Bush , zwykly zdrajca ,...

06.11.07, 23:02
Przezydent Reagan pogonil ich na zbity pysk , teraz ten entuzjasta
nowego porzadku probuje sprzedac nasza niezaleznosc pajacom z UN
z pomoca demokratow - W tym tygodniu w kuluarach Senatu po cichu ,
odchodza przetargi za ile ,...

===================================================================

U.N. Law of Sea Treaty on Senate fast-track
===========================================
Bush administration pushing for ratification in next 3 weeks

September 30, 2007

WASHINGTON – For the second time in three years, the Bush
administration is putting on a major effort for Senate ratification
of the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty, a wide-ranging measure
critics say will grant the U.N. control of 70 percent of the planet
under its oceans.

With Democrats in nearly unanimous agreement with the treaty and the
Bush administration behind it, it will be up to a handful of
determined Republican senators to derail it from getting a
two-thirds vote in the upper house.

The treaty is currently under review by the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and could be approved by the entire Senate
in the next three weeks, before popular opposition has a chance
to grow ,...

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57903

    • spitme Re: Bush , zwykly zdrajca ,... 06.11.07, 23:17
      Law of the Sea moves one step closer to U.S. approval
      =====================================================
      CBC News - November 5, 2007

      The Bush administration offered praise Monday for a U.S. Senate
      committee endorsement of the Law of the Sea, a pact Ottawa has
      called on Washington to ratify ,...

      www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/11/05/law-sea.html
    • cyniol Re: Pomozecie? pomozemy... 06.11.07, 23:32
      Harper poruszal ten temat podczas spotkania 3 Amigos w Montebello ostatniego
      lata. Bush dotrzymal slowa:)

      Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called on the U.S. to ratify the treaty, which
      would signal recognition of Canada's sovereignty over its Arctic coastal waters.

      But the move could also put Canada and the U.S. at odds over the oil reserves of
      the Beaufort Sea — an area Canada claims as its own.
      • spitme Re: Pomozecie? pomozemy... 07.11.07, 00:06
        Traktat byl niekorzystny dla nas za Reagan'a kiedy nasza Navy miala
        prawie 600 okretow jednostek na wodzie , tym bardziej dzis ma kiedy
        ma 270 i kiedy Chiny za kilka lat przejma paleczke ,... Nad South
        China Sea juz maja kontrole ,... Zapomnial jak mu na poczatku w BD
        Chinks "pozyczyli" se samolot zwiadowczy , sprawdzili elektronike ,
        zawartosc namiarow i ddali po przeprosinach z jego strony ,...

        Lou Dobbs:

        The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted today to support
        ratification of an international treaty that opponents say is a
        serious threat to our national sovereignty. The so-called Law of the
        Sea Treaty will put the world's oceans under the control of an
        unaccountable group of international bureaucrats. One of the
        treaty's leading critics is Senator Jeff Sessions, who tonight
        said: "It's unthinkable to yield so much of our sovereignty to a
        large international body."

        The full Senate is expected to consider this treaty over the next
        few weeks, the Senate trying to sneak this treaty through. It has
        the support, by the way, of the U.S. Navy. It is utter madness and
        it is being
    • ra88 Bush ucieka przed Norymberha bis do Paragwaju 06.11.07, 23:47
      deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm
    • j-k Bush , to NIEzwykly zdrajca !!! 06.11.07, 23:54
      zdradzil Rosje i sprzedal ja Chinom...

      uwazasz, ze Interse sie udal?
      • gurru Bush to ludobojca 07.11.07, 17:38
        • spitme Re: Bush to ludobojca 07.11.07, 23:07
          Swego rodzaju , niekoniecznie z natury , glupol , ktoremu wladza z
          radami neo-con-artists uderzyla do glowy ,...
        • lady_godziwa Bush to ludobojca 08.11.07, 22:48
          gurru said: Bush to ludobojca


          Spiepszaj dziadu!

          Bush ma racje !

          Powinni wyczyscic całyb półwysep Arabski!

          A oni tam buduja tylko golf course ze 100 metrowymi craterkami!

          Czy ty naprawde uwazasz ze Arab to człowiek?

          Nie kompromituj sie!

          Bydle w ludzkiej skorze to po prostu islamic terrorist!

          Wybic to badziectwo!

    • felusiak1 Czy tak trudno jest coś sensownego poczytać 07.11.07, 03:33
      zanim zacznie sie wrzeszczeć w niebogłosy?
      USA podpisało traktat w 1994 roku, zatem jakim cudem
      nie było czasu na dyskusję. 13 lat nie wystarcza?
      Poza tym USA nie lubi tzw. Part XI traktatu, z reszta zgadza sie i przestrzega.
      • hubert100 Re: Czy tak trudno jest coś sensownego poczytać 07.11.07, 03:52
        Jak ty Felus mozesz wrzeszczec jak ci kapucyn Jorla z gardla
        wystaje? Mamy nadzieje ze ci tego zlotego zeba nie wybil.
      • spitme Re: Czy tak trudno jest coś sensownego poczytać 07.11.07, 05:38
        Bush’s Toilet Bowl Treaty
        =========================
        By Cliff Kincaid

        When State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III gave a
        controversial June 6 speech on the subject of “The United States and
        International Law,” he mentioned that the Bush Administration
        had “put forward a priority list of over 35 treaty packages that we
        have urged the Senate to approve soon, including the UN Convention
        on the Law of the Sea.” The latter is now up for Senate
        ratification, with a vote scheduled on Wednesday, and one of its
        many controversial provisions is the regulation of land-based
        sources of pollution. This treaty covers the water and the land. But
        now we have discovered that the Bush Administration has asked the
        Senate to ratify a treaty that defines one of those land-based
        sources of pollution as toilet flushing. No kidding.

        It is amazing but true.

        The Bush Administration wants the Senate to ratify a treaty that
        will invite international inspections of what you flush down your
        toilet. We are talking about Annex III of the “Protocol Concerning
        Pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities to the Convention
        for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the
        Wider Caribbean Region, with Annexes.” You can read it for yourself
        here.

        Annex III is titled, “Domestic Wastewater,” which is defined as
        including “all discharges from households, commercial facilities,
        hotels, septage and any other entity…” These discharges are defined
        as encompassing (1) toilet flushing, (2) discharges from showers,
        wash basins, kitchens and laundries, or discharges from small
        industries, provided their composition and quantity are compatible
        with treatment in a domestic wastewater system.

        Lawrence A. Kogan of the Institute for Trade, Standards, and
        Sustainable Development uncovered the dangerous details of this
        agreement and has termed it the “Toilet bowl treaty,” noting that it
        constitutes a sort of mini Law or the Sea Treaty. The protocol, he
        says, is one of 11 “regional seas” agreements. It is on an October 1
        State Department list of “Treaties Pending in the Senate.” (Not all
        of these treaties are currently being pushed by the Bush
        Administration).

        Our major media were, as usual, asleep at the switch. It turns out
        that the White House issued a press release about submitting this
        treaty to the Senate for ratification. President Bush’s statement
        was quite specific. He noted that, “It is estimated that 70 to 90
        percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from
        land-based sources and activities,” and that parties to the
        treaty “are required to ensure that domestic wastewater discharges
        meet specific effluent limitations, and to develop plans for the
        prevention and reduction of agricultural nonpoint source pollution.”

        Bush claimed that, “The United States would be able to implement its
        obligations under the Protocol under existing statutory and
        regulatory authority.” In other words, he thinks this is supposed to
        affect others, not us. But this may not be the way some activist
        judges and international lawyers see it.

        Bush’s admission that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the
        marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities
        is directly relevant to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
        (UNCLOS), which has provisions relating to prohibiting pollution
        from such sources. That is why many observers have concluded that
        the Law of the Sea Treaty can serve as a back-door way to implement
        the (unratified) global warming treaty. Foreign judges and lawyers
        could easily interpret greenhouse gas emissions as contributing to
        pollution of the oceans. As a result, under UNCLOS they could order
        cuts in energy use.

        Since the State Department submitted the protocol for ratification,
        along with the Law of the Sea Treaty, it’s a certainty that Legal
        Adviser John B. Bellinger III knew all about the potential for
        regulating land-based pollution sources and activities, including
        toilet bowls, when he testified before the Senate about UNCLOS on
        September 27. But not only did he deny that UNCLOS had any such
        potential, he said it had no such provisions. When pressed, he
        claimed the provisions were “hortatory” and had no practical legal
        impact. This is why Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch and I have asked
        for a formal review (PDF) of his testimony. He clearly misled the
        Senate.

        But now we find out that it’s worse than we thought. The State
        Department had previously submitted another treaty that specifically
        and explicitly defined a land-based source of pollution as being a
        toilet bowl. Ratification of this treaty, in conjunction with
        ratification of UNCLOS, would literally invite U.N. inspectors to
        review and manage discharge from your toilet bowl. Why didn’t
        Bellinger tell the Senate about that during his UNCLOS testimony?

        Bellinger seems to be far more open and honest with international
        audiences that he is trying to appease and impress. In his June 6
        speech to a group at The Hague, for example, Bellinger boasted about
        using his own staff of 171 lawyers to “integrate” international
        law “into the decision-making process” of the U.S. Government. He
        defended the President’s order to Texas to comply with a ruling by
        the U.N.’s International Court of Justice on giving convicted
        Mexican killers another hearing. Bellinger called this compliance
        with “an international obligation.”

        The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on
        UNCLOS on Wednesday. UNCLOS is the first order of business and if it
        passes, as seems likely, Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid could
        call it up for a quick Senate floor vote.

        Before the committee votes, it should recall Bellinger as a witness
        and determine why he has been less than open and honest about
        the “obligations” of the U.S. under UNCLOS. Then he should be asked
        to explain why we need a treaty targeting toilet bowls and showers.
        If he claims the need to adhere to “international obligations,” he
        should be laughed out of the hearing room, along with his treaties.

        ====================================================================

        USA podpisało traktat w 1994 roku, zatem jakim cudem nie było czasu
        na dyskusję. 13 lat nie wystarcza? Poza tym USA nie lubi tzw. Part
        XI traktatu, z reszta zgadza sie i przestrzega.




      • spitme Re: Czy tak trudno jest coś sensownego poczytać 07.11.07, 13:58
        The devil is in the details - Sam fakt ze komuch Soros finansuje
        American Freedom Association , ktorej plodem jest bekart zwany ,
        "Sea Treaty" , jako konserwatyste , (jesli takim jestes) powinien
        cie ostudzic ,... Chyba zes farbowany lis , jak Bush ,...

        ===================================================================

        Sinister Secrets of the U.N. Sea Treaty
        =======================================
        By Cliff Kincaid

        The former editor of the New York Times editorial page says it
        is “crazy” to be opposed to the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty and she
        can’t understand why it has become a hot-button issue in the
        Republican presidential race. Gail Collins declared in a November 3
        column in the Times that the measure simply clarifies “rules for
        navigation and mining in international waters” and sets up “a system
        for settling disputes.” Those opposed to it, she says, are
        spinning “conspiracy theories.” But Collins is doing the spinning.

        What if there were evidence that the treaty was the product of those
        who believe in world government financed by global taxes? Hold on to
        your seats.

        The true story of how the Law of the Sea Treaty came into being is a
        fascinating one that I have investigated for several years. I
        researched the matter at the United Nations Division for Ocean
        Affairs and the Law of the Sea in New York City and at the Friends
        Historical Collection at Guilford College in North Carolina. The
        Guilford College papers demonstrate the activities that engaged Sam
        and Miriam Levering as they wrote and promoted this treaty. The
        Leverings, husband and wife team who were Quakers and World
        Federalists, helped write the treaty and lobbied for it through a
        non-governmental organization called the Neptune Group.

        You have probably never heard of them before. But the November 4
        edition of the Mount Airy (North Carolina) News gives a hint of the
        truth. It reports that Sam Levering “played a key role in
        formulating” the treaty and was recognized for that role during a
        symposium there on October 12.

        Is it possible this small-town North Carolina paper has information
        that Gail Collins and the Times do not? Who is Sam Levering? And is
        it true that he played a key role in writing the treaty? Here lies
        one of the sinister secrets of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty that
        the major media are either too lazy or too dishonest to report. It
        is a “secret,” of course, only in the sense that it is kept from the
        American people by papers like the New York Times.

        The shocking truth is that the Law of the Sea Treaty, which could
        come up for a full Senate vote at any time, was largely written by
        people like Sam Levering, a World Federalist devoted to world
        government. And since that is demonstrably the case, could the Law
        of the Sea Treaty be considered a step toward world government? Or
        is it too conspiratorial to even consider such a possibility? Let’s
        continue our probe.

        The Names Have Been Changed to Protect the Guilty

        The Mount Airy News was reporting on an October 12 symposium on the
        treaty sponsored by a patriotic-sounding group called the “American
        Freedom Association.” The paper reported that, “The event featured a
        variety of speakers on the treaty, including Ralph Levering, whose
        late father Sam played a key role in formulating the measure in
        1982.” The paper quoted Marie Judson, the association's historian,
        as saying that “one of the reasons she supports the treaty is to
        help carry on the work started by Sam Levering, a strong advocate
        for peace, who among other issues campaigned against nuclear arms
        proliferation.”

        The American Freedom Association was one of several groups which
        emerged after World War II and were devoted to the concept of “world
        federalism” or world government. Their reaction to the horrors of
        World War II caused them to embrace world government as the solution
        to the world’s problems. But some of the world federalist groups
        were accused of being infiltrated or manipulated by communists
        sympathetic to the Soviet Union. For that reason, one of these
        groups changed its name to “American Freedom Association” in the
        1950s.

        The group’s website admits as much.

        “Many of the founding members were members of the World Federalist
        Society,” it says. “The chosen name reflected a strong perspective
        on the required conditions for American Freedom. It also reflected
        a need for a name that was acceptable at the height of the era of
        Senator Joe McCarthy.” In other words, in order to avoid the taint
        of being associated with the world communist movement, the name was
        changed.

        A similar public relations strategy was also evident in 2004 when
        the World Federalist Association changed its name to the more
        harmless sounding “Citizens for Global Solutions.” It is funded by
        major liberal foundations and lobbies for ratification of the U.N.
        Convention on the Law of the Sea. It also joined with the Open
        Society Institute of George Soros to oppose John Bolton’s nomination
        as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. They hired a crook as part of their
        lobbying effort.

        Global Taxes

        Back when it proudly called itself the World Federalist Association,
        the group said that one of its main priorities was to “provide the
        U.N. with sustained and independent sources of funding.” How did
        they intend to bring this about? Through the Law of the Sea Treaty.

        The WFA book, A New World Order. Can It Bring Security to the
        World’s People? declared, “One of the most popular concepts
        identified as an independent source of revenue is the ocean and
        seabeds.” It noted that the treaty creates an International Seabed
        Authority to grant “leasing rights to private corporations,”
        provide “mining concessions,” and operate mining operations through
        something called the Enterprise. “Certain fees and sharing of
        technology are also involved,” it noted. Revenues accruing to the
        Seabed Authority “are designated for development assistance” or
        foreign aid.

        Basic investigative reporting, which is apparently lacking at the
        Times and other liberal papers, also reveals that the concept of
        the “common heritage of mankind” was inserted into the treaty
        through the aforementioned efforts of Sam Levering and his wife
        Miriam. They were the left-wing Quakers and World Federalists who
        formed the “Neptune Group” to lobby for the treaty over the course
        of decades. They worked with Elliot Richardson, who was President
        Jimmy Carter’s representative to the treaty negotiations. He would
        later serve as national co-chairman of the pro-U.N. lobby, the U.N.
        Association. (The U.N. Association is funded by most of the major
        media groups, including the New York Times Company Foundation).

        The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a Quaker
        group, reports that, “During the 1970s, Sam and Miriam worked out of
        FCNL's office as they diligently and patiently advocated to keep the
        oceans part of ‘the common heritage of mankind’ and negotiated with
        governments on the treaty's final language.” FCNL reports that the
        Leverings also “entered the fray in 1970 as Congress debated the
        Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources bill that promoted a
        nationalistic approach” to mining. The Leverings were strongly
        opposed to that approach. Their notion of the oceans being
        the “common heritage of mankind” stayed in the treaty.

        The Birth of “Limited” World Government

        The results were what they intended. In its 1995 study, N
        • spitme Re: Czy tak trudno jest coś sensownego poczytać 07.11.07, 14:00
          The Birth of “Limited” World Government

          The results were what they intended. In its 1995 study, National
          Taxpayers, International Organizations: Sharing the Burden of
          Financing the United Nations, the U.N. Association admitted that the
          International Seabed Authority was unique among U.N. bodies: “Only
          the Seabed authority created by the U.N. Convention on the Law of
          the Sea, which entered into force in late 1994, has authority today
          to directly collect international revenue to finance its
          activities.” Hence, global taxes were born, a major step on the road
          to world government. But will the U.S. Senate sign on to that
          scheme? That’s what the battle over the Law of the Sea Treaty is all
          about.

          "My parents were world peace advocates,” boasted Davidson College
          history professor Ralph Levering. “They were deeply involved with
          the World Federalist Movement from the 1930s through the 1950s,
          advocating a federalist system binding all countries under a central
          world government with limited power." There were other players
          involved and you can read about them in this report.

          An official 1997 WFA publication declared that the final version of
          the Law of the Sea Treaty “marked real progress in establishing
          global governance by… stipulating that mining of the seabeds beyond
          national waters should require payment of royalties to the LOS [Law
          of the Sea] organization, thereby creating a funding resource that
          would be independent of voluntary contributions by the treaty
          member nations. These are t he elements of a limited world
          government in a very restricted field that is nevertheless
          significant.”

          There you have it, Ms. Collins. You can call this a conspiracy
          theory if you want to. But it is really not. It is an open secret
          that our major media want desperately to conceal.

          • felusiak1 Sami zdrajcy 07.11.07, 17:23
            zdradzaja amerykę w zmowie z neokonami czy osobno?
            • spitme Re: Sami zdrajcy 07.11.07, 19:04
              Tym przyznajesz zes farbowany lis i po drodze ci z Sorosem w
              drodze do nowego porzadku a zanim co po drodze ci z poczwarka
              Miedzynarodowki Trockiego (neo-con-artists) bo tym tez blizsza
              koszula cialu jaka jest egzystencja zio-grajdolka niz interes
              spoleczenstwa ktore dalo ci azyl jak potrzeboawales ,...

              Ciekawe ze zgnoiliscie Cartera ze "oddal" niezaleznosc Ameryki
              ze zwrotem Panama Canal po wygasnieciu umowy , a z Sea Treaty ,
              ktore oznacza koniec Ameryki jaka znamy , polegasz na madrosci
              politykow ktorzy nie moga sie doczekac kiedy UN zacznie dyktowac
              jak mamy zyc ,...

              Gratuluje wyboru , Alkowi rowniez po drodze bo po jaka cholere
              ma sie uzerac z nami w jego krucjacie , kiedy moze zalatwic
              prikaz z UN i bedzie panowal jak zbawca - Zagladaj do kibla ,
              przyzwyczajaj sie , uwazaj co jesz i spuszczasz , bo moze nie
              to na co Treaty pozwala ,... Tfu !!! ,...
              ===================================================================
              zdradzaja amerykę w zmowie z neokonami czy osobno?
            • spitme Re: Sami zdrajcy 07.11.07, 21:42
              Insynuujesz ze Reagan byl idiot ??? Biorac pod uwage US naval
              superiority , 200-tu milowa strefa terytorialna uniemozliwia
              lub utrudnia naszej flocie zbierania informacji na wodach gdzie
              zdobywalismy je do tej pory , zabrania obecnosci naszych okretow
              podwodnych na tych wodach , pozatym oddaje pod kontrole Rosji
              polnocne wody Arktyki , Chinom South China Sea , a na pozostalych
              wodach w jurysdykcji UN bedziemy podlegac ich rystrykcjom i ich
              regulacji ,... Cacy perspektywa , co ????

              Spojrzyj na mape South China Sea , czy Morze Srodziemne i wytlumacz
              mi what's good about it ??? ,...

              Po podpisaniu tego traktatu maly bully na Bliskim Wschodzie bedzie
              dyktowal swiatu kto moze manewrowac po Morzu Srodziemnym i kto sie
              nadaje do odstrzalu jak USS "Liberty" ,...

              content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/cf/South_China_Sea.jpg

              ===================================================================

              Former President Reagan refused to sign the Treaty in 1982 due to
              its innate conflict with basic free-market principles (e.g., private
              property, free enterprise, and competition). Twelve years later, the
              Clinton Administration submitted to the U.S. Senate a revised
              version of the Treaty. This revised version allegedly corrected many
              of the original objections to the Treaty, but still failed to
              receive Senate ratification: Therefore, the United States'
              provisional participation expired in 1998. The Treaty still requires
              adherence to policies that regulate deep-sea mining, as well as
              forcing participants to adopt laws and regulations to control and
              prevent marine pollution. Additionally, under the Treaty, a
              corporation cannot bring suit, but must rely upon its country of
              origin to address the corporation's concerns before the U.N. agency.

              Reagan's Objections

              Former President Reagan's first objection to the Treaty was the
              Principle of the "Common Heritage of Mankind," which dictates that
              oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind and cannot be
              claimed by any one nation or people. In order to achieve this goal,
              the Treaty creates the International Seabed Authority ("Authority")
              to regulate and exploit mineral resources. It requires a company to
              submit an application fee of $500,000 (now $250,000), as well as a
              bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts.
              Additionally, the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 million,
              as well as a percentage of its profits (increasing annually up to
              7%), and must agree to share mining and navigational technology--
              thereby ensuring that opportunities aren't restricted to more
              technologically advanced countries. The decision to grant or to
              withhold mining permits is decided by the Authority, which consists
              disproportionately of underdeveloped countries. Technology-sharing
              is no longer mandatory, however, there are remaining "principles" to
              guide its use and distribution. Additionally, the Council has been
              restructured so that the United States has a permanent seat, and
              developed countries can create a blocking vote.
              Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would
              restrict the world's supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally
              designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to
              protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This
              is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to
              preserve land-based mining have been removed.
              The third--and still valid--objection is that mandatory dispute
              resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must
              mandate maritime issues involving fisheries, marine environmental
              protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country
              may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military,
              or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external
              jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it
              weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to
              the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must
              petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.

              ===================================================================

              zdradzaja amerykę w zmowie z neokonami czy osobno?

              • felusiak1 Re: Sami zdrajcy 07.11.07, 23:16
                No widzisz... rwiesz włosy z głowy, wrzeszczysz, tupiesz nóżkami.
                Rwetes a treści nie ma zadnej. Sam dym, gęsty, w oczy szczypie.
                Tego typu retoryka zwykle posługiwała sie Tribuna Lódó.
                Spróbuj przeczytać co mówia i jak argumentują zwolennicy
                a potem pomyśl, pomyśl jeszce raz i jeszcze jeden raz i przedstaw opinię.
                PS. Ja nie ujawniłem mojej opinii celowo.
                • spitme Re: Sami zdrajcy 07.11.07, 23:37
                  Narazie nie odpowiedziales na moje watpliwosci - Kto ??? Gore i
                  jego kalibru krucjatow nuts ??? ,...
                  ===================================================================
                  Spróbuj przeczytać co mówia i jak argumentują zwolennicy
                  a potem pomyśl, pomyśl jeszce raz i jeszcze jeden raz i
                  przedstaw opinię.

                  So ??? ,... Po kilku latach czytania twoich pro Isroel wypocin
                  nie trzeba byc Enstein'em zeby cie rozgryzc ,...
                  ===================================================================
                  PS. Ja nie ujawniłem mojej opinii celowo.
                  • felusiak1 Treści nadal brak..... 07.11.07, 23:55

                    • spitme Re: Treści nadal brak..... 08.11.07, 01:38
                      Useful idiots zawsze czegos brak , w twoim przypadku lojalnosci !!!
                      • felusiak1 Pianobijca czy pianobóca czy pijany zbójnik? 10.11.07, 00:04
                        To mówisz, ze nie zajmujac zdecydowanego stanowiska, zgodnego z twoim jestem
                        nielojalny? No ale w takim razie tyś lojalny w dwójnasób.
                        Zastanawia mnie dlaczego Navy jest za.
                        No widzisz jak ferujesz wyroki. Oskarzony!!! Winny!!! Nie udowodnił swojej
                        niewinności i nielojalny, pewnie neokon albo zioniec albo jedno i drugie. A
                        orkiestra gra walczyka, do marszu.....
    • kyle_broflovski Re: Bush , zwykly zdrajca ,... 07.11.07, 04:27
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
    • krzyh001 Global Governance! Światowy rząd. 07.11.07, 23:53
      Wiem że wybiegam tym postem poza temat rozmowy, ale to tak apropos tworzenia się
      światowego rządu na naszych oczach
      GLOBAL WARMING OR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE!
      Film który pokazuje jak polityka walki z globalnym ociepleniem klimatu
      spowodowanym przez emisję gazów cieplarnianych, prowadzi nas powoli do
      utworzenia światowego rządu.
      video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=3069943905833454241
      Rodzinka Rothschild trzyma w swoich łapkach całą EU.
      David Rotschild jest założycielem grupy "Adventure Ecology"
      która jak mówi "Im founder of Adventure Ecology, to help learn kids about
      environmental issues". Jest autorem wielu publikacji i książek nt. globalnego
      ocieplenia skierowanych głównie w młodzież szkolną.
      Powołuje się też na film Ala Gore'a "Inconvenient Truth" (całkowitą hollywoodzką
      propagande wytwórni marzeń i snów czyli=>Paramount"
      Film Niewygodna Prawda jest obecnie wyświetlany w szkołach na całym świecie jako
      wiarygodne źródło informacji o zjawisku zmiany klimatu.
      Anglia, Niemcy, Hiszpania,Polska,Kanada,US you name it !
      www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f7806f79-bf1f-4bd1-8d33-c904feb71047
      cytat ""Dnia 20 kwietnia br klasa 1 B pod kierunkiem wychowawcy pani mgr Anny
      Stachowiak zorganizowała obchody Dnia Ziemi. Uczniowie naszej szkoły zostali
      zaproszeni na projekcje filmu "Niewygodna Prawda" mówiącego o zagrożeniach
      wynikających z postępującego zanieczyszczania środowiska."„Niewygodna prawda”
      –przeznaczony dla szkół gimnazjalnych i licealnych. Film jest wykładem na temat
      katastrofy ekologicznej naszej planety."

      I jeszcze jedna ciekawostka rodzina Rothschild wg Jewish Encyklopedia nosi miano
      "Guardians of papal treasury"
      www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=445&letter=R&search=rothschild
      Sprig.com interviews David de Rothschild
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_G8hkqnJBE
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6cMXq4Nvmw


      -------------------------------------------
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3biFKW_vWY
      • z_daleka Re:wiadomo....oj wiadomo... 08.11.07, 06:47

    • cyniol Re: Bush , zwykly zdrajca ,... 08.11.07, 15:04
      a Clinton to zwykly oszust
      video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6470450895164255089&q=clinton+chronicles&total=59&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja