Seven deadly Lisbon Treaty clauses

Millennium3 · 18-03-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikrodah

I'd be delighted to debate the points, but let's have serious, well-researched evidence as a basis. DN's claim that his evidence is on his website is flawed. His opinions are on his website. There's no supporting documentation of sufficient worth to convince legal specialists, researchers or parliamentarians that it would be worth taking his claims seriously.

I've posted the links to Statewatch research several times now. All I get in response is accusations of being a nasty little disinformatzchik. DN and his associates don't want to debate this; they'd rather convince us of their point of view. If I choose to believe otherwise, they call me a traitor and a quisling; they assume (extremely erroneously as it happens) certain things about my career, my private life and my beliefs. These people don't want debate and they don't want democratic representation on this forum (for if they did, they'd allow others an opposing point of view).

I'm not interested in carrying on a discussion with DN, twizzel, aarable and several others, because they cannot cope with rational debate without resorting to pettiness and name-calling. It's a shame that they can't harness their passion towards actually working with others to achieve what they claim they want. Instead, they libel, exaggerate and intimidate others until we back off and leave them to it.

What will they do if they are proved wrong in 2010? What will they say if it turns out that we still have a parliament at Westminster, still have an oath of loyalty to the Queen and not the EU, still have local and district councillors? Will that be just another EU con trick or will they claim victory for their campaigns?

This covers both DN, C & A's posts to an extent.

There are a few truths which do seemed to have emerged.

I have heard from a number of sources that after 5 years into the LT Britain's capacity to veto developments through the EU ends and qualified majority voting takes its place. I have heard from one source [the Irish NO campaign] that in order to pass new EU legislation it requires countries with 65% of the population to support the measure, so within those areas where we have opted in, Britain will have to accept majority views which amounts to a loss of our right to self determination.

The fact that the Cash amendment was defeated [and not supported by Cameron] it certainly implies that EU law is superior to Westminster law.

If these are the case, the only question that is really important is, if a future government at Westminster decides Britain should leave the EU, can a bill passed at Westminster achieve this, legally? I have suggested earlier that, although it might be illegal, the EU could not enforce us to comply unless it had police and/or military to back up their decree.

For me these are the issues. It is relatively unimportant what happens whilst we are in as long as a majority at Westminster can get us out. What is the case now and after QMV?

youcanhandlethetruth · 18-03-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikrodah

Evidence, please. Not 'Alex Jones' or Conspiracy Con type websites, but well-documented, unassailable facts. Otherwise this is bordering on the libellous in places.

You talk about "reasoned debate" and but you're the first one to pre-judge and label any information as "conspiracy" without even looking into it.

The mainstream media have trained you well and good haven't they ?

As for "well researched" and "documented" you would see it is if you could be bothered to look - just look at the threads on this website, there's load of information relating to them.
If you want a starting point for well documented research start at scholarsfor911truth.org or pilotsfor911truth or look at Prof Steven E Jones's work.

Personally I'm not wasting my time re-posting the same information for cynics who already think they already know it all.

You say "The British people will never buy into it" (or words to that effect)

Are you saying because the masses are ignorant and have been fooled, we should act just like them irrepective of the real truth ? What a flimsy argument.

You can believe everything is fine and live in a dreamworld if you want to but it won't change (y)our dire situation(irrespective of whether you support the government or not) and you'll just be fooling yourself until it's too late.

Hartlepool · 18-03-2008, 06:28 PM

At the risk of being labelled a conspiracy nut again I can say that I believe more and more of what DN says each time I look into his claims and the facts he posts here and elsewhere.

He has obviously done his homework,have his oponents?

But,the proof of the pudding will be in the eating as we draw closer to 1-1-2009 and the year 2010,which are not too far away,we will soon see methinks.

Most of what DN has posted can be checked out very easily,perhaps those who don't agree with him could post details and links that will/can substantiate what they say/claim.

Just out of interest of course,seeing as how things have hotted up again.

Aardvark · 18-03-2008, 07:28 PM

Which paedophiles have been placed in positions of power and influence and by who? Why has DN not reported their paedophilia to the police?

Hartlepool · 18-03-2008, 07:33 PM

Aardvark,you are correct and I fully agree that these should be reported to the police immediately.

Perhaps he DK,has already reported them to the police.

twizzel · 18-03-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Excellent piece David - very well done.

Yes we really are at the mercy of unelected criminals.

I'm with you David writes in a very forceful way but he is factualy correct. I was sorry to see David leave the UK Column he is I believe a good investigative jounalist who knows his subject very well. He is also a committed patriot unlike those in government and the foriegn office who can't help themselves they have to betray this country at every oppotunity. Ardvark I understand has a little job at the foriegn office need I say more.

aarable · 18-03-2008, 08:21 PM

I became alerted to the existence of BDF only this February, when ‘Google Alert’provided notice of malicious posting against me on this forum, otherwise I should have continued in blissful ignorance.

I consider I have, based on results over 12 years, been a relatively successful and tenacious campaigners against the EU in my vicinity, and, to some extent, had a positive impact at a national level as well. If I had not come under ‘attack’, as I have on this forum and elsewhere, then I would consider my endeavours unproductive. That is the upside of the nastiness we sometimes receive as reward.

Anyway for your information, I decided to enrol in BDF with a view to providing readership information substantiated from researches. Where there is speculation, I shall say so; providing a probability of authenticity based on the evidence or sometimes intuition (not an aspect to always be ignored). I am not particularly given to debate on this forum due to the presence of certain assets who are uninterested in advancing initiatives that might lead to ‘damage’ to the EU and its apologists in this country; I confine debating (and planning initiatives) to my friends and colleagues on the internet.

I have to say, though, that since my enrolment at the end of February, I have quickly formed the view that this site is misnamed and would be better known as the ‘British Disinformation Forum’. This is not a reproach to the good chap who invented this thing, but a reproach to those disinformation assets of the Foreign and Colonial Office (and others), an organisation that has agitated and worked against the best interests of the people of this country since at least 1970. The proof, by their own hand, is to be found in the records released under the 30 year rule - how stupid they were not to burn them, but then they were, and still are, arrogant and strutting people. They must have thought dissent would have been suppressed by now.

David Noakes has his faults, don’t we all, but he has a heart of gold, and has put his finger on 5 disinformation specialists. I am aware of two of these (operating in consort), though I could be wrong – they may just be bitter and vindictive. If so, I feel sorry for them, and forgive them. If they are, on the other hand, as DN believes: assets, then they will receive a hard time on this forum.

My rules for this forum (or any other) is never to rubbish people’s input, only respond with reasoned argument (or none) as my long and successful professional engineering career has found worked so well; people are human beings in the most part and deserve respect and consideration, no matter how insignificant or lowly their contribution. I will never diminish people with belittling comments about conspiracy theories, lizards, people who dress in traditional Cossack dress etc. I will never use juxtaposition techniques, taught in all the best disinformation schools, to falsely associate good people with known baddies.

I will end, with what will be rare involvement with comment on this site, with something for those who have been taught to dismiss inconvenient post, by referring to it as: ‘conspiracy theory’:

When this sort of language is used, it signals but one thing - the user has run out of ideas or never had any in the first place. There is a vocabulary current, employed to diminish and to close down discussion, used when facts or line of discussion have become inconvenient.

They should read an enlightened book by Robin Ramsay at £9.99, called simply: Conspiracy Theories.

Here are a few excerpts:

‘ .…….. to talk of conspiracy is to risk being called a conspiracy theorist; and to be so described is the kiss of death, the intellectual equivalent of being labelled a child molester.

- ‘The unquestionable belief, on the other hand: 'As usual the c**k up theory of politics turns out to be true' (Sean Gabb in his book; 'Cultural Revolution, Cultural War', is clear that the ruling class know full well what they are at).

- ‘Belief in the c**k-up theory of history and politics is at the heart of what passes for political and intellectual sophistication in liberal democracies. ......... The subtext here is: only ignorant simpletons believe the world can be explained by conspiracies.

- ‘It is [only] false information and poor or non-existent attention to rules of evidence which discredit the classic conspiracy theory.

I await the expected disinformation attack on this post from the usual culprits – but they can be assured that they can say what they like – I shall not respond.

They would be wise, however, to refrain from an attack, because everyone would then know that there is no real interest there in defeating our EU dragon.

eublues · 18-03-2008, 08:26 PM

I think most people recognise that the thrust of what DN says is probably not wrong. It's just the way he tells them.

chikrodah · 18-03-2008, 08:37 PM

M3, there is no doubt in my mind that the LT is designed to reinforce the "state-building" activities of the EU. Those provisions that exist for democratic national intervention by any member state are weak and there are no scrutiny mechanisms in place, as per usual.

Re the QMV: from 2014 qualified majority voting in the Council will require a 'double majority' with 55% of the States representing 65% of the population. The Council can either be involved in co-decision with the EP (which IIRC means the usual audience participation type voting) or consultation, which in practice means they'll presumably ignore any EP negativity. There is an option whereby a minority of member states can ask for a re-consideration of a legislative proposal before its adoption. IMHO, it's unlikely that they will take that option often and if they do, they'll either get ignored, out-voted, or out-manoeuvred.

The UK has negotiated further opt-outs regarding the entire area covered by the Justice & Home Affairs section of the treaty since the original constitution. It can choose to opt-out of any new proposal in this area. It can also opt-in.

The EU still expects national law and order and the safeguarding of national security to be performed by the individual member states, and the geographical demarcation of the existing external borders of the UK still belongs to the UK, within international law. We'd better not try to invade Poland...

Citizenship of the EU is in addition to national citizenship, not a replacement for it.

Member states can set their own limits on non-EU immigration; there are supposed to be no internal border controls. Legal migration is covered by unanimous voting in the Council but only consultation of the EP.

This doesn't entail a loss of veto as the UK government negotiated an opt-out regarding immigration, asylum and civil law when they gave up our veto at the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999. The UK is giving up a veto re policing and criminal law in return for another opt-out.

I would be worried about Article 67a:

Quote:

When necessary to achieve the objectives set out in Article 61, as regards preventing and combating terrorism and related activities, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall define a framework for administrative measures with regard to capital movements and payments, such as the freezing of funds, financial assets or economic gains belonging to, or owned or held by, natural or legal persons, groups or non-state entities.

The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt measures in order to implement the framework referred to in the first paragraph.

The acts referred to in this Article shall include necessary provisions on legal safeguards.

Definition of terrorist? When your entire life history is on the NIR, wait for the knock on the door...

In Article 68 it's clear that the Commission will share its monopoly on making proposals concerning policing and criminal law with a quarter of the Member States (meaning at least seven Member States, out of the current membership of 27), compared to the current position, where the Commission or any individual Member State may make proposals in this area.

Regarding the existence of the UK as a nation state and the role of the HoC/HoL:

Quote:

Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments shall ensure compliance with that principle in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.

That actually increases the role of national parliaments, compared to the original Constitution.

Amazingly, other than the option for a million citizens of a large number of member states to request a proposal to be put forward (roving bands of eurosceptics demanding secession, perhaps?), there is also the option to get suspended from the EU for not upholding its values:

Quote:

Article 7
1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members, after obtaining the assent consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1) the values referred to in Article 2 and address appropriate recommendations to that State. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address appropriate recommendations to that State, acting in accordance with the same procedure, may call on independent persons to submit within a reasonable time limit a report on the situation in the Member State in question.

The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply.

2. The Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government and The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the assent consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1) the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the government of the Member State in question to submit its observations.

3. Where such a determination has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of this Treaty the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.

The obligations of the Member State in question under this Treaty the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.

4. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures taken under paragraph 2 in response to changes in the situation which led to their being imposed.

Article 8c lays out the role of national parliaments; Westminster will still exist and not just to take over the role of the European Parliament in rubber-stamping certain EU legislation. Interestingly enough, if you read the entire treaty, it becomes clear that the EP is being stripped of some of its existing controls over the EU. Presumably all those failed budget audits have had an effect after all.

Let's face it, if more than 600 MPs thought they were going to lose their jobs, the LT would have been rejected by now.

Most important, Article 35:

Quote:

Article 35

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

That agreement shall negotiated in accordance with Article 188n of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; it shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the Council or European Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 205 (3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 34.

aarable · 18-03-2008, 08:50 PM

I became alerted to the existence of BDF only this February, when ‘Google Alert’ provided notice of malicious posting against me on this forum, otherwise I should have continued in blissful ignorance.

I consider I have, based on results over 12 years, been a relatively successful and tenacious campaigners against the EU in my vicinity, and, to some extent, had a positive impact at a national level as well. If I had not come under ‘attack’, as I have on this forum and elsewhere, then I would consider my endeavours unproductive. That is the upside of the nastiness we sometimes receive as reward.

Anyway for your information, I decided to enrol in BDF with a view to providing readership information substantiated from researches. Where there is speculation, I shall say so; providing a probability of authenticity based on the evidence or sometimes intuition (not an aspect to always be ignored). I am not particularly given to debate on this forum due to the presence of certain assets who are uninterested in advancing initiatives that might lead to ‘damage’ to the EU and its apologists in this country; I confine debating (and planning initiatives) to my friends and colleagues on the internet.

I have to say, though, that since my enrolment at the end of February, I have quickly formed the view that this site is misnamed and would be better known as the ‘British Disinformation Forum’. This is not a reproach to the good chap who invented this thing, but a reproach to those disinformation assets of the Foreign and Colonial Office (and others), an organisation that has agitated and worked against the best interests of the people of this country since at least 1970. The proof, by their own hand, is to be found in the records released under the 30 year rule - how stupid they were not to burn them, but then they were, and still are, arrogant and strutting people. They must have thought dissent would have been suppressed by now.

David Noakes has his faults, don’t we all, but he has a heart of gold, and has put his finger on 5 disinformation specialists. I am aware of two of these (operating in consort), though I could be wrong – they may just be bitter and vindictive. If so, I feel sorry for them, and forgive them. If they are, on the other hand, as DN believes: assets, then they will receive a hard time on this forum.

My rules for this forum (or any other) is never to rubbish people’s input, only respond with reasoned argument (or none) as my long and successful professional engineering career has found worked so well; people are human beings in the most part and deserve respect and consideration, no matter how insignificant or lowly their contribution. I will never diminish people with belittling comments about conspiracy theories, lizards, people who dress in traditional Cossack dress etc.

I will never use juxtaposition techniques, taught in all the best disinformation schools, to falsely associate good people with known baddies. I will end, with what will be rare involvement with comment on this site, with something for those who have been taught to dismiss inconvenient post, by referring to it as: ‘conspiracy theory’:

When this sort of language is used, it signals but one thing - the user has run out of ideas or never had any in the first place. There is a vocabulary current, employed to diminish and to close down discussion, used when facts or line of discussion have become inconvenient.

They should read an enlightened book by Robin Ramsay at £9.99, called simply: Conspiracy Theories.

Here are a few excerpts:

‘ .…….. to talk of conspiracy is to risk being called a conspiracy theorist; and to be so described is the kiss of death, the intellectual equivalent of being labelled a child molester.

- ‘The unquestionable belief, on the other hand: 'As usual the c**k up theory of politics turns out to be true' (Sean Gabb in his book; 'Cultural Revolution, Cultural War', is clear that the ruling class know full well what they are at).

- ‘Belief in the c**k-up theory of history and politics is at the heart of what passes for political and intellectual sophistication in liberal democracies. ......... The subtext here is: only ignorant simpletons believe the world can be explained by conspiracies.

- ‘It is [only] false information and poor or non-existent attention to rules of evidence which discredit the classic conspiracy theory.

I await the expected disinformation attack on this post from the usual culprits – but they can be assured that they can say what they like – I shall not respond.

They would be wise, however, to refrain from an attack, because everyone would then know that there is no real interest there in defeating our EU dragon.

18-03-2008, 07:28 PM	#24 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,120	Which paedophiles have been placed in positions of power and influence and by who? Why has DN not reported their paedophilia to the police? __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

18-03-2008, 08:21 PM	#27 (permalink)
aarable Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 88	Conspiracy theories and other put downs I became alerted to the existence of BDF only this February, when ‘Google Alert’provided notice of malicious posting against me on this forum, otherwise I should have continued in blissful ignorance. I consider I have, based on results over 12 years, been a relatively successful and tenacious campaigners against the EU in my vicinity, and, to some extent, had a positive impact at a national level as well. If I had not come under ‘attack’, as I have on this forum and elsewhere, then I would consider my endeavours unproductive. That is the upside of the nastiness we sometimes receive as reward. Anyway for your information, I decided to enrol in BDF with a view to providing readership information substantiated from researches. Where there is speculation, I shall say so; providing a probability of authenticity based on the evidence or sometimes intuition (not an aspect to always be ignored). I am not particularly given to debate on this forum due to the presence of certain assets who are uninterested in advancing initiatives that might lead to ‘damage’ to the EU and its apologists in this country; I confine debating (and planning initiatives) to my friends and colleagues on the internet. I have to say, though, that since my enrolment at the end of February, I have quickly formed the view that this site is misnamed and would be better known as the ‘British Disinformation Forum’. This is not a reproach to the good chap who invented this thing, but a reproach to those disinformation assets of the Foreign and Colonial Office (and others), an organisation that has agitated and worked against the best interests of the people of this country since at least 1970. The proof, by their own hand, is to be found in the records released under the 30 year rule - how stupid they were not to burn them, but then they were, and still are, arrogant and strutting people. They must have thought dissent would have been suppressed by now. David Noakes has his faults, don’t we all, but he has a heart of gold, and has put his finger on 5 disinformation specialists. I am aware of two of these (operating in consort), though I could be wrong – they may just be bitter and vindictive. If so, I feel sorry for them, and forgive them. If they are, on the other hand, as DN believes: assets, then they will receive a hard time on this forum. My rules for this forum (or any other) is never to rubbish people’s input, only respond with reasoned argument (or none) as my long and successful professional engineering career has found worked so well; people are human beings in the most part and deserve respect and consideration, no matter how insignificant or lowly their contribution. I will never diminish people with belittling comments about conspiracy theories, lizards, people who dress in traditional Cossack dress etc. I will never use juxtaposition techniques, taught in all the best disinformation schools, to falsely associate good people with known baddies. I will end, with what will be rare involvement with comment on this site, with something for those who have been taught to dismiss inconvenient post, by referring to it as: ‘*conspiracy theory’: When this sort of language is used, it signals but one thing - the user has run out of ideas or never had any in the first place. There is a vocabulary current, employed to diminish and to close down discussion, used when facts or line of discussion have become inconvenient. They should read an enlightened book by Robin Ramsay at £9.99, called simply: Conspiracy Theories. Here are a few excerpts: ‘ .…….. to talk of conspiracy is to risk being called a conspiracy theorist; and to be so described is the kiss of death, the intellectual equivalent of being labelled a child molester. - ‘The unquestionable belief, on the other hand: 'As usual the ck up theory of politics turns out to be true'* (Sean Gabb in his book; 'Cultural Revolution, Cultural War', is clear that the ruling class know full well what they are at). - ‘Belief in the ck-up theory of history and politics is at the heart of what passes for political and intellectual sophistication in liberal democracies. ......... The subtext here is: only ignorant simpletons believe the world can be explained by conspiracies. - ‘It is [only] false information and poor or non-existent attention to rules of evidence which discredit the classic conspiracy theory. I await the expected disinformation attack on this post from the usual culprits – but they can be assured that they can say what they like – I shall not respond. They would be wise, however, to refrain from an attack, because everyone would then know that there is no real interest there in defeating our EU dragon. Last edited by aarable; 18-03-2008 at 08:33 PM.

18-03-2008, 08:50 PM	#30 (permalink)
aarable Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 88	Conspiracy theories and other put downs reposted with larger text I became alerted to the existence of BDF only this February, when ‘Google Alert’ provided notice of malicious posting against me on this forum, otherwise I should have continued in blissful ignorance. I consider I have, based on results over 12 years, been a relatively successful and tenacious campaigners against the EU in my vicinity, and, to some extent, had a positive impact at a national level as well. If I had not come under ‘attack’, as I have on this forum and elsewhere, then I would consider my endeavours unproductive. That is the upside of the nastiness we sometimes receive as reward. Anyway for your information, I decided to enrol in BDF with a view to providing readership information substantiated from researches. Where there is speculation, I shall say so; providing a probability of authenticity based on the evidence or sometimes intuition (not an aspect to always be ignored). I am not particularly given to debate on this forum due to the presence of certain assets who are uninterested in advancing initiatives that might lead to ‘damage’ to the EU and its apologists in this country; I confine debating (and planning initiatives) to my friends and colleagues on the internet. I have to say, though, that since my enrolment at the end of February, I have quickly formed the view that this site is misnamed and would be better known as the ‘British Disinformation Forum’. This is not a reproach to the good chap who invented this thing, but a reproach to those disinformation assets of the Foreign and Colonial Office (and others), an organisation that has agitated and worked against the best interests of the people of this country since at least 1970. The proof, by their own hand, is to be found in the records released under the 30 year rule - how stupid they were not to burn them, but then they were, and still are, arrogant and strutting people. They must have thought dissent would have been suppressed by now. David Noakes has his faults, don’t we all, but he has a heart of gold, and has put his finger on 5 disinformation specialists. I am aware of two of these (operating in consort), though I could be wrong – they may just be bitter and vindictive. If so, I feel sorry for them, and forgive them. If they are, on the other hand, as DN believes: assets, then they will receive a hard time on this forum. My rules for this forum (or any other) is never to rubbish people’s input, only respond with reasoned argument (or none) as my long and successful professional engineering career has found worked so well; people are human beings in the most part and deserve respect and consideration, no matter how insignificant or lowly their contribution. I will never diminish people with belittling comments about conspiracy theories, lizards, people who dress in traditional Cossack dress etc. I will never use juxtaposition techniques, taught in all the best disinformation schools, to falsely associate good people with known baddies. I will end, with what will be rare involvement with comment on this site, with something for those who have been taught to dismiss inconvenient post, by referring to it as: ‘*conspiracy theory’: When this sort of language is used, it signals but one thing - the user has run out of ideas or never had any in the first place. There is a vocabulary current, employed to diminish and to close down discussion, used when facts or line of discussion have become inconvenient. They should read an enlightened book by Robin Ramsay at £9.99, called simply: Conspiracy Theories. Here are a few excerpts: ‘ .…….. to talk of conspiracy is to risk being called a conspiracy theorist; and to be so described is the kiss of death, the intellectual equivalent of being labelled a child molester. - ‘The unquestionable belief, on the other hand: 'As usual the ck up theory of politics turns out to be true'* (Sean Gabb in his book; 'Cultural Revolution, Cultural War', is clear that the ruling class know full well what they are at). - ‘Belief in the ck-up theory of history and politics is at the heart of what passes for political and intellectual sophistication in liberal democracies. ......... The subtext here is: only ignorant simpletons believe the world can be explained by conspiracies. - ‘It is [only] false information and poor or non-existent attention to rules of evidence which discredit the classic conspiracy theory. I await the expected disinformation attack on this post from the usual culprits – but they can be assured that they can say what they like – I shall not respond. They would be wise, however, to refrain from an attack, because everyone would then know that there is no real interest there in defeating our EU dragon. Last edited by aarable; 18-03-2008 at 09:02 PM. Reason: misarranged

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

18-03-2008, 06:28 PM	#23 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,409	At the risk of being labelled a conspiracy nut again I can say that I believe more and more of what DN says each time I look into his claims and the facts he posts here and elsewhere. He has obviously done his homework,have his oponents? But,the proof of the pudding will be in the eating as we draw closer to 1-1-2009 and the year 2010,which are not too far away,we will soon see methinks. Most of what DN has posted can be checked out very easily,perhaps those who don't agree with him could post details and links that will/can substantiate what they say/claim. Just out of interest of course,seeing as how things have hotted up again.

18-03-2008, 07:33 PM	#25 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,409	Aardvark,you are correct and I fully agree that these should be reported to the police immediately. Perhaps he DK,has already reported them to the police.

18-03-2008, 08:26 PM	#28 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,925	I think most people recognise that the thrust of what DN says is probably not wrong. It's just the way he tells them.