EU President Announces New Taxes at Bilderberg Meeting

[The Red Pill]

To easy Pill your really not trying..told you not to get caught up in the example as well..it was only a made up example:

Yeah. What you do is easy alright.

You are very good at typing words into the "search window" in google and hitting "enter". You are very good a copying and pasting bodies of text(other peoples opinions) in to your posts. I am begining to come to the conclusion that google is, infact, your brain. You even find ways to paste bodies of text that are completely unrelated to the questions you are trying to avoid answering. What you do is slag people off and ask them to explain themselves but when you are challenged to explain yourself or are asked direct questions, you reply with an ever thickening smokescreen of waffle and text copied and pasted from wiki, all held together with the glue of your smugness and tone of superiority. Remarks like "do keep up" or "Too easy" are designed to give you the air of someone who is "winning". It's simple branding.You also try and deflect awkward questions by claiming that the asker is "confused" or has gotten "caught up in the example".

Maybe you actually believe that you are "winning". You believe representative democracy is, in reality, representative. You seem to believe that the political and business, so called, "elite" are above conspiring to do evil. You believe that parliamentary privilege, in reality, exisits in order to facilitate honesty and truth. You are obviously capable deluding yourself at will.

Now I'm going to clarify for you:

This is your attempt at justifying the secrecy of the Bilderberg group.

"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."

You say that their explaination is logical. I'll ask you again- Explain how it is logical.

I'll also ask again - How do you know that this explaination is not bullsh1t designed to sound "logical" to unquestioning people?

You say it is the reason for parliamentary privilege and, in subsquent posts, you have effectively said that parliamentary privilege exist to facilitate openess, honesty and truth.You are attaching quite a degree of virtue to parliamentary privilege and, by extension, the politcal system. You are also trying to attach these same virtues to the secrecy of Bilderberg meetings. This is why I am getting "caught up in the example".

I'm going to ask you some direct questions, again, regarding "the example"

Can you prove that, in reality and not some text copied from the internet, parliamentary privilege is genuinely intended to facilitate openess,honesty and truth in parliamentary discourse?

Can you prove that parliamentary privilege is not really intended to and used to protect politicians from the possible legal consequences of statements made, in parliament, which are willfully: dishonest, defamatory or fraudulent?

If indeed the Bilderberg meetings are held in secret in order to, as you imply, facilitate openess, honesty and truth, how do you know that they are not being open, honest and truthfull about their plans to control and subjugate the population of this planet?

What kinds of things do you think they might be being honest and open about that they need to discuss them in secret? What kind of openess, honesty and truth needs to be kept secret?


To quote a long-gone-kiwi : "ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!"

[long-gone-kiwi]

again[/B], regarding "the example"

1..Can you prove that, in reality and not some text copied from the internet, parliamentary privilege is genuinely intended to facilitate openess,honesty and truth in parliamentary discourse?

2..B]Can you prove that parliamentary privilege is not really intended to and used to protect politicians from the possible legal consequences of statements made, in parliament, which are willfully: dishonest, defamatory or fraudulent?[/B]

3..If indeed the Bilderberg meetings are held in secret in order to, as you imply, facilitate openess, honesty and truth, how do you know that they are not being open, honest and truthfull about their plans to control and subjugate the population of this planet?

4..What kinds of things do you think they might be being honest and open about that they need to discuss them in secret? What kind of openess, honesty and truth needs to be kept secret?


To quote a long-gone-kiwi : "ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!"

1..Yes click on and read the link..its not me telling you its the Australian Attorney General
2..Yes click on and read the link..its not me telling you its the Australian Attorney General..if you are right why did Devalera put it in the constitution.?.why is it in the american constitution written to specifically to curtail the power of govt.?.like I said easy..stretch your mind
3..I don't obviously..neither do you, its secret..thats why its a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy..simple..logical..stretch your mind
4..Irrelevant read BBC link..quotes from people who attend meetings

3-0 good start

[Tyler Durden]

Still reading posts and replying without reading thread, this is to easy..man

I have read the thread. All of it. And I have yet to see anything from you that resembles a coherent, considered response.

you like to make fun of me smoking weed ,

You are the one who admitted it, and I think it has a significant bearing on your inability to engage in debate and the preponderance of meaningless waffle in your posts.

but even stoned off my head I can make you look like a blowhard.

Maybe in your own little world, you can, but in the real world, I doubt it.

The man quoted in the BBC link was at one of their meetings[B], fool...its not my argument, its theirs...

And because they say it, you accept it as given, is that what you are saying? If you engaged your grey matter, you would at least doubt it, if not question whether or not it is just a smokescreen.

you are clearly punching above your weight

Keep deluding yourself, why don't you.

If you can't see the connection you should try knitting as a pass-time..will give you a chance and drop my guard..what are the reasons the Bildr's give for their secrecy?
...do they not claim that it is the same reason that MP's have immunity?..is that not what the BBC link says?

If you can't see the logical disconnect in something as simple as this, then perhaps you ought to forget about those exams. University simply isn't the place for people who lack intact critical faculties. Your implied assertion that it what these people say must be true because the Blair/Brown Broadcasting Corporation has said so is simply ridiculous.

.did you ever bother to find out?.maybe this reply will make you do it, and at least if you can come up with a quote to make me look silly I will have achieved something..if you want to be taken seriously you have to know both sides of the argument..know your enemy..get it?

Do you not realise how utterly stupid this sounds? How can I check the veracity of these claims? By personally asking every attendee at these meetings? By attending them myself? Let me guess!... by listening to the BBC saying "its all ok", and accepting it without thinking about it?

you sound like a moron who simply watches youtube vids of connected clips designed to suck in gullible people like yourself.. What do you have to say about the arguments presented in the link I put in the reply to Roland?

This is rich for someone who appears to have decided that his brain is a worthless part of his body and opted to use Google instead. When you post your own arguments instead of linking to those of others, I'll be happy to discuss them.

can you argue that liberal democracy doesn't have in built checks and balances that make your delusions impossible?

Can you show how it does?

[long-gone-kiwi]

"Quote:
The man quoted in the BBC link was at one of their meetings[B], fool...its not my argument, its theirs...
And because they say it, you accept it as given, is that what you are saying? If you engaged your grey matter, you would at least doubt it, if not question whether or not it is just a smokescreen."
[COLOR="Sienna"]

Indeed I do accept that it may be a lie. I am not saying I believe it or not. I only mentioned it because you didn't seem to know what they had to say, which suggests to me you have only looked at one side of the story, and that is why I can't take you seriously.

[/COLOR]

"Quote:
If you can't see the connection you should try knitting as a pass-time..will give you a chance and drop my guard..what are the reasons the Bildr's give for their secrecy?
...do they not claim that it is the same reason that MP's have immunity?..is that not what the BBC link says?
If you can't see the logical disconnect in something as simple as this, then perhaps you ought to forget about those exams. University simply isn't the place for people who lack intact critical faculties. Your implied assertion that it what these people say must be true because the Blair/Brown Broadcasting Corporation has said so is simply ridiculous."

[COLOR="Sienna"]See above.[/COLOR]

"Quote:
.did you ever bother to find out?.maybe this reply will make you do it, and at least if you can come up with a quote to make me look silly I will have achieved something..if you want to be taken seriously you have to know both sides of the argument..know your enemy..get it?
Do you not realise how utterly stupid this sounds? How can I check the veracity of these claims? By personally asking every attendee at these meetings? By attending them myself? Let me guess!... by listening to the BBC saying "its all ok", and accepting it without thinking about it?"


[COLOR="Sienna"]Never asked you if you had checked the veracity of the response, only asked if you had bothered to find out what it was. As you suggest it is very easy to do ..just google it ..simple..see first answer[/COLOR]


Quote:
can you argue that liberal democracy doesn't have in built checks and balances that make your delusions impossible?
Can you show how it does?
[COLOR="Sienna"]

Yes..this man sums up what I believe to be a very strong argument against the possibility of such a conspiracy. He is not alone in that opinion, and it makes sense to me. If you can show me an argument to the contrary I will certainly look at it. Don't worry about the Rothchilds connection though because I have that from Roland and as I told him it is very convincing. There are plenty others though so knock yourself out. [/COLOR]

Guest post: ‘The trouble with conspiracy theories’ by Edward Feser - Counterknowledge.com

[Roland The Gunslinger]

Hey Long Gone.

I was just going through some stuff and found this link,a time line of the Rothschild bloodline,which will give you a little in sight into the worlds recent history concerning Rothschild,not as heavy a read as the last one..

Timeline of the Rothschild family

There are some really great quotes and information but I think this one is apt for this conversion:

The Rothschilds use Wolff to manipulate the German people into a fervour for war. From around this time, the Rothschilds are rarely reported in the media, because they own the media.

Or this:

At the Bilderberg Conference on June 6 to 9 of this year, in Baden-Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller (a Rothschild) made the following statement,

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world, if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.

But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practised in past centuries."

[long-gone-kiwi]

Hey Long Gone.

I was just going through some stuff and found this link,a time line of the Rothschild bloodline,which will give you a little in sight into the worlds recent history concerning Rothschild,not as heavy a read as the last one..

Timeline of the Rothschild family

There are some really great quotes and information but I think this one is apt for this conversion:

The Rothschilds use Wolff to manipulate the German people into a fervour for war. From around this time, the Rothschilds are rarely reported in the media, because they own the media.

Or this:

At the Bilderberg Conference on June 6 to 9 of this year, in Baden-Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller (a Rothschild) made the following statement,

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world, if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.

But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practised in past centuries."

Meanwhile the Gunslinger had stayed on the flanks and observed. The wiley old campaigner had learned at great cost the futility of head on attacks, and left them to the glory seekers. Instead, he knew the snipers fatal promise. Although the young pretenders were spent, they had exposed the enemies position, and the assassin drew his bead.

Where have you been Roland.The first paragraph you quote is exactly what I've been trying to say to the Pill/Tyler, but alas totally over his head. As for the second one, in the light of current events in this country, why would this be a bad thing.? Don't bother pointing out that the crash was all designed that way to lull my feeble mind into acceptance, that point is taken. Still, you will agree, if it wasn't malignant it has its attractions. There is nothing inherently evil suggested in the statement and is it not merely a description of Plato's 'philosopher kings'?. (I have seen a quote somewhere that said the entire history of Western philosophy is nothing more than a footnote to Plato). Is it possible that Rockefeller, who no doubt had a ivy league education, was a student of Plato himself and is well aware of Plato's conclusion in The Republic that it just 'ain't gonna happen'?. If so he would also be well versed in Machiavelli's analysis in the Discourses on Livy, which quite clearly shows that these tyrannies and oligarchies have always failed and always must, and that the separation of powers that he describes is not only the most just form of govt., it is the only one that can possibly last. If you haven't read it I suggest you do, it is easy going and should be easily available online. I believe that the doctrine of the separation of powers is so deeply embedded in modern democracy that no amount of conspiracy, economic, political or military is going to shift it now. This is why I find Fesers arguments so compelling. Never mind his excellent observations that it isn't structurally possible, it is what he calls the sociological reasons that convince me. Modern democracy didn't just land recently. It is the result of two thousand years of experiment and study. Its all been tried before Roland. The Rothchilds efforts are a mere drop in the ocean in comparison ,and as I suggested before they are well educated people who will be well aware of this. As Spark's points out it is not surprising that the wealthy should collude and plan to cement their position. It's called Capitalism.

[TommyO'Brien]

God this thread is a scream, full of paranoia, nonsense, incoherent ramblings, irrelevant points, and zany conspiracy theorist garbage. All that's missing is some ramblings about lizards and it would have a full house of conspiracy fantasties in one.

[Itchy ClickFinger]

God this thread is a scream, full of paranoia, nonsense, incoherent ramblings, irrelevant points, and zany conspiracy theorist garbage. All that's missing is some ramblings about lizards and it would have a full house of conspiracy fantasties in one.

This must be that Conspiracy Denial that I've been hearing about .

[Itchy ClickFinger]

There is nothing inherently evil suggested in the statement and is it not merely a description of Plato's 'philosopher kings'?. (I have seen a quote somewhere that said the entire history of Western philosophy is nothing more than a footnote to Plato). Is it possible that Rockefeller, who no doubt had a ivy league education, was a student of Plato himself and is well aware of Plato's conclusion in The Republic that it just 'ain't gonna happen'?.

I must admit I didn't get this from reading The Republic It seems to me that Plato was saying it ain't gonna happen unless you have control of everything and make it happen (the Cave)and it seems to me
( from reading posts here and looking around me) that there is a virtual cave with digital shadows so the control grid is almost in place !

If so he would also be well versed in Machiavelli's analysis in the Discourses on Livy,

I haven't read this piece , but I do intend to now that I'm aware of it . My limited understanding of it is that Niccolo posits that political freedom is enhanced by instability and undermined by stability.( though I'm open to correction) It seems to me that the "Stability " provided by a Single world "Governance " system would probably eliminate political freedom . and other freedoms would follow.

I believe that the doctrine of the separation of powers is so deeply embedded in modern democracy that no amount of conspiracy, economic, political or military is going to shift it now.

then you clearly have not been paying attention (or you have, and you are in fact a Marxist )
As Spark's points out it is not surprising that the wealthy should collude and plan to cement their position. It's called Capitalism.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure Who Sparks is but what you just described can be attained though "Capitalism " with much planning and hard work. but could be much easier easily achieved through complete indoctrination (The cave) Central Control (Communistic) one world government .

So! you are either an idiot who copies an pastes from the web or you are a creeping Fabian Socialist . be honest now ,which ?

[H.R. Haldeman]

Haha, I always thought the Bilderberg Group was pure conspiracy theory/David Icke territory...but it turns out they are very real - and out of the closet, sister - as reported on in a matter-of-fact way by the Times of London no less! Wow. As Lily Tomlin once said, no matter how cynical you get it's impossible to keep up. Sadly, in this instance, I can't quite tell if I'm being too cynical or not cynical enough.

Anyway, I popped onto dear Wiki to find out what's going on and found this...

The original Bilderberg conference was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg, near Arnhem in The Netherlands, from 29 May to 31 May 1954. It was initiated by several people, including Denis Healey and Józef Retinger,

Bilderberg Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denis Healey? Erm. Denis Healey? Are you havvin a laff? WTF?