What are Bilderberg Conferences all about?
The Bilderberg Secretariat proclaims the conferences to be '...private in order to encourage frank and open discussion'. Frank and open discussion is a good thing in any forum but when those doing the discussing are some of the very most powerful financiers and media tycoons in the world it begs the question: If what they discuss is for the good of ordinary people why not publicise it! Isn't it a perverted use of the word 'open' when no-one can find out what they're saying?
Is Bilderberg a secret conspiracy?
Who is behind Bilderberg?
http://www.bilderberggroup.net/ (http://www.bilderberggroup.net/)
You know, I meet in confidence with my attorney so I can have frank and open discussion with him about issues I care about.
In this case, frank and open means frank and open for the group, and the ability to talk "off the record" without concern about your REAL concerns. Being a high-placed Government or business official can make it hard to say ANYTHING without significantly weighing your words against public impression, political fallout, business repercussions. You need to have a confidential place to actually speak frankly and openly, to speak your mind without concern.
Quote from: Shanghai Dan on September 05, 2011, 06:30:22 PM
You know, I meet in confidence with my attorney so I can have frank and open discussion with him about issues I care about.
In this case, frank and open means frank and open for the group, and the ability to talk "off the record" without concern about your REAL concerns. Being a high-placed Government or business official can make it hard to say ANYTHING without significantly weighing your words against public impression, political fallout, business repercussions. You need to have a confidential place to actually speak frankly and openly, to speak your mind without concern.
pffffffffffft!
There is a vast difference between one person meeting privately with their attorney to discuss personal issues (or my siblings and I meeting privately to conspire for a surprise golden anniversary celebration for our parents) and for 120-140 of the world's wealthiest and most powerful to meet privately by invitation only. You can bet what they discuss is of a personal nature also that will have a negative affect on the rest of the world.
IMO it is not a stretch to suspect what they secretly discuss is how to acquire even more wealth and power. Surely they are not discussing how to redistribute their own wealth in charitable ways to benefit the underprivileged nations.
These meetings create an artificial 'consensus' in an attempt to spellbind visiting politicians and other men of influence. Blair has fallen for this hook, line and sinker. It's about reinforcing - often to the very people who are on the edge of condemning Globalization - the illusion that Globalization is 'good', 'popular' and that it's inevitable. [/u]
Quote from: msbobbie on September 07, 2011, 06:23:25 AM
pffffffffffft!
There is a vast difference between one person meeting privately with their attorney to discuss personal issues (or my siblings and I meeting privately to conspire for a surprise golden anniversary celebration for our parents) and for 120-140 of the world's wealthiest and most powerful to meet privately by invitation only. You can bet what they discuss is of a personal nature also that will have a negative affect on the rest of the world.
IMO it is not a stretch to suspect what they secretly discuss is how to acquire even more wealth and power. Surely they are not discussing how to redistribute their own wealth in charitable ways to benefit the underprivileged nations.
These meetings create an artificial 'consensus' in an attempt to spellbind visiting politicians and other men of influence. Blair has fallen for this hook, line and sinker. It's about reinforcing - often to the very people who are on the edge of condemning Globalization - the illusion that Globalization is 'good', 'popular' and that it's inevitable.
LOL!!!
You are so enlightened as to know for a fact that these people are all on the same page in their desire to attain power and money?
Charlie Rose attended and he doesn't strike me as that kind of person, in fact quite the opposite.
But lets assume for a moment he is, wouldn't exposing such a group bring him wealth and power over night if he were to expose such a group?
Of course it would, along with many of the other people on the list, but for some reason that simply hasn't happened in all their years of meetings...
Hmmmm, just tossing this out there, but could it be that maybe, just maybe, that.......
THERE is NO HIDDEN AGENDA
Quote from: msbobbie on September 07, 2011, 06:23:25 AM
pffffffffffft!
There is a vast difference between one person meeting privately with their attorney to discuss personal issues (or my siblings and I meeting privately to conspire for a surprise golden anniversary celebration for our parents) and for 120-140 of the world's wealthiest and most powerful to meet privately by invitation only. You can bet what they discuss is of a personal nature also that will have a negative affect on the rest of the world.
IMO it is not a stretch to suspect what they secretly discuss is how to acquire even more wealth and power. Surely they are not discussing how to redistribute their own wealth in charitable ways to benefit the underprivileged nations.
These meetings create an artificial 'consensus' in an attempt to spellbind visiting politicians and other men of influence. Blair has fallen for this hook, line and sinker. It's about reinforcing - often to the very people who are on the edge of condemning Globalization - the illusion that Globalization is 'good', 'popular' and that it's inevitable.
What's globalization, in your opinion?
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 07:01:39 AM
Charlie Rose attended and he doesn't strike me as that kind of person, in fact quite the opposite.
But lets assume for a moment he is, wouldn't exposing such a group bring him wealth and power over night if he were to expose such a group?
I have long admired Charlie Rose. He is one of, if not
the best informed interviewers on television. He converses comfortably with every guest on just about any topic of discussion. I believe he likes doing what he does.
But.. Geraldo he is not. perhaps you are type-casting Charlie. Besides,
Quoteexposing such a group
might not be healthy for him.
Quote from: msbobbie on September 09, 2011, 07:31:57 AM
I have long admired Charlie Rose. He is one of, if not the best informed interviewers on television. He converses comfortably with every guest on just about any topic of discussion. I believe he likes doing what he does.
But.. Geraldo he is not. perhaps you are type-casting Charlie. Besides, might not be healthy for him.
Geraldo is an idiot, I didn't know he attended.
Now see, you are making assumptions based on your belief that they must be up to no good, therefore they will go to any length to keep control over anyone with information on the gtoup.
Do you realize just how outlandish that sounds?
It's ideas such as that, that allowed the Nazi party to grow.
The Joooos have a lot of money and therefore are evil and must destroyed before they destroy us.
Quote from: arpad on September 07, 2011, 08:03:45 PM
What's globalization, in your opinion?
For starters:
First, the globe refers to the whole planet; the world. In my opinion "globalization" means the whole world is unified.
Consider a
global currency.
Consider the World Court. It already exists, but the United States (at this time) is only subject to the Court's opinions on a case by case basis.
Agenda 21 brings the whole world together on the issue of "sustainable development" to "protect the environment" and "save the planet".
(The U.N. believes we are over populated; we pollute too much and consume to much of the Earth's resources. The U.N. is opposed to private property ownership and believes all any of us are entitled to is "decent" living quarters and "adequate" diet)
The U.N.s answer to poverty is population control.
"Globalization" to me means there will be no borders and there will be one set of laws and a single defined punishment for each "crime" no matter where it is committed.
What do you think "globalization" means, arpad?
Mostly I think globalization means international trade and specifically that international trade is such an awful thing that it ought to be shut down.
As for the rest of the items you mention, I'm not impressed.
The nearest thing to a global currency is the U.S. dollar and the reason's because the dollar's the best store of value.
The World Court has only as much authority as the U.S. government's willing to dole out to the court. If the court gets a bit too big for its britches we can just ignore it and nothing will happen other then, for all intents and purposes, the court will cease to exist.
Agenda 21, and the U.N. in its entirety, are worth a bucket, in the words of John Nance Garner, of warm piss. The U.N. is a political confection that's going stale and while I don't see it going away any time soon I also don't see it's power and authority increasing. So the U.N.s plans for population control aren't worth wasting your time upon and their plans for other greenie-weenie nonsense are similarly of very little interest due to the fact that they'll never be anything other then plans.
World government's been a dream of lefties for a hundred years and looks to be no nearer now then it was then.
Contrary to what lefties have been preaching, I don't see the nation-state going away any time soon. Sovereign nations have too much value to their citizens and if there's one lesson that can be drawn from the EU its that people are very loath to give up our national identities. The EU's run up against a brick wall in its efforts to erase national divisions within the EU and I don't see any international entity with the power of the EU so where's the political leverage supposed to come from to erase borders internationally?
From what I've seen, globalization is a new scare term used by those opposed to international trade.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 07:48:44 AM
The Joooos have a lot of money and therefore are evil and must destroyed before they destroy us.
Now who is being outlandish?
To my knowledge Geraldo has not been invited to attend any of the Bilderberg meetings, but he calls himself an "investigative reporter". Charlie Rose does not.
Quote from: arpad on September 09, 2011, 02:32:01 PM
Mostly I think globalization means international trade and specifically that international trade is such an awful thing that it ought to be shut down.
As for the rest of the items you mention, I'm not impressed.
The nearest thing to a global currency is the U.S. dollar and the reason's because the dollar's the best store of value.
The World Court has only as much authority as the U.S. government's willing to dole out to the court. If the court gets a bit too big for its britches we can just ignore it and nothing will happen other then, for all intents and purposes, the court will cease to exist.
Agenda 21, and the U.N. in its entirety, are worth a bucket, in the words of John Nance Garner, of warm piss. The U.N. is a political confection that's going stale and while I don't see it going away any time soon I also don't see it's power and authority increasing. So the U.N.s plans for population control aren't worth wasting your time upon and their plans for other greenie-weenie nonsense are similarly of very little interest due to the fact that they'll never be anything other then plans.
World government's been a dream of lefties for a hundred years and looks to be no nearer now then it was then.
Contrary to what lefties have been preaching, I don't see the nation-state going away any time soon. Sovereign nations have too much value to their citizens and if there's one lesson that can be drawn from the EU its that people are very loath to give up our national identities. The EU's run up against a brick wall in its efforts to erase national divisions within the EU and I don't see any international entity with the power of the EU so where's the political leverage supposed to come from to erase borders internationally?
From what I've seen, globalization is a new scare term used by those opposed to international trade.
I am not even attempting to impress you. You asked a question and I answered it. I really don't give a rat's tail if you agree or not.
Quote from: msbobbie on September 09, 2011, 04:40:55 PM
Now who is being outlandish?
To my knowledge Geraldo has not been invited to attend any of the Bilderberg meetings, but he calls himself an "investigative reporter". Charlie Rose does not.
So...I assume you have a point?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusahitman.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2Fblack_helicopters.jpg&hash=85311566c5feabef2b444874e8989117611bdd78)
Quote from: msbobbie on September 09, 2011, 04:48:15 PM
I am not even attempting to impress you. You asked a question and I answered it. I really don't give a rat's tail if you agree or not.
Of course not. Why bandy words with a fool who's incapable of seeing the plain truth that's so apparent to you?
If anyone's gotten to the second sentence of this post, my theory is that conspiratorialism is a self-administered intelligence test that proves the insightfullness of the test-taker. Msbobbie's no exception.
A little bit of challenge to the various pronouncements proves I'm too stupid to see the oh-so-obvious truth, truth that's obvious to msbobbie, which leaves two options - elevate the nose so as not to be troubled by the stupid unbeliever or redouble efforts to try to beat the challenger into submission with a tsunami of text, but not of facts.
How do we know this isn't an effort to discredit the Bilderbergers --- by the Bilderbergers themselves?
Now that they are internationally suspect (in the eyes of the Illuminati-fearing tinfoil-wearing "intelligentsia"), isn't it reasonable they'd want to downplay their importance by having palpably-suspect people try to discredit them?
As long as you're looking at THEM, you're not looking at the REAL conspiracy, see. And the one after that, and after that.
Quote from: quiller on September 11, 2011, 08:39:11 AM
How do we know this isn't an effort to discredit the Bilderbergers --- by the Bilderbergers themselves?
Now that they are internationally suspect (in the eyes of the Illuminati-fearing tinfoil-wearing "intelligentsia"), isn't it reasonable they'd want to downplay their importance by having palpably-suspect people try to discredit them?
As long as you're looking at THEM, you're not looking at the REAL conspiracy, see. And the one after that, and after that.
Sleight of hand. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 04:51:12 PM
So...I assume you have a point?
I was responding to your reply #6. Did you have a point?
Quote from: arpad on September 10, 2011, 03:51:08 AM
Of course not. Why bandy words with a fool who's incapable of seeing the plain truth that's so apparent to you?
If anyone's gotten to the second sentence of this post, my theory is that conspiratorialism is a self-administered intelligence test that proves the insightfullness of the test-taker. Msbobbie's no exception.
A little bit of challenge to the various pronouncements proves I'm too stupid to see the oh-so-obvious truth, truth that's obvious to msbobbie, which leaves two options - elevate the nose so as not to be troubled by the stupid unbeliever or redouble efforts to try to beat the challenger into submission with a tsunami of text, but not of facts.
Watch those fingers, arpad; when you start pointing one, you have three pointing back at yourself.
Quote from: msbobbie on September 11, 2011, 03:52:44 PM
I was responding to your reply #6. Did you have a point?
Yes, obviously one that went over your head.
Quote from: msbobbie on September 11, 2011, 04:01:19 PM
Watch those fingers, arpad; when you start pointing one, you have three pointing back at yourself.
Anybody else want to advance a hypothesis for conspiratorialism? I think it's pretty clear that "stupid" isn't a viable hypothesis so if anyone else is reading this care to pick at my "self-administered intelligence test" explanation? msbobbie's has no worthwhile response to make to the idea so is responding as if it were a personal attack.
Quote from: arpad on September 12, 2011, 03:45:01 AM
Anybody else want to advance a hypothesis for conspiratorialism? I think it's pretty clear that "stupid" isn't a viable hypothesis so if anyone else is reading this care to pick at my "self-administered intelligence test" explanation? msbobbie's has no worthwhile response to make to the idea so is responding as if it were a personal attack.
Quote from: Solar on September 11, 2011, 08:42:34 AM
Sleight of hand. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Triple-think becomes a way of life to propagandists.
What's to say that the loons in the Truther movement are just trying to become national laughingstocks, deliberately undermining efforts to open
any serious investigation (before witnesses do die of old age).
Did George Soros fund the 9/11 attacks, in order to --- well, that's another conspiracy, yes?
The worst enemy the United States has is it's people who are too self absorbed to pay attention to what is going on around them; in their communities, their State or our Federal government, much less world events and how it affects our Republic.
There has been concern over the stability of the U.S. Dollar for quite some time and quite a few organizations and several nations have considered replacing the dollar as the monetary standard at least since 2007 and more so since S&P downgraded our credit rating. It has been reported in the Wall Street Journal and by World Net Daily among others.
The United Kingdom's Market Oracle issued this report in December 2007.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article2942.html (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article2942.html)
(I have to add that this was after Democrats had been in control of the United States Congress for only 1 year)
Two years ago
The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said the system of currencies and capital rules which binds the world economy is not working properly, and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises.
It added that the present system, under which the dollar acts as the world's reserve currency , should be subject to a wholesale reconsideration.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/6152204/UN-wants-new-global-currency-to-replace-dollar.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/6152204/UN-wants-new-global-currency-to-replace-dollar.html)
Here is an IMF report from early this year:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/shocking-new-imf-report-the-u-s-dollar-needs-to-be-replaced-as-the-world-reserve-currency-and-that-sdrs-could-constitute-an-embryo-of-global-currency (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/shocking-new-imf-report-the-u-s-dollar-needs-to-be-replaced-as-the-world-reserve-currency-and-that-sdrs-could-constitute-an-embryo-of-global-currency)
More here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=the+u.s.+dollar+and+world+currency&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS370US356&ie=UTF-8&aq=1h&oq= (http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=the+u.s.+dollar+and+world+currency&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS370US356&ie=UTF-8&aq=1h&oq=)
Myself and others choose to consider the possibilities of what we are in for. Then there are others who choose to ignore those possibilities.
.
Back to the Bilderberg Group.
Agenda 21 (the U.N. Plan for a One World Order) IS real. I believe the Bilderberg Group is supportive of this plan and aim to get as much of it as they can for themselves, and like the CFR will use their money, power and influence to control our elections to be sure the people elected favor that plan.
Quote from: msbobbie on September 14, 2011, 08:06:25 AM
The worst enemy the United States has is it's people who are too self absorbed to pay attention to what is going on around them; in their communities, their State or our Federal government, much less world events and how it affects our Republic.
Probably why Ben Franklin wasn't to optimistic about the survival of the republic; he was a well known cynic. He probably would've been surprised the republic would last over two hundred years and getting pretty close to two hundred and fifty. But here we are.
And self-absorption isn't a new phenomenon, any more then is a desire to impose your authority over your fellow human beings. Both existed long before the Constitution was a gleam in the Founding Father's eyes so while our almost inconceivable wealth, by the standards of the Found Fathers, has a bearing on our tolerance for self-absorption the phenomena, and the danger it represents, aren't new.
The genius of the Constitution lies, I believe, in an appreciation for and acceptance of human failings. If you were an engineer you'd appreciate the redundancy, a concept familiar to engineers, in the division of powers and system of checks and balances that's the foundation of our government. That won't stop assaults on liberty but, like barbed wire, it slows those assaults so they can be dealt with.
My assertion is that we do deal with them.
QuoteProbably why Ben Franklin wasn't to optimistic about the survival of the republic;
Ah, yes. "A Republic if you can keep it".
The day after tomorrow we (well, some of us) will celebrate the 224th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Only 39 of the 55 delegates who attended that convention did sign it, but it was a majority.
Efforts continue today for another Constitutional Convention, where the whole document will be layed open for revision, word for word.
QuoteMy assertion is that we do deal with them.
In the past we have dealt with them but it is becoming more difficult. The U.N. and the Bilderbergs are promoting stuff like "sustainable development" and a one world order. They support legislators who agree with that concept, but in order to get elected and keep getting elected; those same legislators support the welfare programs and tax the evil rich to pay for them.
Our Republic was founded on a principle of equal opportunity and personal responsibility, but in the last generation too many people have come to rely on a nanny state government to provide everything for them. They not only do not want to lose what they have, they want even more from others that have earned what they have.
Taxpayers are already outnumbered. My fear is that gimme generation, raising another gimme generation is going to drive us over the cliff and we won't have the Constitution to protect us.
Quote from: msbobbie on September 15, 2011, 11:30:51 AM
Ah, yes. "A Republic if you can keep it".
The day after tomorrow we (well, some of us) will celebrate the 224th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Only 39 of the 55 delegates who attended that convention did sign it, but it was a majority.
Efforts continue today for another Constitutional Convention, where the whole document will be layed open for revision, word for word.
People have been trying to undermine the Constitution since the day it was signed. Even before the signing.
The legalization of slavery occurred because powerful interests were quite willing to see the Constitution still-born rather then risk putting ink to a document that might spell the end of the institution of slavery. So, a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal had in its foundation document the somewhat uncomfortable acceptance of slavery.
But, we finally got around to dealing with the problem although it did take a while.
Quote
In the past we have dealt with them but it is becoming more difficult. The U.N. and the Bilderbergs are promoting stuff like "sustainable development" and a one world order. They support legislators who agree with that concept, but in order to get elected and keep getting elected; those same legislators support the welfare programs and tax the evil rich to pay for them.
Our Republic was founded on a principle of equal opportunity and personal responsibility, but in the last generation too many people have come to rely on a nanny state government to provide everything for them. They not only do not want to lose what they have, they want even more from others that have earned what they have.
Taxpayers are already outnumbered. My fear is that gimme generation, raising another gimme generation is going to drive us over the cliff and we won't have the Constitution to protect us.
You've just got to have a little faith that, given an opportunity and some time to consider, we the people will do the right thing.
As an example of all us mere proles blindly scrabbling toward the right answer, there's the diminishing momentum of the radical environmentalist movement. Our betters have been hectoring us for two decades of the crucial necessity of switching away from fossil fuels for a whole variety of reasons and I'd submit that their reasoning has been rejected along with their agenda. That's good, isn't it? Maybe the case for the demise of the radical environmentalist movement isn't as clear-cut as some others but I believe there's more then a bit of evidence to suggest that bloom is off the rose.
But if you really want to get a clear view of the slow-motion collapse of the left you've got to take a trip down memory lane to the museum of failed and forgotten lefty ideas.
Where's the unilateral nuclear disarmament movement now? Gone and largely forgotten.
How about project housing for the poor? Pornography for the explosion-addicted.
Gun control? I get some push-back from gun owners but there's no arguing with the fact that when left wing Democrats had a majority in the House, Senate and the White House the gun control crowd was persona non grata. Not a law was passed and precious little in the way of executive branch action was taken in support of the anti-gun agenda. My personal opinion is that they really are as dead as an issue as the anti-nuclear energy movement.
Then there's communism. You've got to go to a college campus to see real, live communists now and it wouldn't surprise me if some day soon they're put on display for public edification. Sort of like rare and exotic critters at the zoo. People will marvel at them and gasp at the unbelievable nonsense they spout and then go look at the peccaries. But is there much doubt that the day of the communist is past?
msbobbie, even if there was some post-crash conspiracy, it doesn't matter because we have our hands full anyway with our current government and economical issues...
QuoteYou've just got to have a little faith that, given an opportunity and some time to consider, we the people will do the right thing.
I will soon be 70 years old. I have seen too many changes and there have been more bad (for our Republic) than good in my opinion.
If we could rewind to the 1950s the only thing I would miss is air conditioning.
Quote from: taxed on September 15, 2011, 09:06:10 PM
msbobbie, even if there was some post-crash conspiracy, it doesn't matter because we have our hands full anyway with our current government and economical issues...
Yep. But it is all a part of the plan, taxed, and distraction from what is going on "behind the scenes". They are still creeping forward with their plan.
Quote from: msbobbie on September 17, 2011, 02:37:50 PM
I will soon be 70 years old. I have seen too many changes and there have been more bad (for our Republic) than good in my opinion.
If we could rewind to the 1950s the only thing I would miss is air conditioning.
If we could go back to the 50s, I would gladly give up air if it meant killing liberalism.
Besides, the music was better.
Quote from: msbobbie on September 17, 2011, 02:37:50 PM
I will soon be 70 years old. I have seen too many changes and there have been more bad (for our Republic) than good in my opinion.
If we could rewind to the 1950s the only thing I would miss is air conditioning.
If you could go back to the fifties, statistically, you'd be much more like to be dead.
Besides, you can't go back to the fifties so you'd better learn to find something to like about the decade you are living in because the "teens" aren't going away.
Turns out, if you're honest with yourself, the fifties weren't all that wonderful and the teens aren't that awful.
The word "nigger" doesn't roll of the tongue, in public, of sitting politicians which is a step in the right direction and the Soviet Union doesn't have thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us any longer which is also a step in the right direction. You're using an internet-connected computer with all that implies both about your distaste for this decade and the wonderfulness of the fifties.
Had a friend some years back who used to view the thirties in a similar way. I reminded him of his love affair with a bygone era while he was recovering from the rupture of an intestinal blood vessel. The then modern medical technology saved his life, medical technology that was fifty years in the future in the 1930s.
Being addicted to stubbornness, my friend insisted that there was a lot that was good about the 1930s. My reply was, yeah, as long as you weren't black or Jewish or sick.
In the 1950s there was far less government intrusion in and control of our lives. School children were taught how to think instead of what to think and they showed respect for their parents and other elders.
President Eisenhower had actively expelled illegal aliens so the soldiers returning from Korea could get jobs.
In the 1950s people did not care what kind of job they had as long as they were working and taking care of their families until a better job came along. Few people were paid not to work in the 1950s.
That was long before we entered the Vietnam conflict when young men were drafted to die, and draft dodgers.
Before President Nixon ended the draft and President Carter forgave the draft dodgers.
People were not afraid to leave their doors unlocked, the keys in the ignition of their car, or a stranger knocking on the door to ask for a drink of water or a meal.
People traded labor, helping out a neighbor knowing when they needed help it would be there; and people cared for their family members who could not care for themselves.
The United Nations was in its infancy and had not gained the World Power it has today and Secret Societies like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, and Unions did not have the stranglehold on our Government they have today.
Sorry msbobbie but school children were most assuredly taught what to think in public schools.
You may have approved of what they were taught to think but one of the purposes of public school is to indoctrinate the kids. So it's really just a matter of who's choosing which particular points of view to indoctrinate the kids with.
I'm still not clear on exactly how the power of the United Nations works. A bunch of treaties partly brokered by the U.N. - Kyoto Accords, the small arms treaties - were dead letters before they cleared the doors of the U.N. so that's hardly evidence of the U.N.s power. U.N. "peace keepers" have quite a mixed bag of results with some being a real embarrassment to the U.N.
Finally, the fifties aren't coming back whatever the truth about how wonderful, or not, they were. So you might want to think about finding things to like about the period you're living in. I don't believe you have much say in the situation.
Quote from: arpad on September 19, 2011, 03:12:45 PM
Sorry msbobbie but school children were most assuredly taught what to think in public schools.
You may have approved of what they were taught to think but one of the purposes of public school is to indoctrinate the kids. So it's really just a matter of who's choosing which particular points of view to indoctrinate the kids with.
I do not know in what era you went to school, but the U.S. Department of Education did not come to be until 1979. That is when children began being "indoctrinated". It got worse after NCLB.Quote
I'm still not clear on exactly how the power of the United Nations works. A bunch of treaties partly brokered by the U.N. - Kyoto Accords, the small arms treaties - were dead letters before they cleared the doors of the U.N. so that's hardly evidence of the U.N.s power. U.N. "peace keepers" have quite a mixed bag of results with some being a real embarrassment to the U.N.
For the United States, the power of the U.N. lies in the United States Congress and the people organizations like the CFR, Bilderbergs and Unions help elect. For now, issues like Kyoto and arms control are "dead", but that can always change with the next election.
QuoteFinally, the fifties aren't coming back whatever the truth about how wonderful, or not, they were. So you might want to think about finding things to like about the period you're living in. I don't believe you have much say in the situation.
Some believe the 50s or even pre 50s are coming back. Some will be prepared and others will not. Some will know how to survive and others will think surviving means taking whatever they need or want from someone else who has prepared. I like air conditioning. I like the few freedoms we have how, but they are being slowly stripped away, thanks to the United Nations and their elite supporters.
If you are not clear about the power of the United Nations it is past time for you to start learning more than you think you know now.
http://www.un.org/en/ (http://www.un.org/en/)
Read all of the tabs and links. They really have no secrets. Most people are too lazy to research before the form an opinion.
Quote from: msbobbie on September 21, 2011, 08:49:52 AM
I do not know in what era you went to school, but the U.S. Department of Education did not come to be until 1979. That is when children began being "indoctrinated". It got worse after NCLB.
I was born in 1950 so my elementary school education long predates the establishment of the Department of Education and that is
not when children began to be indoctrinated.
We said our pledge of allegiance every morning like all kids did back then and if you think that's not indoctrination then I'd be interested to hear what you
do think it is. As for NCLB, the shoe's on other foot. You really don't have a clue about that piece of legislation.
Quote
For the United States, the power of the U.N. lies in the United States Congress and the people organizations like the CFR, Bilderbergs and Unions help elect. For now, issues like Kyoto and arms control are "dead", but that can always change with the next election.
Har! So the power of the U.N. resides in Congress?
Uh, msbobbie, that means the U.N. has no power. That much ought to be obvious from the back-of-the-hand treatment the U.N. has gotten over any number of treaties including the Kyoto Accord, the small arms treaty and quite a few others. If they had power they'd jam that stuff down our throats.
And while those could, conceivably, come back the odds diminish as time goes on. We could have eighty degree weather here in the Detroit ares in January but the odds are rather severally stacked against the possibility.
Quote
Some believe the 50s or even pre 50s are coming back. Some will be prepared and others will not. Some will know how to survive and others will think surviving means taking whatever they need or want from someone else who has prepared.
No, the fifties aren't coming back. Some ideas and attitudes that were more common and didn't require an apology are making a come-back but it won't be the fifties ever again. As to the "Mad Max" rhetoric, not interested. Been there, considered and decided "no".
Quote
I like air conditioning. I like the few freedoms we have how, but they are being slowly stripped away, thanks to the United Nations and their elite supporters.
Our freedoms aren't being stripped away. We've been convinced to give them up. My, admittedly, rosy view is that we're getting less and less enthusiastic about those reductions in freedom and more and more resistant to the appeals that are used to try to justify those reductions in freedom.
But then, what's new about that?
Quote
If you are not clear about the power of the United Nations it is past time for you to start learning more than you think you know now.
http://www.un.org/en/ (http://www.un.org/en/)
Read all of the tabs and links. They really have no secrets. Most people are too lazy to research before the form an opinion.
Thanks but I have only so much time in the day and wasting that time on an organization that's sliding slowly, but in the not-too-distant future will slide more quickly, into oblivion isn't a good use of my time.
Believe what you want. I will just consider myself better informed since you do not have time to be.
Everything has an agenda, that is the nature of life, even charities that ask for money have an agenda.
But when you hyper focus on anyone particular issue, you are bound to see these hidden agendas.
This is why I said, You need to step back and look at the big picture.
What you are seeing is the equivalent of the inner workings of the human body fighting off disease and winning.
Take a step back and look how, at every turn these people have been made irrelevant, the body (America) will continue to fight this disease, even when it gained power, the marxist in charge couldn't bring it to its knees.
Look at him, he is a kid out of his element as a community organizer, and the courts have stopped him at every turn.
So I guess the point is, yes, there are elements out there that would love to take over, and always will be, yet we prevail.
If anything, it will be self inflicted socialism that will ruin our culture.
Again, look at just how far the communists managed to change our culture, and all done through influence of the youth.
They didn't need a secret organization, they only needed to brainwash one generation.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm (http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm)
Quote from: msbobbie on September 22, 2011, 07:09:24 AM
Believe what you want. I will just consider myself better informed since you do not have time to be.
Thanks. I will.
And you do provide a clue as to the underlying motivation of conspiratorialism.
A lot of people will simply dismiss you as stupid or crazy but that will trouble you not at all and, in fact, conspiratorialists, except for the real "off the edge" types, clearly aren't mentally ill or mentally deficient. But when you write "I will just consider myself" you reveal the true reason that motivates conspiratorialists: it's all about you.
Conspiratorialism is a means by which you can convince yourself of your superior insightfulness without doing much more then reading some lame books or websites and getting excited.
You are in possession of dangerous truths that the inferior, blinkered masses that surround you are not in possession of.
Poor, stupid masses. If only they saw the world through your all-seeing eye but they never will. They're too stupid. And you're so smart.
I'm pretty sure you'll see the above as a personal attack but it isn't.
I'm looking for a reason why otherwise intelligent, balanced and capable people can latch onto such astonishingly silly ideas as the hollow earth through Marxism. And vast, ancient, all-powerful, hidden conspiracies.
Quote from: arpad on September 22, 2011, 12:43:21 PM
Thanks. I will.
And you do provide a clue as to the underlying motivation of conspiratorialism.
A lot of people will simply dismiss you as stupid or crazy but that will trouble you not at all and, in fact, conspiratorialists, except for the real "off the edge" types, clearly aren't mentally ill or mentally deficient. But when you write "I will just consider myself" you reveal the true reason that motivates conspiratorialists: it's all about you.
Conspiratorialism is a means by which you can convince yourself of your superior insightfulness without doing much more then reading some lame books or websites and getting excited. You are in possession of dangerous truths that the inferior, blinkered masses that surround you are not in possession of.
Poor, stupid masses. If only they saw the world through your all-seeing eye but they never will. They're too stupid. And you're so smart.
I'm pretty sure you'll see the above as a personal attack but it isn't.
I'm looking for a reason why otherwise intelligent, balanced and capable people can latch onto such astonishingly silly ideas as the hollow earth through Marxism. And vast, ancient, all-powerful, hidden conspiracies.
Are you talking about Glen Beck? :P
Quote from: Dan on September 26, 2011, 02:00:42 PM
Are you talking about Glen Beck? :P
No. I'm assuming that's a slam on Beck although it's wasted on me. I've only watched Beck for a couple of minutes here and there. Once or twice he was not bad. Once or twice he was pretty far over the top.
In any case, that's got nothing to do with what I was writing about.
Do you have any notions about why conspiratorialism is no respecter of IQ, success in life or education?
Sorry. I stopped paying attention a while ago. :p
Why do all babies look like Winston Churchill?
Why do all cave men look like Jerry Garcia?
Did anyone know that the Kerry and Bush election was the first one where both candidates were in the Skulls and bones at Yale and the Bilderberg Group.
Does anyone beside the OP know what the Bilderberg Group is and what they do?
Other presidential candidates and presidents that were members of this prestigious
group include:
BILL CLINTON AND WHIFE AND CURRENT SEC OF STATE
H. BUSH
CARTER
FORD
OBAMA AND VP BIDEN
PLUS
AL GORE
ALL CIA DIRECTORS SINCE CARTER'S ADMINISTRATION
ALL MAJORITY AND MINORITY WHIPS IN CONGRESS SINCE AT LEAST THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION
AND MOST OF THE REST OF CONGRESS
AND MOST GUVs
MC CAIN
SANTORUM
PLUS
ALL PMs SINCE THATCHER WHO SAID I CONSIDER IT AN HONOR THAT
THE BILDERBERGS GOT RID OF ME. SHE WAS VS ENGLAND JOINING THE EU
THUS GIVING UP THEIR SOVERINTY.
GORBACHEV WHO HAD AN OFFICE NEXT TO H. BUSH AT THE PRESIDIO WHICH
WAS PAID FOR BY THE BILDERBERGS
DAVID ROCKEFELLER WHO LEFT THE BILDERBERGS TO FORM HIS OWN GROUP
BECAUSE THEY WOULDNT INCLUDE CHINA AND JAPAN AND INCLUDES MEMBERS
SUCH AS OBAMA, GEITHNER-SP?, AND MOST OF OBAMA'S CABINET.
Somebody in America thinks it's important.
THE TIME HAS NEVER BEEN RIGHT THAN NOW FOR A ONE WORLD GOV'T.
DAVID ROCKEFELLER
For the poster who asked about globalization, this is globalization.
And note the Gorbachev Foundation and the Raytheon Corp. They built the
anti missile system during the first Gulf war that shot down those scuds and
when H Bush was president. They are all connected to bilderbergs.
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-chart-shows-the-bilderberg-groups-connection-to-everything-in-the-world-2012-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/this-chart-shows-the-bilderberg-groups-connection-to-everything-in-the-world-2012-6)
Quote from: msbobbie on September 09, 2011, 07:31:57 AM
I have long admired Charlie Rose. He is one of, if not the best informed interviewers on television. He converses comfortably with every guest on just about any topic of discussion. I believe he likes doing what he does.
But.. Geraldo he is not. perhaps you are type-casting Charlie. Besides, might not be healthy for him.
Charlie Rose "the best informed interviewers..."?
We Don't Know Obama PBS 10-30-08 Charlie Rose & Tom Brokaw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6F6PkPuNZE#)
Right... :rolleyes:
-Dr Watt
Quote from: Dr_Watt on July 06, 2012, 09:04:53 PM
Charlie Rose "the best informed interviewers..."?
We Don't Know Obama PBS 10-30-08 Charlie Rose & Tom Brokaw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6F6PkPuNZE#)
Right... :rolleyes:
-Dr Watt
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Rose is a tool of the left.