No. There are people (some people, not everyone, not all the "elite") who want a global economic system, and they might refer to it as a new world order. But there are also people who want all kind of things, who can also refer to it as a new world order.Originally Posted by cheeple
So I ask you again. What was Reagan talking about? And what words would you use to describe a new way the world has become or is becoming?
So then you would agree just like mick, there are those in power who want a new world order, and you would also admit they meet at bilderberg meetings, now that I've proved that to your satisfaction you've switched the focus to the definition of New World Order, do you concede both of the previous points?
How about Nixon in China, is he talking about a global dictatorship? An end to sovereignty?
You believe deeply in your system, and we believe just as deeply in our system. It is not our common beliefs that have brought us together here, but our common interests and our common hopes, the interest that each of us has to maintain our independence and the security of our peoples and the hope that each of us has to build a new world order in which nations and peoples with different systems and different values can live together in peace, respecting one another while disagreeing with one another, letting history rather than the battlefield be the judge of their different ideas.
Cheeple...sorry...the UN agreement which you seem to refer to (which was shot down wasn't it?) (get it? "shot down"...lol) has no effect on anything except international small arms trade.
Do you seriously think that some sort of international treaty will ever override the Constitution? Could you give an example?
btw...I won't ever be disarmed.....I might be de-armed though if it ever came to it.
Could I direct you to a local group here in the AZ desert that feels the same as you?
Ronald Reagan is interesting I do know he was not an Elitist but was pressured by the Elite to choose either George W. bush or Henry Kissinger as VP he reluctantly chose GWB under the threat that if he didnt they would smear him in the media, also his speeches were written by the Elite, with buzz words in them like "new world order" to get people familiar to the phrase and passive.
So do you conede there are some people that want a new world order? Do you concede those same people are bilderbergers? if you do concede that that we can move on to the definition of New World order.
Cheeple, please don't descend into semantics. ALL world leaders want a "new world order" in some respect or another. They all want the world to be a better place, either for themselves or for a limited group of people, or for everyone.
YOU want a new world order. Because you want the world to be a better place.
And you know this how?but was pressured by the Elite to choose either George W. bush or Henry Kissinger as VP he reluctantly chose GWB under the threat that if he didnt they would smear him in the media
Would Kissinger even have been eligible to be VP? He was a naturalized citizen wasn't he?
Ok so you concede world leaders do want a new world order, next you must concede these world leaders do meet at the Bilderberg meetings if you infact accept the official charters, I will also accept your contention that they do want the world a better place for a limited group of people mainly themselves, Lastly I will accept your contention that I want the world to be a better place.
What I will disagree on is the assertion they might want the world to be a better place for "everyone", I just dont see it in their countenance but it's possible. The one thing I cant get you and others to admit is that they might infact want to place the world into servitude in the name of Peace.
I love Arizona especially their gun laws, they even signed it into their state constitution they will not accept UN environmental laws. I hear you on the de-armed as opposed to disarmed, it already happened in Katrina where the locals were "de"armed. However the UN Small Arms treaty is as vague as the Obamacare bill, it was shot down by votes but these anti-gun bills never stop until they liberal agenda is met, trust me I'm here in California and used to happily open carry until they brought in a communist from jersey anthony Portanatino to come in and help the "Peace officers association of California (PORAC) take away our Open Carry, now since we cant get CCW Permits we are effectively disarmed/dearmed however you want to call it. However the UN does want to disarm America, it will never stop one day it will pass and the Police will enforce this law even though it's unconstitutional, I pray states like Arizona and Texas never comply with it. I didnt mean to take this thread in a different direction we can always do a different thread for this, but remember their can never be true globalization until all citizens globally are disarmed and cannot fight Tyranny.
Some of them might, hence the word "or" in my sentence.
And your badgering about getting people to "concede" things is rather disappointing. You don't win debates by being arguably semantically correct. You win them by arriving at a shared understanding of the facts that either removes disagreement, or clarifies exactly what the disagreement is.
You can't ask people to concede that world leaders want a new world order (which could be any number of things) if you secretly still define that as being dictatorial world government. If that's what you are thinking, then ask people if they concede that world leaders want a dictatorial world government.
I did a big paragraph on our "shared understanding" then I clearly defined what our disagreement was as I saw it. I wanted to know what you agreed on was our "shared understanding".
Did anyone here . . . hear about Manifest Destiny, The Great Commission, The American Revolution, The French Revolution, The Communist Revolution . . . just a few examples of millions of humans conspiring to accomplish communally held beliefs to their death and occasionally the deaths of others . . . so could it be reasonable to believe a few very powerful and influential people could meet together to communicate their dedication to a goal or set of ideals and carry forth to evangelize their beliefs covertly and sometimes openly . . . me thinks it is rather likely . . . a very human activity if history is to be believed . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
conspiracy is indeed a very human activity.
And the rich and powerful trying to stay rich and powerful is pretty much a given.
So sure it is not unreasonable to think they may get together occasionally to chat among themselves.
so far no-one seems to have actually point to any evidence that Bilderberg is such an occasion......as far as I can see the attendance list includes very few of the REALLY rich and powerful - there's some CEOs of large but not massive companies, some Govt types who probably have a wiki page and little more since they are middling in rank, etc.
Got anything better??
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
I think your limiting yourself to the 2012 list, look at the past Obama went hell even Mitt Romney was at the Last Bilderberg meeting.
I am just pointing out the obvious . . . the best conspiratorial groups are rarely outed . . . the Mafias, CIA, KGB, MI6, on and on . . . the Bilderberger Group is just a public manifestation of gamesmanship on the part of policy pushers . . .
Last edited by George B; August 16th, 2012 at 06:12 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
How often did Obama go, and when? Mitt Romney went when - before he was a candidate for POTUS??
I am not surprised that various people have gone - as has been pointed out, the list is public - so what?
And GB - since Bilderberg is "outed" does that mean you think it is not one of the "best conspirational groups"?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Yes here is a quote: Charlie Skelton, a contributor for the UK’s Guardian, claims that “four eyewitnesses on the hotel staff” have confirmed to him that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was on hand at the 2012 Bilderberg Conference.
You can see the whole article here obviously he was left off the "official roster"
http://rt.com/usa/news/mitt-romney-b...onference-184/
Jones also says that then-Senator Barack Obama was snuck into 2008 Bilderberg Conference to be prepped for that year’s presidential election, although his office adamantly denied those allegations at first. Both George H.W. Bush and Tony Blair have been linked to previous Bilderberg meetings as well, both in instances that preceded their election to the US presidency and British prime ministry, respectively.
Same link as above
It serves it purpose . . . it is a consensus builder at best . . . giving the impression it is a "King Maker" . . .however, its power is the mystery it has created in the minds of the alternate press . . . someone wants them to look powerful and purposeful . . . likely this impression is far from the truth . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
You do realise that RT.com is a wholely owned government proapaganda machine don't you - the Russian government that is.
for someone who beleives in conspiracies to be quoting a dubious piece of "news" from RT.com as evidence is kind of stange!! Why didn't you quote the Guardian article??
Maybve it is because Skelton is characterised on his "Bilderblog" as a comedy writer??
and Obama's attendance you ahve mentioned "Jones" - that is Alex Jones...........sigh......
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Dang Mike it was just dialogue, I didnt quote from the guardian article or any number of other sources I just did a quick google search to provide something quickly.
You used it as a source - how am i supposed to know what you thought of it?? That is your problem - I am entitled to treat a quoted source as aquoted source!!
Your evaluation notwithstanding, that source is still nothing more than speculation by a correspondant with an acknowledged and proud profession of writing comedy.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Jeez, the spelling degenerates as the blood pressure rises, eh?
Never mind
RT? Pfff...Amateurs. They're just finding their feet in the wonderful world of official lying. Now, if you subbed RT.com with the BBC - now we're talking. That's a proper, wholly owned government propaganda machine - so much more accomplished than those little upstarts at RT. You should learn to apply the same standards all over - and maybe you should even try to finish conversations, if only to admit your errors.You do realise that RT.com is a wholely owned government proapaganda machine don't you
cheeple (August 17th, 2012)
Seems there is an idea that the occult and those with occult tendencies like to celebrate their power by orchestrating significant events on specific dates which are anniversaries of previous events they staged or are birthdays of their worthy founders etc. . . . they are thought to enjoy astronomical alignments, etc. as well. . . there are obviously many of these potential dates so what is the probability from random chance this would occur?? That is the question??
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
People do like to mark aniversaries. The Oklahoma city bombings were deliberately on the second anniversary of the Waco fire. But that's different from numerical symbolism.
Numerical symbolism is enhancing your occult powers by staging future events that occur on a chosen date based upon predetermined set of rules . . . which if understood by the uninitiated could be predicted . . . and should be predictable beyond random . . . that is selecting a date and hitting a prediction better than 1 in 365 chances with in one calendar year . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I predict that next year I will be 55 and qualify for senior discounts....and it's so odd....it's exactly 55 years from the date of my birth, a date I find very significant.
Seriously....haven't people done this with almost any major event? I always think of the Lincoln/Kennedy comparisons. Much of which was just wrong and some of which is statistically very likely. So what.....
So stastical associations are invalid because you feel there is no connection between the events . . .? A rational position . . . however, if someone were to show associations between these events would you be willing to consider the possibility of an orchestrated event . . .????
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Aaaaand another thread degenerates into someone asking lee to make a point, and him refusing to actually make one.
eta: By the way, thanks for the avatar, Mick, if you're the one who picked it out for me.
Just reading through and once again deja vu...?
How many times does one receive a short term ban before a much longer ban is imposed?
Depends on what associations you want to point out. Did you have an example in mind?
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
Absolutely...if there was actual proof of some association between events...I can't imagine anyone not being willing. Of course I don't mean because there was a meeting of mucky mucks and an observer states this or that was decided and on the agreed on date it occurred. Those kind of witnesses always seem to appear sometime after the event...not before. And they never seem to have any actual proof. Look at AC Griffith for instance. His own son says it was all crapola and that his dad was a very convincing liar.
btw...I didn't state "statistical associations are invalid". Not even close.....in fact I said some were statistically very likely. The example I was thinking of was politicians and assassination attempts. Since many public appearances occur on weekends (Fri-Sun) It would seem logical that there may be more attempts on those days. Is it true? I don't know and I'm not going to invest the time to find out.
I might try to dig some up for an experiment . . . hope I still have the source available . . . it was a book I had read about three years ago . . . could be fun . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Stastical associations may be invalid (or more correctly not the proximate or direct cause) . . . if their connections are coincidental or if they are masked by a true association like most fatal car accidents occur at night . . . it isn't the night but alcohol abuse that is the direct cause . . . the fact that more people drink and drive at night is more of a cultural issue . . . of course one may argue visibility is part of the cause but few would argue it is the main cause . . .
Last edited by George B; August 17th, 2012 at 02:35 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
You can make any statistical claim when you just make stuff up. I did a quick search on accident statistics. Interesting, very interesting.Stastical associations may be invalid (or more correctly not the proximate or direct cause) . . . if their connections are coincidental or if they are masked by a true association like most fatal car accidents occur at night . . . it isn't the night but alcohol abuse that is the direct cause . . . the fact that more people drink and drive at night is more of a cultural issue . . . of course one may argue visibility is part of the cause but few would argue it is the main cause . . .
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810625.pdf
In 2005, there were 21,924 fatal crashes (56%) in rural areas and 17,265 fatal
crashes (44%) in urban areas.
In rural areas, 53 percent of the crashes occur during the day while 46 percent
occur at night. In urban areas the situation is reversed with 45 percent of the
crashes occurring during the day and 55 percent of the crashes occurring at night.Approximately 91 percent of nighttime rural fatal crashes occur on dark road-
ways and 9 percent occur on roads lighted by streetlights. In urban areas, 40
percent of fatal nighttime crashes occur on dark roadways and 60 percent occur
on lighted roadways.Based on actual data, most fatal accidents don't even involve alcohol to the tune of 76% versus just 24% that do involve alcohol.Approximately 24 percent of rural and urban drivers involved in fatal crashes had
a positive blood alcohol concentration (BAC). However, the percentage of rural drivers
with more severe BAC levels was generally higher than the corresponding per-
centage of urban drivers with similar BAC levels.
OT, I know, but it demonstrates how most conspiracists are either mis-informed or just plain making stuff up. Not hard to find statistical significance in that situation.
Project much?The only thing guaranteed in life is deception
Last edited by solrey; August 17th, 2012 at 05:34 PM.
Good grief . . . I never even checked the stats . . . I was just making an analogy. . . of how the proximate cause of events can be hidden in the data . . . however, your research demonstrates the point very well . . . what appears to be true is often more complex. . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Obvious and habitual, which is why I don't take you seriously. I'm probably not alone.Good grief . . . I never even checked the stats
No, you were just making stuff up based on your belief system.I was just making an analogy. . . of how the proximate cause of events can be hidden in the data
No, it's your simplistic perception of what appears to be true based on nothing more than your beliefs.however, your research demonstrates the point very well . . . what appears to be true is often more complex.
It didn't look ike an analogy - you wrote:
Nothing in there tells me - hey I'm just making this up to illustrate a point".if their connections are coincidental or if they are masked by a true association like most fatal car accidents occur at night . . . it isn't the night but alcohol abuse that is the direct cause . . . the fact that more people drink and drive at night is more of a cultural issue . . .
If you had said "So let's assume that......", or "As an example, if......."
So perhaps you should be a bit more obvious about what type of example you are making - no-one here can see your face or read anything into your tone of voice - all we have is your written word.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
I like you as well . . . Just what belief do you think I am proposing . . . since you seem to be able to tell from what I wrote???!!!
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Trust me I will from now on . . . many of you are so conditioned to attack anything I say because you disagree with my position on the possibility of an intentional injection program . . . I either live with it or leave . . . I am sure you would love that so you can hang around patting each other on the back agreeing with each other on what a good job you are doing debunking . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I didn't attack your position at all - I pointed out hat nothing you wrote was suggestive of you using an analogy, and if you intend something to be taken as an analogy then it would probably be a good idea to make it more obvious.
But apart from that....huh??
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks