Comments Thread For: Arum Trashes Donald Trump, Compares Run To Hitler's Rise

[aboutfkntime]

Blatant treason by whom? Rockefeller? How is *****, in 2008, responsible for comments made by Rockefeller 17 years earlier? Neither the Constitution, which you claim to value, nor common sense would permit a criminal conviction against one individual for the statements of another individual 17 years earlier.

On a related point, you seem to have a problem with chronology. You blame ***** for destroying the Constitution and you point to the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act? When were those acts passed?

So, to recap, you have pointed to three different sources of law as evidence of *****'s criminality:

1. The Logan Act (one criminal prosecution since 1799);
2. The Patriot Act (passed in the first year of W's first term);
3. The Homeland Security Act (passed in the second year of W's first term).

What else would you like to pin on *****? Was that him on the grassy knoll?

I'm not sure if you do understand what The Logan Act is, or the Bilderburg Convention for that matter.....

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids ANY unauthorized citizen from meeting with a foreign dignitary without express approval from congress.

The reason why, is obviously to stop political corruption and treason.

Not only did ***** do just that, the meeting that he attended has 1 main purpose..... to DESTROY the sovereignty of the United States of America


Read carefully.....

" our meetings.....for almost forty years......for us to develop our plan for the world..... the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.

The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries. "

What part of treason don't you get ?

Simple Definition of treason : the crime of trying to overthrow your country's government or of helping your country's enemies during war

[bigjer88]

I'm not sure if you do understand what The Logan Act is, or the Bilderburg Convention for that matter.....




The reason why, is obviously to stop political corruption and treason.

Not only did ***** do just that, the meeting that he attended has 1 main purpose..... to DESTROY the sovereignty of the United States of America


Read carefully.....





What part of treason don't you get ?

I've already addressed those points. I see reasoning with you makes about as much sense as talking to a wall. I've answered why Rockefeller's statements don't count as *****'s treason under the Logan Act.

1. The Logan Act is a relic from a bygone era that has never been used to successfully prosecute anyone in 217 years. It is wholly irrelevant. No prosecutor or DA or AG in his/her right mind would try to prosecute anyone under the Logan Act because it is likely unconstitutional.

2. Even if the Rockefeller quotation were authentic (and surely you know there are doubts about it -- it tends to appear only in far-right propaganda), you would not be able to charge ***** based on Rockefeller's statements. Just because someone gives a speech (no matter how inflammatory) at a convention you attend (and ***** wasn't even at the 1991 convention) does not make you responsible for the content of that speech. Why is that hard for you to understand?


So, a few simple questions for you. If you refuse to answer then there is simply no point in continuing a conversation.

1. Why is ***** responsible for Rockefeller's comments? If Trump makes irresponsible comments at a convention of international businessmen, are those businessmen criminally liable for Trump's comments?
2. Why did you blame ***** (rather than W) for the Patriot Act?
3. Why did you blame ***** (rather than W) for the Homeland Security Act?

I assure you - I understand the Logan Act (and its insignificance over the past 217 years) a lot better than you do. I didn't learn about it through the internet. I learned about it in law school and through my own legal research. I didn't rely on a far-right (or far-left) "news" source for my information.

I've enjoyed many of your comments about boxing. I know it's hard to accept, but ***** is not the root of all evil, and the right's vilification of him has destroyed political discourse in America.

[aboutfkntime]

I've already addressed those points. I see reasoning with you makes about as much sense as talking to a wall. I've answered why Rockefeller's statements don't count as *****'s treason under the Logan Act.

1. The Logan Act is a relic from a bygone era that has never been used to successfully prosecute anyone in 217 years. It is wholly irrelevant. No prosecutor or DA or AG in his/her right mind would try to prosecute anyone under the Logan Act because it is likely unconstitutional.

2. Even if the Rockefeller quotation were authentic (and surely you know there are doubts about it -- it tends to appear only in far-right propaganda), you would not be able to charge ***** based on Rockefeller's statements. Just because someone gives a speech (no matter how inflammatory) at a convention you attend (and ***** wasn't even at the 1991 convention) does not make you responsible for the content of that speech. Why is that hard for you to understand?


So, a few simple questions for you. If you refuse to answer then there is simply no point in continuing a conversation.

1. Why is ***** responsible for Rockefeller's comments? If Trump makes irresponsible comments at a convention of international businessmen, are those businessmen criminally liable for Trump's comments?
2. Why did you blame ***** (rather than W) for the Patriot Act?
3. Why did you blame ***** (rather than W) for the Homeland Security Act?

I assure you - I understand the Logan Act (and its insignificance over the past 217 years) a lot better than you do. I didn't learn about it through the internet. I learned about it in law school and through my own legal research. I didn't rely on a far-right (or far-left) "news" source for my information.

I've enjoyed many of your comments about boxing. I know it's hard to accept, but ***** is not the root of all evil, and the right's vilification of him has destroyed political discourse in America.

Of course not, he is just a globalist puppet, the latest in a long CONSECUTIVE line dating back to Reagan.

You allow lobbyists and campaign "contributors" to bribe officials LEGALLY, and the bankers/corporations/globalists have taken full advantage of that..... seriously, how could it not go wrong?

Bilderburg is OBVIOUSLY a globalist think-tank, even they admit that..... and ***** has attended/supported at least 2 of those meetings.

That very short sentence above in bold, should be enough information to raise a warning flag..... if you really were subjective/interested.

I will answer your questions out of politeness, but not sure if you are trolling me or not so I will keep it short.....

1) ***** is a globalist puppet who has lined his cabinet with Wall Street Bankers..... I do not hold him responsible for making those comments, I hold him responsible for supporting those comments by unlawfully attending The Bilderburg Convention on at least 2 occasions. He is obviously a globalist puppet man, OBVIOUSLY. I quoted Rockefeller to PROVE the Bilderburg agenda, an agenda that is fully supported by the globalist "president" *****.

2) / 3) ***** is a globalist puppet, the same as Bush, there is no difference whatsoever..... ALL primary US policies remained the same.

OK, so..... I call plotting your nations downfall treason, and you do not

Let's just leave it there LMAO

BTW, a short while back, George Bush did the exact same thing with The North American Union..... you may have noticed, but I suspect not.

Your constitution used to be the size of a wall-poster, now it's the size of postage stamp..... and the 2nd ********* is next to go.

Your country is being dissected, and you haven't even noticed.

[bigjer88]

Of course not, he is just a globalist puppet, the latest in a long CONSECUTIVE line dating back to Reagan.

You allow lobbyists and campaign "contributors" to bribe officials LEGALLY, and the bankers/corporations/globalists have taken full advantage of that..... seriously, how could it not go wrong?

Bilderburg is OBVIOUSLY a globalist think-tank, even they admit that..... and ***** has attended/supported at least 2 of those meetings.

That very short sentence above in bold, should be enough information to raise a warning flag..... if you really were subjective/interested.

I will answer your questions out of politeness, but not sure if you are trolling me or not so I will keep it short.....

1) ***** is a globalist puppet who has lined his cabinet with Wall Street Bankers..... I do not hold him responsible for making those comments, I hold him responsible for supporting those comments by unlawfully attending The Bilderburg Convention on at least 2 occasions. He is obviously a globalist puppet man, OBVIOUSLY. I quoted Rockefeller to PROVE the Bilderburg agenda, an agenda that is fully supported by the globalist "president" *****.

2) / 3) ***** is a globalist puppet, the same as Bush, there is no difference whatsoever..... ALL primary US policies remained the same.

OK, so..... I call plotting your nations downfall treason, and you do not

Let's just leave it there LMAO

BTW, a short while back, George Bush did the exact same thing with The North American Union..... you may have noticed, but I suspect not.

Your constitution used to be the size of a wall-poster, now it's the size of postage stamp..... and the 2nd ********* is next to go.

Your country is being dissected, and you haven't even noticed.

We have very strong differences of opinion and they are not going to be reconciled here. I think what it comes down to is that you view "globalism" - a term I never use - as treason. Right? I think the term "globalism" is a dramatic oversimplification, which is why I don't use it. International relations is, at the very least, a struggle between sovereignty and recognition of the need for cooperation, whether to counter common threats or otherwise. International relations is not binary - all or nothing, patriot or traitor.

I'm not going to insult you. If we met face to face, I imagine I would be calm and would attempt to convey my thoughts on what I view as your fallacies, while you yelled at me. That's fine.

Either the Constitution will outlive us both, or it will not. Either way, we deserve it.

[Larry the boss]

why is this boxing news?

[aboutfkntime]

We have very strong differences of opinion and they are not going to be reconciled here. I think what it comes down to is that you view "globalism" - a term I never use - as treason. Right? I think the term "globalism" is a dramatic oversimplification, which is why I don't use it. International relations is, at the very least, a struggle between sovereignty and recognition of the need for cooperation, whether to counter common threats or otherwise. International relations is not binary - all or nothing, patriot or traitor.

I'm not going to insult you. If we met face to face, I imagine I would be calm and would attempt to convey my thoughts on what I view as your fallacies, while you yelled at me. That's fine.

Either the Constitution will outlive us both, or it will not. Either way, we deserve it.

The globalists are planning, and installing, a One World Government.

Look.....

" our meetings.....for almost forty years......for us to develop our plan for the world..... the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.

The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries. "

Want more proof, just to ensure nobody jumped to any conclusions..... ?

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will.....

..... If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

They are planning to END the sovereignty of the United States of America..... you can call that whatever you like my friend, but treason fits the bill perfectly.


Want more proof..... ?

[bigjer88]

The globalists are planning, and installing, a One World Government.

Look.....




Want more proof, just to ensure nobody jumped to any conclusions..... ?





They are planning to END the sovereignty of the United States of America..... you can call that whatever you like my friend, but treason fits the bill perfectly.


Want more proof..... ?

A common technique of conspiracy theorists is to link together disparate (and often disputed) facts, assign a single, nefarious motive to those facts, then identify an amorphous "them" as the masterminds behind the entire scenario.

I don't doubt that there is an elite "banker-type" class that would like to take over the world. I do have questions about the authenticity of the Rockefeller quotation. I would be grateful if you could point to a credible source for it.

As for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and *****, sure: if you have a rigid view of what "sovereignty"means, certain of their policies compromised national sovereignty. Just about any international agreement does that. Yet -- and this is one of many spots where I differ with conspiracy theorists -- I do not think there is credible evidence to support the position that the MOTIVE or PURPOSE behind any such policy decision or agreement was to destroy U.S. sovereignty, which is why those policy decisions do not rise to the level of treason.

As for the North American Union -- that was a poorly conceived concept under Bush II (I think) that never got off the ground. There's a difference between a bad policy decision and treason. As I've previously suggested, it is the failure to recognize that distinction which has caused political discourse in this country to deterioriate. Just because you strongly disagree with someone else's decisions does not make that person a traitor.

[aboutfkntime]

A common technique of conspiracy theorists is to link together disparate (and often disputed) facts, assign a single, nefarious motive to those facts, then identify an amorphous "them" as the masterminds behind the entire scenario.

I don't doubt that there is an elite "banker-type" class that would like to take over the world. I do have questions about the authenticity of the Rockefeller quotation. I would be grateful if you could point to a credible source for it.

As for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and *****, sure: if you have a rigid view of what "sovereignty"means, certain of their policies compromised national sovereignty. Just about any international agreement does that. Yet -- and this is one of many spots where I differ with conspiracy theorists -- I do not think there is credible evidence to support the position that the MOTIVE or PURPOSE behind any such policy decision or agreement was to destroy U.S. sovereignty, which is why those policy decisions do not rise to the level of treason.

As for the North American Union -- that was a poorly conceived concept under Bush II (I think) that never got off the ground. There's a difference between a bad policy decision and treason. As I've previously suggested, it is the failure to recognize that distinction which has caused political discourse in this country to deterioriate. Just because you strongly disagree with someone else's decisions does not make that person a traitor.

The North American Union is valid, and supported by US congress TODAY!

Let's leave it there man, I have no interest in debating this with you.


I am now absolutely positive that my earlier statement will be proven 100% correct..... the globalists will have their World Government, I am sure of it.


Let the record show, I proved 3 examples of black n white proof..... and the quotes are from Rockefeller's memoirs, go look them up.

You (incorrectly) stated the The North American Union is defunct..... and yet, it did not occur to you to ask how, or more importantly why something like that could possibly happen?

That is exactly what they did to the countries in Europe with the EU.


Let's agree to disagree and leave it there.

[bigjer88]

The North American Union is valid, and supported by US congress TODAY!

Let's leave it there man, I have no interest in debating this with you.


I am now absolutely positive that my earlier statement will be proven 100% correct..... the globalists will have their World Government, I am sure of it.


Let the record show, I proved 3 examples of black n white proof..... and the quotes are from Rockefeller's memoirs, go look them up.

You (incorrectly) stated the The North American Union is defunct..... and yet, it did not occur to you to ask how, or more importantly why something like that could possibly happen?

That is exactly what they did to the countries in Europe with the EU.


Let's agree to disagree and leave it there.

You're right. When you can't agree on basic, unequivocal facts, there is no point in discussion. Good luck.

[jqSide]

Donald Trump would be the next US president, whether Arum likes it or not. We don't win anymore doe.