CNN - Republican Debate

[Mickulz]

Still waiting for that answer Armor.....

[BT]

Freddy, that was a short list; it could have very well been much longer - I did not rattle those things off at random.

It doesn't matter what sources I quote, Mickulz, you will deny that they provide any evidence, make a point, or support a conclusion. I could direct you to a number of websites, books or films. But it doesn't matter; you will demand impossible proofs.

For the rest of you interested in the connections between the families that own the Federal Reserve and the programs they push, such as mercury in the vaccines, Alex Jones' "Endgame" is a good place to start.

It's so easy for a logical mind to connect the reasoning behind the purchasing of shares in major media. The FED started buying up the media in the 1930's and, now, owns, or significantly influences, most of it.

"Rockefeller also controls the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the sole purpose of which is to aid in stimulating greater interest in foreign affairs and in a one world government. Nearly every major newscaster belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations controls many major newspapers and magazines. Additionally, major corporations owned by FED shareholders are the source of huge advertising revenues which surely would influence the media. It can be no wonder why groups such as the FED receive minimal, if any, press attention."

www.rense.com/ufo2/fedrez.htm

Research; connect the dots; come to your own conclusions; and don't believe the Masonic disinfo that Mickulz spews. He will defend the Fed, the CFR, NAU, Rockefeller and all the rest of that NWO crap to the hilt.

By the way, notice that Mickulz chose what he thought to be a "straw man argument" hopefully trying to "Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. "

Sorry, but that tactic won't work with me.

[seanx]

.....he's been doing that since I've known him........that's why I win all our arguments.........

[seanx]

....that and I AM THE LAWGIVAA!!!!!.........

[Mickulz]

I did not take the straw argument. I agree that most of that list would be better off without the Fed. The fact is I asked you how there is a direct relation between the Fed and those two issues. Again, if you are going to post that 20 things are effected by something, you need to be prepared to backup all 20. Not just "well, 18 of them are right, so the other two can slide".

Again, you do your typical answer and say I will either try to refuse your evidence or you move past the subject completely.

So prove to me, make me a believer, how will getting rid of the Fed lower mercury in vaccines?

I just do not see how if the Fed was gone tomorrow, this issue would clear up? The companies that are putting in there would still exist. Trade will still exist. Selling would still exist.

Sean, you are the law sucker...

[seanx]

.......How rude?!........

I know you are, but what am I?

[Mickulz]

That was actually secret NWO code for I think your cool. Geez. Now I gave away all the secrets.