Are UN troops preparing to act on US soil? - Page 11

View Poll Results: do you think the UN will be on us soil in...?

Voters
132. You may not vote on this poll
  • less than a year

    11 8.33%
  • 1-2 years

    19 14.39%
  • before 2012

    37 28.03%
  • never

    65 49.24%
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 123

Thread: Are UN troops preparing to act on US soil?

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    I'm looking to get people to take a look at themselves when I see some of the ridiculously slanted, irrational drivel posted here.

  2.   
  3. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation Please explain

    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    I'm looking to get people to take a look at themselves when I see some of the ridiculously slanted, irrational drivel posted here.
    You started to make a good point! please explain your position and back it up with some sort of facts/news stories.

    I'd really like to hear a rational argument for your position. I know that other people in the world must think the same as you. Sooooooooo......let's hear it.

    Why do you think that thinking this way is delusional?

    Why do you think it is all about Conspiracy Theory?

    Why do you see it as slanted?

    Why is it drivel?

    Please come forth and support your position in a calm rational manner.
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  4. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    You started to make a good point! ~
    Please come forth and support your position in a calm rational manner .
    +1 Festus
    Semper Fi

  5. #104
    FYI, you guys, this same scenario was played out by me some time ago with C & L. He jumped in the discussion, pissed a bunch of people off, including me. I then tried to "bring him around" with rational discussion. Didn't work.

    I seriously believe he gets his jollies by antagonizing people on the forum. Just me, of course, you're obviously free to do with your time what you will. Maybe you'll have better luck than I did (but I doubt it). IMHO, when he called Christians "cannibals", that was way over the top for me (and some others). I'm done with the guy.

  6. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    I'll answer your questions to the best of my ability one at a time festus, but 1st a preface on the subject of human nature: People with preconceived notions about a particular subject will often see what they want to see or hear what they want to hear in any bit of information related to the topic in order the satisfy their basic need to be right and secure in their own thinking. Nothing wrong with that as long as objectivity does not become subservient to the preconcieved notion. Once that happens, all information regardless of whether or not it supports the notion becomes filterd by the brain's hearing (as opposed to the listening) filter, and diffused through the illusion (vs. reality) filter. In most cases, no amount of truth or reality will change a person's mind once the filters are set. Mental illness follows in the extreme.
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    Why do you think that thinking this way is delusional?
    The way the U.N. works makes this proposition utterly incomprehensible to a rational person. It takes months, sometime years to get a resolution authorizing any type of action against a sovereign through the U.N. Even things as simple as censure and economic sanctions when a consensus of nations agrees is often times difficult. Military actions are the hardest, and historically marked by ineffectiveness when they are put into play. The reasons go on and on. If you believe a bunch of politicans, bureaucrats and diplomats could get together and agree on something like this you must be simply delusional. My considered opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    Why do you think it is all about Conspiracy Theory?
    In this particular case, that is not exactly what I am saying. I'm not saying there "is" a conspiracy to U.N. invasion. But this particular example smacks of the type information seen in your typical conspiracy theory, and the methods conspiracy theorists use to ply their trade. It starts with a preconceived notion people might be interested in for emotional reasons and goes on to illustrate all the reasons why it sounds good to the believers. No facts, all circumstance. It is simply illogical and preposterous on the face of it to the rational person. The real question is what is the ulterior motive of people who would have you believe nonsense like this? The conspiracy is a sideshow. What they really want is your hearts and minds for some political objective, in most cases.
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    Why do you see it as slanted?
    An argument has two sides, possibly three or more. The argument is "we need another reason to be afraid our rights (2a) are being infringed." What better way to incite the rallying cry than international intrique? Does anybody on this forum NOT believe our rights are slowy being winnowed away? Who are we arguing with? Clearly there is only one side to this presentation, and it is not to support 2a. It is to incite FUD: Fear, uncertainty and doubt in an already vulnerable minority of society.
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    Why is it drivel?
    Anyone who presumes to even suggest the U.N. owns and operates self-propelled rocket lauchers is a complete idiot. Idiots drivel.

  7. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation Thank you!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    I'll answer your questions to the best of my ability one at a time festus, but 1st a preface on the subject of human nature: People with preconceived notions about a particular subject will often see what they want to see or hear what they want to hear in any bit of information related to the topic in order the satisfy their basic need to be right and secure in their own thinking. Nothing wrong with that as long as objectivity does not become subservient to the preconcieved notion. Once that happens, all information regardless of whether or not it supports the notion becomes filterd by the brain's hearing (as opposed to the listening) filter, and diffused through the illusion (vs. reality) filter. In most cases, no amount of truth or reality will change a person's mind once the filters are set. Mental illness follows in the extreme.

    The way the U.N. works makes this proposition utterly incomprehensible to a rational person. It takes months, sometime years to get a resolution authorizing any type of action against a sovereign through the U.N. Even things as simple as censure and economic sanctions when a consensus of nations agrees is often times difficult. Military actions are the hardest, and historically marked by ineffectiveness when they are put into play. The reasons go on and on. If you believe a bunch of politicans, bureaucrats and diplomats could get together and agree on something like this you must be simply delusional. My considered opinion.

    In this particular case, that is not exactly what I am saying. I'm not saying there "is" a conspiracy to U.N. invasion. But this particular example smacks of the type information seen in your typical conspiracy theory, and the methods conspiracy theorists use to ply their trade. It starts with a preconceived notion people might be interested in for emotional reasons and goes on to illustrate all the reasons why it sounds good to the believers. No facts, all circumstance. It is simply illogical and preposterous on the face of it to the rational person. The real question is what is the ulterior motive of people who would have you believe nonsense like this? The conspiracy is a sideshow. What they really want is your hearts and minds for some political objective, in most cases.

    An argument has two sides, possibly three or more. The argument is "we need another reason to be afraid our rights (2a) are being infringed." What better way to incite the rallying cry than international intrique? Does anybody on this forum NOT believe our rights are slowy being winnowed away? Who are we arguing with? Clearly there is only one side to this presentation, and it is not to support 2a. It is to incite FUD: Fear, uncertainty and doubt in an already vulnerable minority of society.

    Anyone who presumes to even suggest the U.N. owns and operates self-propelled rocket lauchers is a complete idiot. Idiots drivel.
    That was refreshing!
    We all know the UN does not have it's own assets. But they do have the ability to coerce other nations into doing their will. The UN has had an ax to grind against American Gun owners for quite some time...reference Rebecca Peters.

    John Bolton told the General Assembly off about Americans and guns a long time ago. Hillary and Bill tried to enact the assault weapon ban based on bad science and other flawed data by Rebecca Peters and her UN cronies.

    The UN is all about global disarmament. They don't want anyone but Governments to have guns. They do not want us to have private weapons ownership.

    The USA has been a thorn in their side about policy and now it coming to be payback time. The very people who have hated the USA the most are the ones that are jealous of our success as a nation. These are the same 3rd world countries that want the wealth without doing the work. In my opinion many of these despot nations and their tyrant leaders have had their collective hands out for so long with US foreign aid that they see it as an entitlement...not a gift. these are the ones North Korea, China, Cuba, Sudan, etc. that want to see us fall hard. They will be the first in line to render aid and walk on US soil to Oppress our people. It is not a question of IF the UN ever comes but rather when. Again In my opinion we as a nation have screwed the pooch in our dealings in global affairs. We have always been the policeman to the world. Some of the thugs we have slapped down want payback. The world court is the place to get it.
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  8. #107
    Let's organize a blue helmet shoot.

  9. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX View Post
    Let's organize a blue helmet shoot.
    Coming to a city near you. Perhaps not today or tomorrow or maybe even this year but it is coming.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  10. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX View Post
    Let's organize a blue helmet shoot.
    I'm in. We have a "continental" pheasant shoot at the hunt club here where we use up the extra birds around the middle of winter. The birds are launched from the middle of a small woodlot which is surrounded by shooters and dogs. The birds are shot as they bust over the tree tops.

    We could do the same thing with "blue helmets' (and liberals): herd 'em up in the woodlot and then smack 'em on the ass to get 'em to run out across the field, then...it's Happy Days are Here Again!

    Chili supper to follow.

  11. #110

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast