 
     |
| NWO no not that old fear the new fact (Page 1/2) |
|
ray b
|
MAR 23, 12:37 PM
|
|
yes I do see a NWO being formed
but no joe did NOT do it
your RUMP'S buddy PUTIN DID IT by a WAR
that did cause NATO to become the leadership of the NWO
I am sure something the RUMP nor putin saw coming NOT
or has a clue how to deal with the unintended results
nor do you !!!!
this NWO is NOT what the nut-con's fear and loath and preach was comming
but looks to be a allied free world saying STOP THAT NOW
WITH A CLEAR GOAL
we will see the results
BUT IT AIN'T THE NWO predicted by Q or any body else
__________________
|
|
|
|
Raydar
|
MAR 23, 02:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
MAR 23, 02:27 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
yes I do see a NWO being formed
but no joe did NOT do it
|
|
I don't think Uncle Joe did it either Ray... but I'm glad that you and I are on the same page here.
I really, really do think it's high-time people like you and me start to see people like Klaus Schwab and George Soros... AND the Koch brothers, for who they really are... where you and I are either considered assets, or liabilities; not peers.
We really need all Americans (and Canadians) to wake up to what's going on in this world. Some of it... our Government is complicit in... either unknowingly... but we need to figure out how to stop this.
|
|
|
|
Jake_Dragon
|
MAR 23, 03:39 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I don't think Uncle Joe did it either Ray... but I'm glad that you and I are on the same page here.
I really, really do think it's high-time people like you and me start to see people like Klaus Schwab and George Soros... AND the Koch brothers, for who they really are... where you and I are either considered assets, or liabilities; not peers.
We really need all Americans (and Canadians) to wake up to what's going on in this world. Some of it... our Government is complicit in... either unknowingly... but we need to figure out how to stop this. |
|
We are just a tax crop, a commodity to be used up and then cast aside when we can no longer contribute.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAR 23, 03:56 PM
|
|
The New World Order was finalized in 1964. After that, there was no turning back.
|
|
|
|
WonderBoy
|
MAR 24, 04:35 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
this NWO is NOT what the nut-con's fear and loath and preach was comming
but looks to be a allied free world saying STOP THAT NOW
WITH A CLEAR GOAL
we will see the results
BUT IT AIN'T THE NWO predicted by Q or any body else
__________________ |
|
Yeah, that should make child trafficking much easier for the future elitists. One World Order/New World Order.
You'll own nothing, and you'll like it. Including "your" children. The NWO International Village will raise/groom them THEIR WAY. They will be watching this generation of pandemic kids, many of whom have an array of mental health issues because of it.
A new US Supreme Court Justice is being GRILLED on these same matters. Not a peep from the left other than "her(?)" opposition are "RACIST SEXISTS". How can I or any conservative questioning "her(?)" be sexists when "she(?)" can't identify what a woman is? The US Gov is no longer an equal opportunity employer, the country has shifted into reverse.
This is what happens when the left change the definition of words on the fly: spread confusion/chaos/anarchy.
I see what's going on.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAR 24, 04:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by WonderBoy:
A new US Supreme Court Justice is being GRILLED on these same matters. Not a peep from the left other than "her(?)" opposition are "RACIST SEXISTS". How can I or any conservative questioning "her(?)" be sexists when "she(?)" can't identify what a woman is? The US Gov is no longer an equal opportunity employer, the country has shifted into reverse.
|
|
Yes, Her stated "reasoning" at her Senate confirmation hearing yesterday for her preferential, light, sentencing for pedophiles is that "15 minutes shouldn't ruin someone's entire life".
By that Leftist, drooling insane "legal standard", all murderers should also receive preferential, light sentences, below minimums because the murders they committed took less than 15 minutes to accomplish and accordingly all other crimes that took 15 minutes or less to commit should be met with a comparative "slap on the wrist".
Judge Ketanji Jackson is a Leftist activist and has NO BUSINESS anywhere near a school yard or the Supreme Court of the United States.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-24-2022).]
|
|
|
|
Jake_Dragon
|
MAR 24, 05:22 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
Yes, Her stated "reasoning" for her preferential, light, sentencing on pedophiles is that "15 minutes shouldn't ruin someone's entire life".
|
|
Lots of people in carry someone else's sins for a lot longer than 15 minutes. Some find the burden too much and end their own life.
Some are just better at covering it up than others, some spend years in therapy trying to get past what was done to them.
A couple of them have acted when the courts have failed and are happy to have the rest of their lives ruined as long as the pedophile is off the street.
There is no room in the world for pedophiles. Anyone that would steal a child innocents should be ruined for life, a shore life.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 24, 05:34 PM
|
|
So how would "you" have wanted to have Judge Jackson define or identify a woman?
Should the judge have been presented with a grid of photographs, and asked to select all the photographs containing a woman, like an online CAPTCHA screening? Or should the judge have been asked to single out various persons in attendance as "women" by pointing with her finger?
Should Judge Jackson have taken a cue from an earlier Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, who delivered the famous line about hard-core pornography? Should the judge have said "I don't want to get into the weeds here, so to speak, by attempting to define 'woman', but when it comes to women, I know one when I see one"?
Or perhaps the judge should have went to "chromosomes"; to wit: "I define a woman as a person whose DNA has two X chromosomes" or has "no Y chromosome"? Careful, though. That could lead to some further discussion, involving conditions like Klinefelter Syndrome, where a person has two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, or gender chromosomes mosaicism, where a person has cells with two X chromosomes and other cells with an X and Y chromosome.
Just some brief ruminations here. Snacks, if not an entire entree, for thought.
I haven't seen that moment in the confirmation process, when that question was put to the judge.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-24-2022).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAR 24, 05:44 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
So how would "you" have wanted to have Judge Jackson define or identify a woman?
Should the judge have been presented with a grid of photographs, and asked to select all the photographs containing a woman, like an online CAPTCHA screening? Or should the judge have been asked to single out various persons in attendance as "women" by pointing with her finger?
Should Judge Jackson have taken a cue from an earlier Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, who delivered the famous line about hard-core pornography? Should the judge have said "I don't want to get into the weeds here, so to speak, by attempting to define 'woman', but when it comes to women, I know one when I see one"?
Or perhaps the judge should have went to "chromosomes"; to wit: "I define a woman as a person whose DNA has two X chromosomes" or has "no Y crhomosome"? Careful, though. That could lead to some further discussion, involving conditions like Klinefelter Syndrome, where a person has two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome, or gender chromosomes mosaicism, where a person has cells with two X chromosomes and other cells with an X and Y chromosome.
Just some brief ruminations here. Snacks, if not an entire entree, for thought.
I haven't seen that moment in the confirmation process, when that question was put to the judge.
|
|
The underlined and enlarged text should have been a perfectly acceptable answer, perhaps with the following disclaimer: "Barring some extremely rare medical conditions."
Now, since she cannot identify a female, she should not be heralded as the first black female Supreme Court Justice. No historical footnote, nothing to see here, folks.
|
|
|
|