LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksJust take the reefer out of your mouth and answer the questions I have already asked, preferably without the accompanying excess verbiage.Originally Posted by long-gone-kiwi
Just take the reefer out of your mouth and answer the questions I have already asked, preferably without the accompanying excess verbiage.
Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.
-- Plato
Blind Refusal! What's blind about questioning?
I think you are confusing "common knowledge" with the recieved wisdom and blind acceptance of it. It was once "common knowledge" that the world was flat. It was also once "common knowlege" that you could establish if a woman was a witch or not by wether or not she floated when you threw her into a lake! In South Africa it was once "common knowledge" that black people were inferior. Need I go on?
Why should an MP be allowed to speak openly without repercussions? So they can lie and get away with it? And even if you agree with the principal of parliametary privilege,why should the bilderbergers have the same privileges? Are they elected? Are they a parliament? Are they a government? Why do they need to be able to speak openly without repercussions?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.
You still have not quoted a reliable source for this explaination. How do you know this explaination is not just designed to keep Goofballs like you happy?
Last edited by The Red Pill; 27th November 2009 at 12:29 AM.
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied. (Claud Cockburn)
"Why should an MP be allowed to speak openly without repercussions? So they can lie and get away with it?"
No Pill, so they can speak the truth and get away with it. For example, If a TD were to stand up in the Dail and say "Mr. Cowen your NAMA bill is nothing more than a bailout for your friends and backers, the bankers and developers who have yourself and your party in their pockets". This would be clearly slanderous, but as you may agree true, and the TD would not be able to say it without fear of a law suit, where he would be required to prove it was true, which you will agree would be very difficult.
That is why priviledge is there, so TD's can say things that need to be said without a law suit following it.
It is only an example don't get all caught up in the detail. That is the reason for parliamentary priviledge
Last edited by long-gone-kiwi; 27th November 2009 at 01:44 AM.
"Bilderberg is the most useful international group I ever attended. The confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions.
"In my experience the most useful meetings are those when one is free to speak openly and honestly. It's not unusual at all. Cabinet meetings in all countries are held behind closed doors and the minutes are not published."
That activists have seized on Bilderberg is no surprise to Alasdair Spark, an expert in conspiracy theories.
"The idea that a shadowy clique is running the world is nothing new. For hundreds of years people have believed the world is governed by a cabal of Jews.
"Shouldn't we expect that the rich and powerful organise things in their own interests. It's called capitalism."
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Bilderberg: The ultimate conspiracy theory
There are so many..surely it is better to answer one at a time otherwise it just gets sidetracked. See myself a Pill are now taiking about parll priv..you get what I mean? pick your favourite killer question from your posts
As I talked about previously concerning the control of the media for so many years surrounding the Bilderberg meetings is nothing new,here we have an example of getting with times and finally exposing a "conspiracy" now,that they for so long ignored..why ? because Bilderberg has been exposed and from now it shall become meaningless,just as I also mentioned about the term Illuminati.
Quick observation the piece of the article you posted,Alasdair Spark implies that people that believe in "this sort of thing" are anti semitic,he does come straight out and say it,but he doesn't have to,to just imply that for hundreds of years people have believed that a " the world is governed by a cabal of jews" which is not only false but inflammatory too.
Think of it this way,if FF have enough influence to dictate to RTE over criticizing them,a group as powerful as Bilderberg can most definitely hold influence over the BBC.The BBC have their own skeletons,one of my favourite being this one :
See can you explain this ?because believe me,the BBC can't.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk"]YouTube- BBC REPORTED BUILDING 7 COLLAPSE 20 MINUTES EARLY[/ame]
Originally Posted by hiding behind a poster It would be illegal, so it can't happen.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Take cover the Gunslinger is back..Good evening Roland. I agree with you on that, so put them back in your holster we don't want a friendly fire incident. But as you can see from the thread the old Pill and his mate want to argue the finest of detail and even the simplest of things are dragged out and made a song and dance about. Almost tearfully having to explain to them what parliamentary priviledge was about and why I used such an easy comparison led me to a quick google for the link. I did'nt need that part it was just stuck on the end.
I couldn't believe that the Pill made such a big deal out of "the explanation", surely I can expect someone who quite obviously has looked into the Bilderb's to have at least glanced at what they themselves might have said. I mean in all fairness it's probably their strongest argument for secrecy..would you agree?.
I have not looked much further into the Rothchids link you gave me yet, but come the end of exams I will. I will post a thread and let you know what I thought, one way or the other.
I have a good link for you if your interested.It's a chapter by Alasdair Spark, he talks alot about Noam Chomskys thoughts on the subject and is very interesting. A bit at the start about Tony Blair's idol, Anthony Giddens as well.
The age of anxiety: conspiracy ... - Google Books
Last edited by long-gone-kiwi; 27th November 2009 at 03:36 AM.
Let me get this straight. What you are effectively saying here is that you can only cope with one question?
Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.
-- Plato
Not at all Tyler/Pill What I'm saying is that it is pointless to wander all over the place. As you can see from the thread you want to ask questions about all sorts of things.You are welcome to ask me questions about the same topic. I think you might be a little bit scared because you know that you don't actually have a leg to stand on.
You and your clone scream and cry "prove it, received wisdom, links, links we must have links" for the simplest of things. Look at the idiots you made out of yourselves last night.First of all you displayed a complete lack of knowledge of the ONLY reason the Bilder's are secretive, a total lack of mental agility by being unable to connect the two SIMPLE ideas of parliamentary priviledge and the Bldr's secrecy. What you/Pill did last night was to google what parl. priv. was and scream "whats that got to do with anything?". An intelligent person would have asked themselves WHY it is there, the reason for having it so they might be able to connect the dots and MOVE ON. But no you charged in .
Another reason I think you/Pill have just watched a load of youtube vids and thought "they're right it's all there" and not bothered to think for yourselves and actually question the veracity of the story is because post after post, page after page NOT ONE SINGLE LINK..nothing. Just vacuous opinion and rhetoric. The Pill in one post even had the cheek to ask for "100% watertight proof able to withstand rigorous scrutiny". Your cannot even concede a simple point because you've got nothing and your argument will collapse like a Irish scrum if you do.
If you read the thread, which I've asked you to do many times, you will see that when Roland and Rhonda posted sensible arguments I read them and replyed. That's how you have a discussion. That's how you come to a conclusion, some one can change they're mind or we can agree to disagree..So again I invite you to give it your best shot..look back over your posts and decide what you want to dicuss, from the many subjects available, and pick one and we can see if we can learn something from eachother. Thats what we're here for isn't it?
Well it's funny you should mention NAMA because, included in the NAMA legislation is a gaging clause which prevents politicians from criticising NAMA (speaking openly), not just in the Dail but in any public forum. So where is this "quest for truth" which underpins politics now?
Can you prove that Parliamentary Privilege exists in order to facilite honesty and truth or is this just your opinion.
Can you prove it that it is not used to protect liers?
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied. (Claud Cockburn)
Reply With Quote