A YES vote for Lisbon is a YES vote for ushering in the New World Order.

mysterious · 22-03-2009 3:44am

King Mob wrote: »

And how do you know that more treaties will take more control?

Or are you just assuming that it will?
Because if you've nothing to back that up it's a baseless accusation.
And if you use that accusation to try and change someone opinion through fear, that's called scaremongering.

Well you could say assuming, but I'm looking back over the years and looking at the direction where EU is heading. One can easily guess what.

A super Europe. With the idea of free movement, more EU countries with advanced english, greater EU power in courts, same currency, the nice treaty and now lisbon.

Everything leads onto the next. The logical view, would the next would be the case. The direction is still going towards greater EU power all the time.

The fact the they really want this passed, would also be clear in anyones mind the next step is already prepared.;)

mysterious · 22-03-2009 3:44am

King Mob wrote: »

The beginning of what exactly? How do you know what's to come?

One country.:(

K-9 · 22-03-2009 3:44am

mysterious wrote: »

Because with this treaty.

There are adamant they want it passed. To me in my opinion. This tells me that whatever happens after onced passed, is a continuation of the elite agenda to carry onto the next treaty or next goal.

The other reason why I specify this one is because
It's a revote

Another is because of the behaviour coming from the EU elite. I don't approve of it.

Another reason, because it's the beginning of what it is to come.

That isn't a specific answer mysterious,. They need legal power for all this. It has to be somewhere in a Treaty.

You read Lisbon, you must have a vague recollection of how they can do this

mysterious wrote:

Can you post me a link on this I do find this quite interesting to say the least

The majority don't have it. Sweden is a leading proponent against it. That leads me to believe that the EU is fighting fluoridisation.

King Mob · 22-03-2009 3:47am

mysterious wrote: »

Well you could say assuming, but I'm looking back over the years and looking at the direction where EU is heading. One can easily guess what.

A super Europe. With the idea of free movement, more EU countries with advanced english, greater EU power in courts, same currency, the nice treaty and now lisbon.

Everything leads onto the next. The logical view, would the next would be the case. The direction is still going towards greater EU power all the time.

The fact the they really want this passed, would also be clear in anyones mind the next step is already prepared.;)

So no, you can't back up your accusations with anything tangible, just your own guesses?

King Mob · 22-03-2009 3:48am

mysterious wrote: »

One country.:(

And how do you know?

K-9 · 22-03-2009 3:52am

I find it strange mysterious, that for somebody who has read the Treaty, you cannot provide references to articles in it.

mysterious · 22-03-2009 3:59am

K-9 wrote: »

That isn't a specific answer mysterious,. They need legal power for all this. It has to be somewhere in a Treaty.

You read Lisbon, you must have a vague recollection of how they can do this

No your not giving me a specific your changing the tune here.

Nowhere did I say that the Lisbon treaty will make a super Europe and of course it's not going to state on the paper ffs. i SAID that lisbon is like a seed. you don't see what it becomes until it grows.

Lisbon is not the actual creation of a super Europe nor does hold words in the documents to state so. But it's the first step to allow Europe to begin it's system. I'll try explain it in another term. Try bear with me.

Okay I will give you a word. POWER.

Lisbon treaty does not show power

But lisbon passed - P
Next treay - O
Next treaty - W
Next treaty - E
Next treaty -R

Yet the lisbon treaty is one part of the whole. There is no specific form of the elite wanting to control or create a superstate in print. But this format is the way they are going about it.

You wall don't believe that the end result or the word power wont come up, cus it has to show up in the first case scenerio, i.e Lisbon. Do you really think the elite would give it away like that. If they did this, we would destroy their chances immeadiately by sacking this treaty. But the elite are doing it the above way as I've shown.
Does ideology clearer to you. A step by step process to create the actual result. This way it's easier to get us to vote for each treaty as in a segment. This way it's seems like its pretty much what it says on the print. But each treaty has its merit for the next.

The majority don't have it. Sweden is a leading proponent against it. That leads me to believe that the EU is fighting fluoridisation.

Sweeden been against it doesn't mean all of Europe is against it. In the UK they are trying to make it a reality. Southampton got their water flouridated recently despite fierce opppostion by the people of Southampton.

mysterious · 22-03-2009 4:03am

King Mob wrote: »

And how do you know?

By been aware

Learning and seeing what happened in the past and what is going on now

This gives you a clear idea as to what might happen in the future. Taking into consideration that humanity has had this power struggle since we first became man.

Nimrod first king, first civilisation wanted a NWO and global empire, like all super powers. The idealogy of Europe is no different to what was, what's is now and what is there now

Maybe its just been in synch to the world

mysterious · 22-03-2009 4:04am

King Mob wrote: »

So no, you can't back up your accusations with anything tangible, just your own guesses?

Where's all of what I said were guesses, show me and I'll back them up:P;)

King Mob · 22-03-2009 4:09am

mysterious wrote: »

By been aware

Learning and seeing what happened in the past and what is going on now

This gives you a clear idea as to what might happen in the future. Taking into consideration that humanity has had this power struggle since we first became man.

Nimrod first king, first civilisation wanted a NWO and global empire, like all super powers. The idealogy of Europe is no different to what was, what's is now and what is there now

Maybe its just been in synch to the world

So no, you don't know.
You're just basing off your simplistic view of history and your own belief in a non existent new world order.
And the only thing you have to support these beliefs is "you're more in tune with nature."

Very convincing.

But tell me, and answer honestly and clearly, what do you call using an accusation that you can't back up for the purpose of changing someones opinion through fear?

King Mob · 22-03-2009 4:11am

mysterious wrote: »

Where's all of what I said were guesses, show me and I'll back them up:P;)

mysterious wrote: »

Everything leads onto the next. The logical view, would the next would be the case. The direction is still going towards greater EU power all the time.

The fact the they really want this passed, would also be clear in anyones mind the next step is already prepared.;)

By all means back this up.

Not some waffle on "history" or you being aware. Verifiable and reliable sources please.

mysterious · 22-03-2009 4:16am

King Mob wrote: »

By all means back this up.

Not some waffle on "history" or you being aware. Verifiable and reliable sources please.

I did in previous posts, on current events with Europe, the past of previous empires. I mean we could do a whole history lesson now here,

PM me, and I'll post ya loads of history stuff about the world:)

mysterious · 22-03-2009 4:18am

King Mob wrote: »

So no, you don't know.
You're just basing off your simplistic view of history and your own belief in a non existent new world order.
And the only thing you have to support these beliefs is "you're more in tune with nature."

Very convincing.

But tell me, and answer honestly and clearly, what do you call using an accusation that you can't back up for the purpose of changing someones opinion through fear?

Acussation? Tell me what was an accusation, since you do selectively read and distort my posts even after I've answered it.

I must be blessed by god, to have such paitence with you.:)
And to put a sock in that argument. You brought this accusation up twice, each time I explained my points.

ok?

King Mob · 22-03-2009 4:20am

mysterious wrote: »

I did in previous posts, on current events with Europe, the past of previous empires. I mean we could do a whole history lesson now here,

PM me, and I'll post ya loads of history stuff about the world:)

No it's relevent to the discussion.
What about previous empires is indicative to Europe's intentions and how does it prove that they seek the power you claim?

Also is this actual history or the history you think is being suppressed or is hidden or anything?

King Mob · 22-03-2009 4:21am

mysterious wrote: »

Acussation? Tell me what was an accusation, since you do selectively read and distort my posts even after I've answered it.

I must be blessed by god, to have such paitence with you.:)
And to put a sock in that argument. You brought this accusation up twice, each time I explained my points.

ok?

umm the accusation that Europe wants more power and to take away democracy?
You've been making it a lot.

mysterious · 22-03-2009 4:31am

King Mob wrote: »

umm the accusation that Europe wants more power and to take away democracy?
You've been making it a lot.

Well since you asked me twice and I already dealth with this topic.

This proves you didn't bother to read it.

If I was stupid enough I'd post it a third time. However I'm sticking to the topic. Until I see actual feedback and two way communication, I will intervene and help you out. Not until then.:)

I'm not here to repeat to you in mulitple times when you dont actually read what was said.

King Mob · 22-03-2009 4:49am

mysterious wrote: »

Well since you asked me twice and I already dealth with this topic.

This proves you didn't bother to read it.

If I was stupid enough I'd post it a third time. However I'm sticking to the topic. Until I see actual feedback and two way communication, I will intervene and help you out. Not until then.:)

I'm not here to repeat to you in mulitple times when you dont actually read what was said.

You've offered absolutely nothing to support this accusation (or anything else.)

And 36 pages in and we've still to hear a valid reason based on reality and facts not to vote for Lisbon.

mysterious · 22-03-2009 4:54am

King Mob wrote: »

You've offered absolutely nothing to support this accusation (or anything else.)

And 36 pages in and we've still to hear a valid reason based on reality and facts not to vote for Lisbon.

if you were given 39 more pages, you'd be asking but I need more proof. I know the type you are in this case. You've made up your mind. So kudoos to your stance:D I don't think 40 pages is going to change your mindset. Youve already dismissed past events into any present case as a scenerio. So I doubt you will actually listen to anything else. The proof your looking for is, something retarded and not going to come to a reality. Your looking for sarcosy to just spit out the agenda. You want someone to scream it out this is it, this is it like Brian Cowen is going to give you the news.

I mean it's obvious you go on deaf ears to alot of whats dicucssed, Cus everytime I clarify a topic or bring a point, you immeadiately don't see it. and forget that I even brought your point on board. So you go and post same question again. God your gas.

Shall I back this up,
You repeat the same question, even when you dismiss what I previously said. I'd say you didn't even look at it.

No I'm not a fan of been an eejit. So Kingmob. I shown you the path, believe what you want.

I will have the last laugh when the times comes;)

King Mob · 22-03-2009 4:59am

mysterious wrote: »

if you were give 39 pages, you'd be asking but I need more proof. I know the type you are. You've made up your mind. So kudoos to your stance:D

I mean it's obvious you go on deaf ears to alot of whats dicucssed, Cus everytime I clarify a topic or bring a point, you immeadiately don't see it.

Shall I back this up,
You repeat the same question, even when you dismiss what I previously said. I'd say you didn't even look at it.

No I'm not a fan of been an eejit. So Kingmob. I shown you the path, believe what you want.

I will have the last laugh when the times comes;)

you haven't clarified any points. You just made vague statement of what you believe is fact.

But seeing as you are the only one who knows the truth.
Why should I not vote yes?
Can you supply one solid reason?
Or are you going to the stick to "Europe might go mad with power?"

mysterious · 22-03-2009 4:59am

King Mob wrote: »

You've offered absolutely nothing to support this accusation (or anything else.)

Of course when you don't read it. I would agree with you, if I didn't read the post.

mysterious · 22-03-2009 5:00am

King Mob wrote: »

you haven't clarified any points. You just made vague statement of what you believe is fact.

But seeing as you are the only one who knows the truth.
Why should I not vote yes?
Can you supply one solid reason?
Or are you going to the stick to "Europe might go mad with power?"

did I state go mad anywhere?

I think I'm going to be the better person here and ignore this immaturity.

King Mob · 22-03-2009 5:04am

This is getting ridiculous.

Would you just answer my question?

Why should I vote no to lisbon?

mysterious · 22-03-2009 5:10am

King Mob wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous.

Would you just answer my question?

Why should I vote no to lisbon?

I shouldn't be the one te tell you to vote no. It is your decision. I'v made my points clear on this thread. I'm not here to tell anyone to vote no or yes because.

That is clasisic sheeple mock.
Why don't you answer your own question.

King Mob · 22-03-2009 5:13am

mysterious wrote: »

I shouldn't be the one te tell you to vote no. It is your decision. I'v made my points clear on this thread. I'm not here to tell anyone to vote no or yes because.

That is clasisic sheeple mock.
Why don't you answer your own question.

I'm not asking you to tell me to vote no. I'm asking why you think people should vote no.
Why is it so hard to get a straight answer?

mysterious · 22-03-2009 5:18am

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not asking you to tell to vote no. I'm asking why you think people should vote no.
Why is it so hard to get a straight answer?

I'm not here to answer this either. My third time, telling you that I've explained my points and my position on what may happen once lisbon is passed. You obviously didn't read my posts, you make it clear by repetitive questioning.

On three pages so far, you haven't adressed any of my questions. So practise what ypu preach sir.

Diogenes · 22-03-2009 5:24am

mysterious wrote: »

Yes, I did, your point IS, other than your intial argument was about my ego and that jazz. Funny how you deflect this

I'm thinking, Im counting, I'm singing and I'm not going to judge your actions. I'll let the readers decided that...........

Yeah you said one side was using fear to persuade voters, I gave you several examples of the No side using fear. You've done loads of singing and dancing about how it's different, but its loads of sound and fury. You've not explained how, other than when your side does its okay, when the other side does it, its bad.

And if you can provide me with one exampleof the yes campaign saying that rejecting Lisbon could lead to mushroom clouds or any other such hyperbola I'd love to see it.

But a superstate is associated with that.

IN. YOUR. MIND.

Jesus.

The idea of voting for lisbon, is the begiining of this.
You could associate these pictures with USA already. US of E in the coming generation.

But and I feel I am running around in circles the Lisbon treaty enshrines states individual rights in several areas.

Pathetic scarmongering won't change that fact.

Lisbon is the begining of these steps

PST Lisbon isn't the first EU treaty!!!!!

I can see the logic behind these pictures.

When you say logic, you mean "pathetic scarmongering" right?

These are examples of fear that is associated with a superstate.

Baseless fears not supported by anything in the treaty, it's whipping up public hysteria without a shred of proof to support their claims.

Wow is that your 4-D truth?

Mushrooms clouds, wars, lack of privacy and all these injections and what not are real problems in todays world. That are happening, and with a super elite run super state Europe you can bet, this continent will be pairing with China and USA for the global slice of the pie.

Again, no facts to support this?

This behaviour is inappropriate. Diogenes I hope a mod comes soon

Ah so it's not the use of smilies, it's the number of smilies, tell me how many smilies is too inappropriate? :cool::cool::cool::cool::p:p:p:p:D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Perfect example of getting bogged down on a small detail. You see I've explained this argument, in the previous two post.

Because you haven't in the slightest.

A super Europe with a millitary. It will use it's power to reassure it's hegomy on the planet just like China and USA.

Mushroom clouds is what power and destruction represent.

You mean a single EU military which the Lisbon treaty gives us an opt out clause from! :eek:

Yes, once this treaty is passed. Specifically this treaty. The next few treaties will further take our power and our world wil become completely controlled via these amendments, because we've signed them.

Any evidence to support this assertion?

www.abovetopsecret.com even has a dedicated thread to Obamas adminsitration hopes to dismantle it. It has been around quite a while just incase you haven't been paying attention.

Waving me in the direction of a web forum.

Here is just a quick google
http://conservativeally.today.com/2008/09/19/obama-wants-to-censor-freedom-of-speech

It's a really stupid google.

This is from the campaign. A Conservative talk show host asked for someone from the Obama campaign to come debate the Bill Ayers terrorist "issue". This was a non story, Ayers was a man who renounced terrorism decades previously and had a passing relationship nearly 30 years after his brief time on the weathermen. Rather than give this conservative nonsense the oxygen they craved they ignored it. The station (and lets be honest isn't exactly biased) claimed it received letters from Obama supporters asking them not to air the piece).

A) Was this an attempt to use the power of the president to subvert 1st amendment rights? No. Obama wasn't president.

Was this an example of Partisan politics during a very nasty political campaign? Yes.

C) Can this be used as proof that the Obama administration is suppressing the first amendment? No.

Incase your eye missed that:P
You should read this might be interesting
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-sheeple-cheer-police-violation-of-free-speech.html.

Attempting to disrupt a public meeting. Reminds me of that don't taz me bro idiot.

Okay I will give you a word. POWER.

Lisbon treaty does not show power

* But lisbon passed - P
* Next treay - O
* Next treaty - W
* Next treaty - E
* Next treaty -R

This is just batguano

1. P isn't the first letter of the alphabet. You've picked it out of thin air.

2. There were five other EU treaties before Lisbon.

3. There were 8 ECB and EEC treaties before that.

You're basically saying if we pick the 13th treaty assign it the assign it the what 18th letter of the alpahabet and imagine there will be five more treaties it spells DUM DUM DUM! "POWER".

Mysterious, you're making astrology and numerology look like freaking science here.

King Mob · 22-03-2009 5:28am

mysterious wrote: »

I'm not here to answer this either. My third time, telling you that I've explained my points and my position on what may happen once lisbon is passed. You obviously didn't read my posts, you make it clear by repetitive questioning.

That's it precisely. What may happen. The things you suggested are very exaggerated worst case scenarios if the EU was run by Doctor Doom. So far you've offered nothing to support your idea of what may happen.

Furthermore stating your idea of what might happen should Lisbon be pass with the intent of using the fear of the situation to change peoples opinion is scaremongering.

mysterious wrote: »

On three pages so far, you haven't adressed any of my questions. So practise what ypu preach sir.

And what questions where these exactly?

K-9 · 22-03-2009 11:44am

mysterious wrote: »

No your not giving me a specific your changing the tune here.

Nowhere did I say that the Lisbon treaty will make a super Europe and of course it's not going to state on the paper ffs. i SAID that lisbon is like a seed. you don't see what it becomes until it grows.

Lisbon is not the actual creation of a super Europe nor does hold words in the documents to state so. But it's the first step to allow Europe to begin it's system. I'll try explain it in another term. Try bear with me.

Okay I will give you a word. POWER.

Lisbon treaty does not show power
But lisbon passed - P

Next treay - O

Next treaty - W

Next treaty - E

Next treaty -R

Yet the lisbon treaty is one part of the whole. There is no specific form of the elite wanting to control or create a superstate in print. But this format is the way they are going about it.

You wall don't believe that the end result or the word power wont come up, cus it has to show up in the first case scenerio, i.e Lisbon. Do you really think the elite would give it away like that. If they did this, we would destroy their chances immeadiately by sacking this treaty. But the elite are doing it the above way as I've shown.
Does ideology clearer to you. A step by step process to create the actual result. This way it's easier to get us to vote for each treaty as in a segment. This way it's seems like its pretty much what it says on the print. But each treaty has its merit for the next.

If we don't vote no to this one, we can with the next one, or the next, or the next one..............

mysterious wrote:

Sweeden been against it doesn't mean all of Europe is against it. In the UK they are trying to make it a reality. Southampton got their water flouridated recently despite fierce opppostion by the people of Southampton.

But, but, if the UK is for it, it doesn't mean the EU is.

Classic EU nitpicking.

You specifically mentioned fluoridisation and the EU. When it's pointed out Sweden and indeed other countries have withdrawn, you pick a case in Southampton.

Open your eyes Mysterious or you'll get brainwashed. The EU does not want to fluoridise our water. FACT.

mysterious · 22-03-2009 4:45pm

King Mob wrote: »

That's it precisely. What may happen. The things you suggested are very exaggerated worst case scenarios if the EU was run by Doctor Doom. So far you've offered nothing to support your idea of what may happen.

No they were not exaggerated and no, I never usesd words such as mad, crazy, armaggeddan, end of the world.

As you keep putting into my mouth to make is appear my reasonings were exaggerated.I made points on other superpowers and what has happened throughout history. Are these facts exaggerated. So no they are not. My paitence is running very thin with your constant crap of nit picking, twisting and disorting my words. This selective reading is really apathetic.

I emphasised the point, of what has happened with power and history most importantly. I stated this is the general direction of where Europe is heading like any superpower. As the last 10 years will show the same idealogy of Europe becoming closer and closer, by each passing of treaties and amendment to a Superstate. Europe is closer now than 10 years ago, and you could say the same once Lisbon and the next few treaties in 10 years time.

So Knock it off will you. You still have to show me where I have been scaremongering. I also told you to vote yes if you want.

Furthermore stating your idea of what might happen should Lisbon be pass with the intent of using the fear of the situation to change peoples opinion is scaremongering.

And what questions where these exactly?

Why don't you go back and read my post properly and maybe you will learn to be more constructive in communicating back to me.

mysterious · 22-03-2009 4:57pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Yeah you said one side was using fear to persuade voters, I gave you several examples of the No side using fear. You've done loads of singing and dancing about how it's different, but its loads of sound and fury. You've not explained how, other than when your side does its okay, when the other side does it, its bad.

I've explained my points.

You should practise what you preach and go read my answer to Kingmob on it. I won't discuss and waste time to this.

And if you can provide me with one exampleof the yes campaign saying that rejecting Lisbon could lead to mushroom clouds or any other such hyperbola I'd love to see it.

I have. You didn't read them. I gave to long posts in that question.

Pathetic scarmongering won't change that fact.

You need to be more specific as to what's scaremongering?
When we are talking about a super power here.

PST Lisbon isn't the first EU treaty!!!!!

Never state it was, but I did say it's the beginning of whats to come once passed.

When you say logic, you mean "pathetic scarmongering" right?

Diogenes what age are you? Do you realise I'm only replying back, because I'm a nice guy and after this I doubt I will put with this behaviour.

Baseless fears not supported by anything in the treaty, it's whipping up public hysteria without a shred of proof to support their claims.

The pictures associated can be used with the Bush Administration. The idea of microchips,war and a controlled society has already started. A stronger superstate Europe is the step towards these measures.

There are far from baseless.

Wow is that your 4-D truth?

:rolleyes:

Ah so it's not the use of smilies, it's the number of smilies, tell me how many smilies is too inappropriate? :cool::cool::cool::cool::p:p:p:p:D:D:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Your on ignore. I don't like to dicuss like children on this board.

It's a really stupid google.

So can I ask you this. When you gained evidence from google to your argument is it then deemed not stupid and superior.

This is from the campaign. A Conservative talk show host asked for someone from the Obama campaign to come debate the Bill Ayers terrorist "issue". This was a non story, Ayers was a man who renounced terrorism decades previously and had a passing relationship nearly 30 years after his brief time on the weathermen. Rather than give this conservative nonsense the oxygen they craved they ignored it. The station (and lets be honest isn't exactly biased) claimed it received letters from Obama supporters asking them not to air the piece).

Stop beating around the Bush.

A) Was this an attempt to use the power of the president to subvert 1st amendment rights? No. Obama wasn't president.

Was this an example of Partisan politics during a very nasty political campaign? Yes.

C) Can this be used as proof that the Obama administration is suppressing the first amendment? No.

It can and it's already starting. We are becoming this society of tip toeing around each other, whish whish, I better not say this i might get in trouble, I better not speak out the truth I will get penalised, I better not dissagree with the government I will get guatanomo torture.

Attempting to disrupt a public meeting. Reminds me of that don't taz me bro idiot.

But is listening to lies and bull**** from our leaders just as right?

1. P isn't the first letter of the alphabet. You've picked it out of thin air.

2. There were five other EU treaties before Lisbon.

3. There were 8 ECB and EEC treaties before that.

You're basically saying if we pick the 13th treaty assign it the assign it the what 18th letter of the alpahabet and imagine there will be five more treaties it spells DUM DUM DUM! "POWER".

Mysterious, you're making astrology and numerology look like freaking science here.

No Diogenes your proving you can't understand my point. I think K-9 understands what I mean by this example.

Power was just a word, I could use any word. The word was example that is not said, but each treaty eventually after all the treaties, the word and the agenda is made clear. The elite are not going to be able to pass such agendas or power in this way momentarily or by force. They need to plan it out over many years.

You obviously miss the point, and went on to embarrass yourself quite frankly.

A YES vote for Lisbon is a YES vote for ushering in the New World Order.

Comments