He is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, just like Jimmy Carter, George Bush, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, **** Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kissinger, Warburgs, Rockefellers, Dulles and Alan Greenspan

 

Your president has already been chosen. Put on your tinfoil-hats people, because you are all doomed. The New world order is nigh!

This makes no sense.

It also had political hacks like John Foster Dulles and Henry Stimson and although they were appointed to high positions, they could not have been elected dog catcher on their own.

 

I would not worry about it. If Thompson is elected he could hardly be worse than some recent presidents I will not name.

This makes no sense.

 

It makes perfect sense. The corporate the media and the fiscal, domestic and foreign policy is made by a group of men instead of the people. Up to arms, REVOLUTION TIME!

Mission

The Council's mission is promoting understanding of foreign policy and America

Angelina Jolie for president.

... Of the world.

Angelina Jolie for president.

Well that would improve the rating for the State of the Union address. She would need to lose that ridiculous pseudo British accent she picked up somewhere. If you are not actually British, don't try to do that.

Mission

The Council's mission is promoting understanding of foreign policy and America

the conspiracy theory view of _world_ politics, not just those in the US, is that the CFR and several related entities actually "choose" our leaders. while it is true that those named above are members, what is not known is to what extent they participate, and how much influence the CFR and other organizations actually play in election outcomes. it could just be that they "knew" clinton was going to get elected so they added him to the roster. how did they "know" clinton was going to get elected? the same way the rest of us did, it was obvious.

 

the CFR's purpose is to promote open discussion, without fear of any sort of retribution, among world leaders. there's good and bad in that. certainly open discussions are welcome and positive. however, any time all of the world's most powerful leaders assemble in one place without public scrutiny, there's a potential for abuse. in fact, it can be argued that any US leader participating in secret discussions such as these is a violation of the constitution, as he is "hired" by the people to represent them, which also implies they should be in the know on any relations with foreign countries, at least at a high-level (certainly the mantra of "national security" is meaningless when the president is speaking to every other foreign government in a single venue, he's actually the one treading on a violation).

 

taks

oh, keep in mind, journalists and other influential folks are members of the CFR as well, not just politicos (peter jennings is the primary example i remember).

 

taks

We all know that the New World Order is run by Aliens now, somewhere located beneath 60 miles under New Mexico. From there, they direct the powerful people on the surface how to do things, and how to prepare the takeover. One among the most effiecient tools are video games. They manipulate the human fragile mind with dumb video games, until everyone doesn't care about real life anymore, hence making us willingly slaves. But I won't! I was down there, I shot two of them, and they burned a hole into me and I could barely escape!!!!111 Yes!......eh..yes, nurse, I'm coming. Okay people, I've to postpone that for another time. Bye!

what's interesting, btw, is that neither reagan nor GWB are on the list of CFR members. i believe any president is an ad-hoc member, though that is only supposition. in both cases, however, the majority of their respective staffs _were_ in the CFR. reagan's was not until he added bush sr. to his ticket, but much of GWB's staff was prior to his campaign.

 

this is all off of memory as i have not put any effort into researching the conspiracy in quite some time. mostly out of boredom with the topic. dig into any large organization that seemingly has control of the reigns and you'll find connections and otherwise suspicious circumstances.

 

taks

Fred Thompson will be the Taft of the 21st century. Laissez-faire in every respect.

based on what i've read, that position is difficult to support. he's a typical republican, though he's pro-choice which seems odd. he is very smart, and very knowledgeable on affairs both domestic and foreign. oddly, his line of questioning in the watergate trial is probably what led to nixon's downfall.

 

either way, not that full laissez-faire capitalism is a good idea, less government involvement in corporate affairs is. take away the incentive to buy politicians and it won't happen.

 

taks

Ok, time to get serious now. While such a organization on paper have a lot of international influence and some might even say that it's a clear conflict of interests that a head of state is a member of such. However, if there was real evidence of manupilation of the democratic process, people would be hanged. After all, it's politicians that we're talking about

maybe, maybe not. i agree it is a HUGE conflict of interest to conduct secret meetings among heads of state without any public oversight. also, the mere fact they get together in such a manner is indeed a manipulation of the democratic process. unfortunately, the world has become so large, and political parties so strong, that they are otherwise untouchable as a group (as well as their dominant members individually).

 

i do not have a solution to this apparent problem. also, is it good, or is it bad? know way to know that either. secrecy is usually bad, IMO.

 

taks

I think taks is on the CFR.

hehe, yeah, right.

 

taks

maybe, maybe not. i agree it is a HUGE conflict of interest to conduct secret meetings among heads of state without any public oversight. also, the mere fact they get together in such a manner is indeed a manipulation of the democratic process. unfortunately, the world has become so large, and political parties so strong, that they are otherwise untouchable as a group (as well as their dominant members individually).

 

i do not have a solution to this apparent problem. also, is it good, or is it bad? know way to know that either. secrecy is usually bad, IMO.

 

taks

 

I know, we can't exactly forbid (adult) people to meet each other, can we? Since these meetings involves several others within the current, and prior, administrations, laws against these meetings would be a difficult task indeed.

How could GW be on that and yet still such a horrible president in terms of foreign relations?

How could GW be on that and yet still such a horrible president in terms of foreign relations?

uh, he's not. unless of course he's one of the "ad-hoc" appointees (as i've surmised) solely based on the fact that he's the president of the only remaining superpower. whether he's good at foreign relations or not is immaterial as he is technically in charge of the dominant force in said relations.

 

taks

I know, we can't exactly forbid (adult) people to meet each other, can we? Since these meetings involves several others within the current, and prior, administrations, laws against these meetings would be a difficult task indeed.

for past presidents, yes (uh, yes it is impossible to restrict them), but not so for current. if it was deemed unconstitutional for the president to meet secretly while in office, it would be a rather simple task to prevent it. getting that designation would be the hard part, though a hard push under FOIA may be possible. doubtful something like that will ever happen.

 

keep in mind, the president is also granted power to negotiate treaties, though the CFR hardly qualifies as a state with which he could enter into a treaty agreement.

 

taks

Edited July 17, 200718 yr by taks

i should add, one of the things i've always disliked about bush was his lack of foreign policy knowledge. in fact, had his opponents been other than gore and kerry (both waaaay too socialist for my tastes), i could easily have voted democrat in both elections. truly abysmal he is.

 

taks

Searching around about CFR and its critics, i found a fella named Ron Paul (and a republican nonetheless) running for president, with heavy critizism for organization such as these. I only about the man in name only before, is he a someone that has a chance in the primaries?