Populist Lee

>> You put the guy down without doing any reasearch <<

Now who's the ignorant one?

__________________
ENGLISH POPULISM
Stands as the only obstacle in the path of the Plutocrats
who seek to reduce all the Peoples of the World
to Economic and Political Slavery under Globalism


POPULISM MEANS WHAT YOU WANT IS WHAT YOU GET

Akria

What is the libertarian stance on insanity?

__________________
I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly.
Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using.

http://real-democracy.co.uk | Admin and proud

The commonality of mankind:
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?

Aardvark

boris, The mods have no agenda other than to avoid libel writs. You have been allowed to post what you like, even though I personally think you're very wrong. The only posts that automatically get deleted are the ones from new posters who post links in their first contribution as that is what spammers do. So long as you don't break the law or advocate breaking it and don't go around insulting people we honestly don't care what you discuss.

__________________
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

youcanhandlethetruth

To all the people that make these claims of insanity etc, please simply answer these questions:

1) Do you accept George Osbourne(as he seems to admit) and has been proven by the released guest list) attended the Bilderberg meeting ?

2) If so, how do people reconcile the fact that in a supposed democracy there should be no meetings behind closed doors to attempt to create any policy that should only be discussed (in GO's case) in the House of Commons ?

And that's not my opinion - look up the Logan Act in America for example....

Tony - forgive me, are you saying that you or David Icke was asking the questions ?

If you asked them - well done !

If only other people had the balls to confront these traitors and make them accountable for their actions.....

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits(in order of Porkpies) Clippo,Wowbanger TIP,agni,Akria,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist

boris

sorry populist lee, im not sure what you mean. No offence meant anyway, mate.

I agree totally with youcanhandlethetruth. David icke is the only one with enough balls to actually confront these as*holes who are bringing in the new world order. Standing on the same political platform and going head to head with them, and actually making them look like the as*holes they really are....who else is dong that???? No one!!

Mad or not, David icke is the only one who is actually causing real waves. And he is able to do it because so many people are supporting him financially, such as buying his books/DVDs or making donations to his ongoing work. This is why he can stand in elections...he has backing from a large following who understand he is the only one with enough balls to fight this thing head on.

You lot can sit here putting the guy down, but at the end of the day he is actually standing up and confronting the NWO order head on, and that in my opinion is reason enough to get behind him. Forget reptillians FFS.....concern yourself with the immediate scenario of fighting the NWO. As long as we are all divided on subjects like "big lizards" we are never going to unite into one seething angry mass that wants its freedom.

You can all sit here debating this and that...but at the end of the day you arent helping anything by being divided on all these minor issues. Start to unite on the things you AGREE with, not be divided on what you dont agree with. If you would take the time to listen to Icke, he would tell you that dividing the masses via religion/politics is one of the most effective ways that the elite keep them in servitude. Wake up dudes....stop squabbling and unite on the points you all agree on...there is a new world order being introduced surely you all realise this...so unite and stop the goddamn thing. When its been stopped THEN you can start arguing about lizards and who is insane etc.

Alex McKee

Yes, I do believe he attended the Bilderberg Group meeting. I do not trust the BG to have pure motives and so I personally would vote for people that did not go to such meetings.

Your logic doesn't follow. Yes, we live in a democracy but where does this idea that there should never be meetings "behind closed doors" come from? And if such meetings discuss politics, so what?

Such groups do not have executive power in this country. Even if the Prime Minister was in attendance and agreed with them to push their agenda, he would still have to get it through Parliament.

Secondly you have no idea if the Bilderberg Group discussed politics or required it's members to push it's agenda in parliament. No idea whatsoever.

Finally private groups meeting in relative secrecy make up policies all the time. They're call policy groups, think tanks and political parties!

You're assuming we believe in (a modern) NWO.
New World Orders have assembled themselves throughout history.

Whenever like minded groups of people get together whether they be politicians, big business leaders or even publicans the discussions had will be seen by some as a conspiracy against the general public.

However genuine conspiracies are rare indeed.

Do I think that there are immoral, unethical businessmen out there that would do their utmost to con and cheat their customers and lock them in? Sure.

Do I think that there is a global elite conspiring against ordinary people? Nope.

__________________

Anything I post on this web forum is my personal opinion only.

Users on Ignore list: None.

youcanhandlethetruth

Ok so you don't trust them but you have no problem with them meeting without any public exposure or media coverage to make them accountable.

And I notice you did not say "I would NOT vote for people that did attend"

The Logan Act is an example of where it comes from. (in the US not sure about UK law)

Logan Act: Information and Much More from Answers.com

"The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization."

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Rick Perry's Bilderberg Visit Violation Of Logan Act?

"The Logan Act also bars public officials from meeting with private citizens to make policy, a crime for which the Clinton White House was fined $300,000 for, according to Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker."

You may think there is nothing wrong with a country's representatives discussing domestic policy, but that is lunacy in my opinion.

What reason should there be for policy to be discussed with individuals from other govts/nations that can't be discussed in the public view and public interest ?
As the government ironically loves to tell us, if you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.
So why the secrecy ?

Yes and given that politicians from all 3 main political parties(including Blair) have attended Bilderberg meetings in the past, that goes some way to showing they are all puppets to the globalist agenda.

Do you still believe the fable that we live in a democracy and the interests of the people and not big business and the elite are served by the policies and legislation which are introduced ?

If not, then surely it is necessary to prevent secretive policy being determined by such means ?

Personally I don't believe they've met up to play tiddlywinks.

And the public do have an idea what is being discussed at these meetings, because individuals like Jim Tucker who have been following Bilderberg for years, has reliable sources from within, that have accurately predicted events that have occured before they've happened.

The world in the palm of their hands: Bilderberg 2005

Bilderberg 2007: Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe

"From now on, the only sure thing is that supply will continue to diminish and prices will continue to increase. In these conditions world conflict is a physical certainty. End of oil means end of world's financial system, something which has already been acknowledged by Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two full time members of the Bilderberger inner circle. Goldman Sachs oil report, [another full time member of the Bilderberger elite] published on March 30, 2005 increased the oil price range for the year 2005-6 from $55-$80 per barrel to $55-$105. During 2006 meeting, Bilderbergers have confirmed that their short range price estimate for oil for the 2007-08 continues to hover around US$105-150/barrel. "

$200 Dollar a Barrel Oil Is Bilderberg Plan To Destroy Middle Class

"The ultra-secretive Bilderberg Group, a consortium of power brokers from banking, business, politics, academia and oil, met in Munich Germany in May 2005 when crude oil prices were around the $40 a barrel mark.

During the conference, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what has happened.

During their 2006 meeting in Ottawa Canada, Bilderberg agreed to push for $105 a barrel before the end of 2008. This information was gleaned from sources inside Bilderberg who have proven reliable in the past.

Though Bilderberg claim they are merely a talking shop and formulate no policy, they were also responsible for the decision to delay the invasion of Iraq until March 2003 after it was initially intended to take place in late 2002.

Bilderberg have sworn to bring about what Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission and a Bilderberg member, refers to as the "post-industrial revolution," which in layman's terms translates as a global economic crash, another great depression and the total evisceration of the middle class."

So you see they were right in their predictions.

When you're paying a fortune at the pump for oil, please remember you denied it.

But the difference is that the politicians who are the only ones that can actually enforce policy, are ultimately responsible for discussing and implementing legislation and should be made accountable to the public view and in the public interest.

One would not expect the House of Commons to be a secretive, unaccountable institution (though ironically it sometimes seems like that) without media coverage or any public record, so why should Bilderberg be any different ?

Whilst you admit NWO's have existed throughout history, you seem to be denying the existence of a modern NWO, depsite the fact that George Bush Snr, Gordon Brown etc have all openly referred to it, have they not ?

Not suprising ?
Until only recently the existence of Bilderberg has been denied but now they know they cannot hide it from public, so are forced to admit it.

But why is there a total media blackout on what is discussed at Bilderberg ?

If conspiracies occur(and they do) then they occur behind closed doors.

You're simply rubbishing "Conspiracy theories" instead of admitting what's staring you in the face, because you think you're smarter than believing "conspiracy theories" - the pschological payoff to feel "smart" and have "common sense"
The media have done their propaganda job on you very well.
And conspiracies occur whether you believe it or not.

Not sure specifically what you mean but it sounds like you're contradicting yourself a little to me.

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits(in order of Porkpies) Clippo,Wowbanger TIP,agni,Akria,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist

g hall

There is only one Lizard King

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
TANSTAAFL TANJ

Alex McKee

Correct.

Ah, that was a typo. Well spotted. I did, of course, mean that I would not vote for politicians that attend the BG meetings.

I do think it's extremely unsavoury, but not that it should be illegal.

Again, your logic is warped. Who says that this policy can't be discussed in the public view?
I suspect what you mean is "What reason should there be for policy to be discussed with individuals from other governments/nations that is public & media discussion of is prohibited?"

Why not the secrecy?

It's very important that you understand that wealthy and influential people attend these meetings but they absolutely are not representatives of any particular government. They are just influential individuals attending a meeting.

Now of course a lot of people suspect, and probably rightly, that these people discuss politics and current affairs in these meetings and it's likely that strong opinions within the group affect government ministers and shadow ministers that attend. However the attendance of the meeting isn't the problem, allowing the meeting to unduly affect your actions in your job is.

There are many reasons to distrust Blair. That he attended Bilderberg is not high on the list.

I think that our legislators are slaves to their careers and not servants of the people, and that the government is often very severely impaired by it's tendency to cater to specialist interest groups. However it is not Bilderberg that particularly worries me.

So what's the answer?
Prevent elected officials from ever attending any private meetings whatsoever?


Allusions to a new world order certainly have been made by our prime minister and various other high profile international politicians. If they really were up to such murky nefariousness do you really think they'd draw attention to it by saying "New world order"?

Gordon Brown was talking about a marked change in international politics and a shift in the powers of the world - China and India are industrializing and growing.

Don't conflate privacy with secrecy.

Because the media cannot get any reliable sources and don't want to open themselves up to libel and because the stories are not particularly newsworthy even if they decided to publish them.

You are alleging a global conspiracy. It's up to you to provide evidence, to prove your case.

Conspiracies do occur, yes, but you are one of the people who see them everywhere - in places where none exist.

Take a scientific approach. Assume that no conspiracy exists (assume good faith) - which is usually the case. If you notice odd things, don't leap to the conclusion that it must be a conspiracy. Research it and try to discount the evidence. Look at it carefully. If you can't find a more logical or reasonable explanation then you must conclude that it is indeed a conspiracy.

__________________

Anything I post on this web forum is my personal opinion only.

Users on Ignore list: None.

Tony Bennett

youcanhandlethetruth asked: "Tony - forgive me, are you saying that you or David Icke was asking the questions? If you asked them - well done!"

REPLY: David Icke or a close mate of his asked the questions.

There were three reasons I made that posting:

1. To confirm that George Osbourne had been to a Bilderberg meeting. If the Conservatives win the next election, and George Osbourne holds a prominent position in the next government, I regard that as of at least mild interest

2. To draw attention to his evasiveness on the subject, when confronted

3. To draw attention to the fact that he lied in public about what he discussed there.

I would like those who represent me:

* not to attend important meetings with the world's movers and shakers without telling the electorate,

* not to deny they've been they're,

* not to refuse to tell me what they've discussed, and

* not to lie about what they've discussed.

As for David Icke, his 'reptilian shapeshifting' theories have justifiably exposed him to ridicule. I think he's right about some things but he is stuck now in conspiracy theory mode only, dwelling on these theories to an unhealthy extent. IMO

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------