to play with guns).
This is a perfect example of why the 10th Amendment is so important. People can pick a State based on what they perceive as politically correct, instead of forcing every State to fit in the same box.
California can melt down all the guns, and offer all the social programs it wants, and in Texas we can all shoot each other, but seriously you get my point. What do we have to loose?
Are you still saying his meaning of the New world order wasn't as we know it, That his intent was just a world of peace?
In the speech that you commented on, he states that the laws will govern nations. Not guidelines for nations. His work over seas wasn't and didnt stop socialism or change anything except to allow the few nations that aren't willing to give up their control. The middle east has been pushing the idea of going back to a gold standard in which, if you want oil, you'll pay in gold. Eventually they would be the main and or the sole owners of gold. No nation wants that, and the true powers in the world (Bankers) would lose power. We can see now what one Billionaire (Soros) has done to the United states by pushing money in front of the people who he wants to do his bidding. A large percentage of the protesters in the last 3 years were paid to protest. All of this was done in the idea of global peace???
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm saying that his meaning of "New World Order" was whatever the world was going to be like after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
What he personally wanted that world to be like is a topic open to speculation.
Rory
Senior Member.
According to this conspiracy theory website, there are five archived speeches where President Bush mentioned "new world order":
To summarise Bush's vision of the new world order:
- more peace
- more security
- more freedom
- the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations
- brutality goes unrewarded
- aggression meets collective resistance
- nations draw together in common cause
- nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice
- the strong respect the rights of the weak
- freer from the threat of terror
- stronger in the pursuit of justice
- all nations of the world can prosper and live in harmony
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
TFTRH #30 - Tom: 9/11 - Why We Believe and Change- Latest: Nada Truther
