Prove that human nature is not prone to greed and corruption and I'll cede your argument.
As that's not a proof I was attempting to make, I see no reason to defend it.
There is no need for me to prove that an unaccountable organization of government, business and finance working together in secret is repulsive to honesty and the very concept of a free and open society.
The key here is
working together. You're assuming that Bilderberg is a forum wherein business, government and finance are somehow coordinating control.
Secrecy may indeed be the right of a private organization. It is not, however, the right of our government to keep secrets from the governed. Show me in the Constitution where government has a right to keep secrets from us, and I'll cede your argument.
As that's not a proof I was attempting to make, I see no reason to defend it.
And you say it isn't science. I reject your statement as pure conjecture and lacking authority.
I can't prove a negative. The formula that you presented on this board has no basis in science. Please show me otherwise.
Thank you very much for your effort to "walk me through the steps", but I do not hold you to be in any way my superior or an authority on this or any other issues
Then don't take my word for it, but please, do your research.
You're accusing me of assuming. The historical evidence against the "innate goodness of man" concept, particularly when money, power and influence are tossed into the equation, is overwhelming. Read the historical account of every governmental institution from the dawn of recorded history till the present. The facts speak for themselves. Perhaps you disagree that money, power and influence corrupts in most recorded instances? If so, prove it.
I don't disagree, but that still doesn't allow for assumption to the contrary. When it comes to people and organizations, I still like to make a case before I accuse.
Good grief! Ron Paul is an exception.
My point was about rarity. On what authority do you claim that exceptions to the rule in that case are rare? You seem to claim scientific knowledge of this, so please, show me the science.
Really? Please provide evidence that you clicked the link and read the document, and that you're not willfully blind.
The first proof is impossible, and as you can't prove a negative the second is impossible too. I guess you win.
Are you really that dense? A conspiracy is nothing more than two or more individuals, usually in secret, working together to achieve a common goal.
Yes, I'm aware of the definition of a conspiracy, but your post implies that the Bilderberg group somehow directs global policy, hence my reply.
You're too dismissive in your reply to the paragraph in question. I see that as a tendency in your posts. Pick an issue or a statement in the paragraph and address it directly, rather than just waving your hand in an effort to make it disappear.
You're not the one replying to ten posts in (hopefully, if I'm lucky) a single hour. Sorry, but you're going to have to settle for the abbreviated version unless traffic on this thread slows in the near future.
I would hope you're yawning, as you stated the obvious in your initial post.
An organization is created in order to further the goals of its founders.
Not true. An organization is created to further a goal of its founders - obviously self-interest governs an individual's actions, but to imply that every person affiliated with the founding is somehow having their specific and possibly unrelated goals for global governance addressed and/or met is ASSUMPTION on your part.
And you appear to be making the supposition that all the elites, or even a cross section of them, must attend the meeting in order for the organization to further the goals of globalization.
Another mistaken assumption. I'm not making here trying to make claims - I'm only trying to question your claims.
You assume a lot about me that simply isn't true.
Like what?
You say you are critical about centralization of power. Are you critical of it because of what it might serve, or are you only critical of it if that centralized power admits in public that it has "nefarious" goals?
I am critical of it for neither of the reasons you suggest. I am critical of centralizing power because it doesn't work and it is prone to corruption. And when I am critical of it, I make sure to document my argument with a logical proof that lists the evidence showing the point I intend to prove.
Prove it. Unless you produce tangible, scientific evidence, I reject your claim.
So because I reject your conspiracy theory about Bilderberg, I'm a television zombie unless I prove otherwise? You're clearly desperate to turn my argument against me.
