EU President Announces New Taxes at Bilderberg Meeting

[long-gone-kiwi]

Bullsh1t! Sarcasm my fvcking ass! over my head my fvcking ass! There is no sarcasm, no irony in that post, just a conspiracy theory copied and pasted. You've been well and truely busted you two-bit used car salesman. As for the rest of the above post, it's just more of your non-sensical arsegravy.

Dear oh dear Pill such venom. Why not just try? Its an easy enough thing to answer is it not..or is it that you think if you have to concede that simple point your whole delusion will crash around you ? rest assured that is only tje begining

[The Red Pill]

After reading some of the multitudes of explanations on the net about the Bilderburg conspiracy the one thing that seems to be at the heart of the theory is the fact that they are held in secret. Their explanation for that is logical, and is in fact the reason for parliamentary priviledge as well.

OK, you spewer of bull excrement! what is your source for this "explaination"? Also, please tell me what "their explanation" is and how it is "logical". As for parliamentary priviledge - parliamentary priviledge is about immunity from legal action (such as libel or defamation) resulting from statements publicly made in houses of parliament. It has nothing to do with secrecy. Come on, sooner or later you are going to run out of methane!

[The Red Pill]

Dear oh dear Pill such venom. Why not just try? Its an easy enough thing to answer is it not..or is it that you think if you have to concede that simple point your whole delusion will crash around you ? rest assured that is only tje begining

Concede what "simple" point?

[The Red Pill]

I tried to dumb it down a bit for the Tyler fella but he still didn't understand it. On that subject, I am getting the feeling that you are in fact one and the same.

That's funny because just a day or two ago you seemed to see me and Tyler as being very different


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Durden View Post
So you have no answers to any of the questions I have asked, is that what you are saying? You appear to be very good at firing disparaging barbs at others (Red Pill, Roland, Rhonda and Prester Jim for instance) and demanding that they answer your questions, but when it comes to doing so yourself you consistently fail, much like the All Blacks at the World Cup. You have yet to score a try let alone a conversion.

Your reply,

"Why would I bother, at least they have sensible posts.You keep telling me the same things. There is no time limits on threads but you replyed to one in the middle of discussion. You want to talk about 3 different things at once. You don't want to accept simple things. You want me to tell you about the bildeburgers cos you haven't heard of them and at the end of the post you start talking about them. I have plenty of answers to your questions and I'm sure you have plenty of answers for mine. But get a grip man."

You are a very confused man.

[Tyler Durden]

Busted me did ya Pill. Fair play. Irony, no I'd say sarcastic, but because it was obviously over his head (and yours ) I did'nt persist.

Maybe that's because you don't do irony very well? It is just as well you didn't persist.

A very good example of irony though Pill would be me having this ongoing discussion with you and the rest for so long while sharing your paranoid delusions.

That is just lame. If you can't handle the fact that other people have opinions that don't agree with yours (whatever they happen to be) then that's just too bad. Referring to them as 'paranoid delusions' simply because they don't concur with received wisdom and/or your particular worldview is childish in the extreme.

As you can see when I engage in a topic I tend to stick with it, which is why I disapeared off that thread, anyway nice try.

Is it just me, or is that particular sentence saying two completely distinct and contradictory things?

As for the question, which I've never had an answer to I will have another go. I tried to dumb it down a bit for the Tyler fella but he still didn't understand it.

What a comedian you are. As I've said before, you are failing to get your point across. Your attempts to answer questions probably fail because you've been doing too much mary jane.

On that subject, I am getting the feeling that you are in fact one and the same. If I'm wrong, well we can all see things which aren't there sometimes Pill can't we, I'm sure you understand. (sarcasm).

I can assure you that we are two completely different people. Your attempts to portray as 'paranoid' those who engage their grey matter and entertain the idea that things may not be as they are repeated told are truly pathetic, just like your ludicrous 'girls in the back of the bus' analogy.

I tried to put the question in differen't way for Tyler but he still didn't get what I meant, so for you I will try another tack.After reading some of the multitudes of explanations on the net about the Bilderburg conspiracy the one thing that seems to be at the heart of the theory is the fact that they are held in secret.

Yes, it forms part of basis of the conclusions the so-called "conspiracy theorists". There are many other factors at play. It seems you have failed to discern them. Of course, the fact that the secrecy-shrouded meetings are attended by extremely wealthy oligarchs and the people who are supposed to be representing us isn't one of the reasons some people are so suspicious.

Their explanation for that is logical, and is in fact the reason for parliamentary priviledge as well. So I want to try a thought experiment with you Pill.

It appears you don't fully understand the concept of parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege simply gives members of certain parliaments immunity from legal action (civil or criminal) as a result of their actions or statements during the course of their duties as legislators.

I want you to try and imagine you have never heard of the bilderburgs or the NWO or any such thing. If I was to say to you "the bilderburg group meets in secret" and you took that to mean they were an evil cartel plotting world domination, please tell me if you think I would be wrong to suspect you had some issues involving maybe a touch of paranoia.

This is a pointless "thought experiment". While we don't know exactly what transpires at these meetings, we do know the sort of people who are invited to Bilderberg. Many of them are public representatives who shouldn't be creating public policy with a coterie of oligarchs behind closed doors.

Note it is not in the form of a question. Just tell me what in that statement implies anything bad. Please just leave it at that and we can proceed from there.

Ah, so you think you can control the way debate happens here? Think again!

[long-gone-kiwi]

OK, you spewer of bull excrement! what is your source for this "explaination"? Also, please tell me what "their explanation" is and how it is "logical". As for parliamentary priviledge - parliamentary priviledge is about immunity from legal action (such as libel or defamation) as a result of statements publicly made in houses of parliament. It has nothing to do with secrecy. Come on, sooner or later you are going to run out of methane!

Pill. It is your blind refusal to accept any common knowledge without detailed proof that makes me think you and Tyler are one and the same.

You are right parlimetary priviledge has nothing to do with secrecy, exactly the opposite. But immunity is what parliamentary priviledge means it is not the reason for having it.
The reason it is there is so that MP's can speak openly without fear of repercussions. It is the same reason the group stay secret so they can discuss issues openly and fully.

I really shouldn't have to tell you that Pill unless you have only considered the conspiratist side of the story. You should also investigate what the other side says before you come to any conclusion..again very simple stuff.

I have put the last paragraph in bold letters, go back and read it. That simple point. Your last post is why I asked you to just do that, then we can proceed. It is a perfect example.

[long-gone-kiwi]

Just humour me Tyler aswer the question and we can move on.

[Tyler Durden]

Just humour me Tyler aswer the question and we can move on.

The scenario you painted is devoid of any grounding in reality. When you can come up with something less inane and which can be given a reasoned answer, I'll be happy to humour you.

[long-gone-kiwi]

The scenario you painted is devoid of any grounding in reality. When you can come up with something less inane and which can be given a reasoned answer, I'll be happy to humour you.

Now we're talking Tyler, one step at a time. Forget the question we'll leave it for the Pill. Which of your concerns would you like to sart with. Representative democracy?,conspiracy theories in general..can't remember others off and but there are plenty...you choose

[Tyler Durden]

Pill. It is your blind refusal to accept any common knowledge without detailed proof that makes me think you and Tyler are one and the same.

Prove that it is "common knowledge" and not just an unquestioningly received wisdom.

The reason it is there is so that MP's can speak openly without fear of repercussions. It is the same reason the group stay secret so they can discuss issues openly and fully.

When a group of powerful people meet to decide the future of the world I live in, I think I have a right to know what future they have in mind.

I really shouldn't have to tell you that Pill unless you have only considered the conspiratist side of the story.

Conspiratist? Whatever that is. Would you regard Thomas Jefferson a conspiracy theorist? How about Marcus Tullius Cicero?, Edmund Burke? Albert Einstein? Aristotle? Lord Acton? Plato? William Pitt? All these people have warned, in one way or another, of the dangers inherent in allowing a secretive elite, an oligarchy, to gain control of the reins of power. Are they what you would call "conspiratists"?

You should also investigate what the other side says before you come to any conclusion..again very simple stuff.

Such fatuousness and arrogance, all neatly contained in the one sentence. What makes you think he hasn't investigated and considered "the other side"?