Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Alex Jones Was Wrong: Bilderberg Doesnt Exist

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 2:00:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Alex Jones was wrong, Bilderberg Group doesn't exist and the Federal government doesn't spy on you.

However, these conspiracy theorists at The Guardian and Atlantic Wire have theorized the absurd claim that Bilderberg Group exists and that the Federal government does spy on you.

Bilderberg 2013: welcome to 1984
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

The NSA Spying Is Bigger Than Verizon
http://www.theatlanticwire.com...

NSA taps in to internet giants' systems to mine user data, secret files reveal
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

This is simply irresponsible reporting with no facts, nothing but absurd conspiracy theories.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 2:04:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The conspiracy theorists at Forbes also suggest that the NSA was targeting Americans instead of foreigners.

NSA's Verizon Spying Order Specifically Targeted Americans, Not Foreigners
http://www.forbes.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 9:59:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wow, Alex Jones was wrong about something?

I told you so.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 11:41:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 4:31:03 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No one claims Bilderberg doesn't exist. The argument is over what it's intentions are.

I claim it doesn't exist :p. Therefore your claim that no one claims it exists is wrong :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 12:29:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry, have you seen Watford?

If they ran the world, they wouldn't go to Watford. They have more chance of getting stabbed than they have of getting to the actual meet.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 12:34:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 9:59:38 AM, drhead wrote:
Wow, Alex Jones was wrong about something?

I told you so.

I had the same initial reaction, until I realized that he was being facetious.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 1:27:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 4:31:03 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No one claims Bilderberg doesn't exist. The argument is over what it's intentions are.

Are you kidding me? The mainstream media said it doesn't exist for 30+ years. The fact that they ignore it is saying it doesn't exist. The New York Times said it doesn't exist, Rush Limbaugh said it doesn't exist, everyone said it doesn't exist and if anyone ever said "The Bilderberg Group" you would be called a conspiracy theorist.

ADL: Debunking the Bilderberg Myth (Listed in their 'Rumors' archive)
http://archive.adl.org...

BBC: Bilderberg Mystery: Why do people believe in cabals?
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Professor/Psychologist Chris French: "Some people are more susceptible than others to believing in wacky cabals, says Prof Chris French, of Goldsmith College's psychology department. "It's people who tend to be alienated by the mainstream, who feel powerless. They have a need to have a sense of control."
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Yahoo Answers: Bilderberg Group doesn't even exist, so how is Bill Gates supposed to attend?
http://answers.yahoo.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 1:27:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 12:34:29 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 6/7/2013 9:59:38 AM, drhead wrote:
Wow, Alex Jones was wrong about something?

I told you so.

I had the same initial reaction, until I realized that he was being facetious.

Then if that is the case, I must tear these articles apart.

For anything concerning the Bilderberg Group, here's some of the minutes from their meeting: http://www.skepticblog.org...

There is no proof of any bad intent such as the article suggests. Just because someone denies something doesn't mean that they are lying.

As for the Guardian article regarding PRISM, I find it interesting that they used an anonymous source. If this evidence was real, the implications would be immense for the NSA to the extent that everyone related to the project would be fired. The source wouldn't have to worry about anything if their name were disclosed - in fact, it would even lend credibility to their story to the extent where we would actually have reason to believe that this "top secret report" was real, and wasn't fabricated by the newspaper just to get viewers (I trust that the NSA would have enough money to be trained enough to make their report look a little less half-assed).

In addition, I find it interesting how none of these articles say anything about what is actually being done with this information. I also find it interesting how we see "Obama Administration" in every article making accusations, yet people seem to forget that the current head of the NSA was nominated by Bush, and has merely continued his term throughout Obama's presidency. If they don't like these people, why don't they just impeach them if they have evidence of wrongdoing? It is also completely unsurprising that requesting that an American phone company turn over records is an action that targets Americans. Like I said, if we have a problem with the NSA, that is exactly what impeachment is for.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 1:35:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 1:27:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/7/2013 4:31:03 AM, FREEDO wrote:
No one claims Bilderberg doesn't exist. The argument is over what it's intentions are.

Are you kidding me? The mainstream media said it doesn't exist for 30+ years. The fact that they ignore it is saying it doesn't exist. The New York Times said it doesn't exist, Rush Limbaugh said it doesn't exist, everyone said it doesn't exist and if anyone ever said "The Bilderberg Group" you would be called a conspiracy theorist.

ADL: Debunking the Bilderberg Myth (Listed in their 'Rumors' archive)
http://archive.adl.org...

"Deriving its name from the Dutch hotel where it first met in 1954, the Bilderberg group is an actual, legitimate entity whose members consist of approximately 100 influential European and American figures in politics, business and academia who meet annually to discuss and advocate political, diplomatic and economic policies."

Yeah, they are totally denying its existence.

If people are calling you a conspiracy theorist for mentioning it, it is probably because if you are mentioning it, you are probably:
a) Going to proceed into how they are conspiring to establish a new world order
b) Very bad at choosing interesting conversation topics

If anyone seems to be denying its existence or ignoring it (the latter is more likely), odds are they don't care.

By the way, in our last discussion on this topic (linking this to some transhumanist technocratic new world order), you never proved to me that you actually knew what those words meant. Should I assume you're still taking everything you read at face value unless it's criticizing you?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 1:37:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 11:42:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
So, Geo does the right to associate and privacy no longer extend if you are wealthy?

This is idiotic. When did I ever say wealthy people can't associate? I'll give you a hint, never. Opposing something =/= Denying its right to exist. I oppose a lot of things, that doesn't mean I say they're not allowed to exist. You are creating absurd strawmen.

1. The Bilderberg Group violates Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

2. The Bilderberg Group violates the Logan Act.

3. It's not simply "wealthy people" getting together and having a meeting, it's unelected world leaders meeting in secret deciding policy and the direction of the world. Even if you argued that they all have benign intentions, it is inherently a conspiracy because they are combining their world influence to push forth an agenda that the people didn't agree to.

4. As a Libertarian, centralized power, central planning, and global governance are bad. I want decentralization of power, not concentrated central power.

5. If you read their own writings they admit that they are conspiring eugenicists, technocrats who want global governance and to undermine the sovereignty of the United States.

Adam Smith said in the Wealth of Nations: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 5:18:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 1:37:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/7/2013 11:42:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
So, Geo does the right to associate and privacy no longer extend if you are wealthy?

This is idiotic. When did I ever say wealthy people can't associate? I'll give you a hint, never. Opposing something =/= Denying its right to exist. I oppose a lot of things, that doesn't mean I say they're not allowed to exist. You are creating absurd strawmen.

1. The Bilderberg Group violates Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

How?

2. The Bilderberg Group violates the Logan Act.

Since when is a bunch of people who decide to meet together to talk about politics a bit a 'negotiation'?

3. It's not simply "wealthy people" getting together and having a meeting, it's unelected world leaders meeting in secret deciding policy and the direction of the world. Even if you argued that they all have benign intentions, it is inherently a conspiracy because they are combining their world influence to push forth an agenda that the people didn't agree to.

Assuming you are right (which you are not, see my post just before yours), what about this makes it bad for them to cooperate towards a common end?

4. As a Libertarian, centralized power, central planning, and global governance are bad. I want decentralization of power, not concentrated central power.

Yes, I bet these things are bad for Libertarians.

5. If you read their own writings they admit that they are conspiring eugenicists, technocrats who want global governance and to undermine the sovereignty of the United States.

Really? Because it looks more like a bunch of people with an interest in politics talking to eachother. You still have not proven that you actually know what a transhumanist or a technocrat is, having dodged the question for weeks now.

Adam Smith said in the Wealth of Nations: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."

I bet Adam Smith had his share of schizophrenia problems, too.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 5:22:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I read the Guardian and Atlantic Wire every now and then... for entertainment. Usually, I check The Oatmeal for something new and if nothing there I know that the aforementioned two are always reliable sources for smiles.