2008 Bilderberg Attendees ~ Treasonous Felons ALL!

[nbhadja]

Why? It still fits the definition of "conspiracy", and it still fits the definition of "hypothesis". Does Ron Paul's involvement somehow change this?

Before the European Union was created, there were many facts out there that indicated they were trying to make it. The media and the governments of Europe called anyone who said they were trying to make the EU a "conspiracy theorist."
But they were not conspiracy theorists, they were just looking at the facts. Shortly after, the EU was created. They are trying to make the NAU. It is a fact. But the media labels anyone who believes it as a conspiracy theory.

This is the same exact situation. The media really pumps up this conspiracy crap.
It is called independent thinking (aka not buy into the garbage the media says). Entire generations have been conditioned to sheep think and view any independent thinkers as conspiracy nuts.

Since when does looking at facts make you a conspiracy theorist???
These guys have even said in CONGRESS that their goal is to eliminate national sovereignty and promote a united economy and currency. My sig is one example of it.

They admit it themselves, they are trying to make one body that sets the rules and controls the economy (aka one government). How can you deny it??

 

[Bro.Butch]

Before the European Union was created, there were many facts out there that indicated they were trying to make it. The media and the governments of Europe called anyone who said they were trying to make the EU a "conspiracy theorist."
But they were not conspiracy theorists, they were just looking at the facts. Shortly after, the EU was created. They are trying to make the NAU. It is a fact. But the media labels anyone who believes it as a conspiracy theory.

This is the same exact situation. The media really pumps up this conspiracy crap.
It is called independent thinking (aka not buy into the garbage the media says). Entire generations have been conditioned to sheep think and view any independent thinkers as conspiracy nuts.

Since when does looking at facts make you a conspiracy theorist???
These guys have even said in CONGRESS that their goal is to eliminate national sovereignty and promote a united economy and currency. My sig is one example of it.

They admit it themselves, they are trying to make one body that sets the rules and controls the economy (aka one government). How can you deny it??

Deny it at your own life and liberty...

 

[Nathan Hale]

You accused me of "assuming" that human nature is not prone to greed and corruption. Either it is or it isn't. State your position and defend it.

I didn't accuse you of assuming that human nature is prone to greed and corruption, I accused you of assuming greed and corruption in this instance.

I did not say "control" in that paragraph. I said "working together in secret", and that such activity is "repulsive to honesty and the very concept of a free and open society."

Well that depends what they're working on.

You said "Secrecy is a right of a private organization". I challenged you with the fact that a) government is involved, and b) government does NOT have a right to secrecy.

Judging by past lists of Bilderberg attendees, serving members of government usually do not attend (though there are notable exceptions).

I still reject your statement as pure conjecture and lacking authority

I'm not the one with something to prove. You offered a "formula" that has no basis in science, unless you care to show otherwise.

I would never take your word for anything, and I have done my research.

George Bush's people did some research before invading Iraq too.

No doubt. You can assume that people are good and wouldn't engage in "nefarious" activity. But considering the history of David Rockefeller and numerous others on the list of Bilderberg attendees, it is the height of naivety to assume the same in this case.

I don't assume that people are good. I just insist on making a case before I accuse people of being evil.

What planet are you from?

And you have the balls to comment on ME ducking questions? For shame,

You asked "Where's the evidence of conspiracy?". I answered that a conspiracy is nothing more than two or more individuals, usually in secret, working together to achieve a common goal. Our discussions regarding Bildeberg have covered the the fact that Bilderberg has a) more that two individuals, b) secrecy, and 3) working together to achieve a common goal. Our disagreement appears to be what that common goal is.

You're right, I was vague. As I stated in the post to which your above quote was a reply, "your post implies that the Bilderberg group somehow directs global policy". So what I was looking to say was: Where is the evidence of a conspiracy to somehow direct global policy?

No, it is not "ASSUMPTION" on my part. I have researched the founding members of Bildeberg, including Prince Bernhard, Paul van Zeeland, etc., and every one of them held views in favor of regional (ala EU) and/or global governance.

Everything but direct evidence is assumption. Continuity is assumption. If you're going to accuse Bilderberg of shenanigans, then show some actual, physical evidence of these shenanigans. Please, I'm a sympathetic ear. I would LOVE to see Bilderberg fall. The difference between us, once again, is that I require that evidence before I make my move.

I said "you appear to be...". That is not an assumption, it is a statement of perception.

You're right - it's not an assumption, it's a false perception.

Are you critical of the concept, or individual instances of the concept?

There's nothing wrong with the concept - it works in business and war. But it leads to evil in government. Of course, that's why I post to this site - because I hate the idea of a centrally-empowered government.

No, I'm simply asking for scientific proof and evidence. You do a lot of that, so I thought you wouldn't mind if I did, as well.

So I restate: "Because I reject your conspiracy theory about Bilderberg, I'm a television zombie unless I prove otherwise?" Remember, I'm asking for proof or evidence because you're the one with the claim. You are assigning a label to me and asking for proof that I don't fit the label, which is not only a logical fallacy but begs a logical impossibility.

 

[Nathan Hale]

The "relevance" of the assertion was to be found in the paragraph following my initial remark. You failed to connect the dots again.

Actually, you failed to provide a necessary reason. Here's why:

I'll post it again in context:

Rockefeller was an original U.S. founding member, is a life member, and a member of the Steering Committee for the Bildeberg Group. He has attended all of its meetings from 1954 up to the present.

You don't "challenge the claim that Rockefeller is an internationalist", yet you can't seem to "connect the dots" and figure out that an organization that he helped establish, funds, and is currently a "steering committee" member of; an organization that is made up of internationals, from all influential sectors (government, academia, media, business, etc.,), has as its "nefarious" goal the destruction of our national sovereignty and the subversion of our Constitution and way of life so as to create true global governance? For this is what must occur if true global governance and an international order is to take shape.
​

You forget that I replied to all of this with:

Yes. I don't see the necessary connection between Rockefeller's internationalism and Bilderberg schenanigans, regardless of his prominence in the organization. My local Chamber of Commerce is chaired by a socialist. Some other members are also socialists. Does that make it a socialistic enterrprise? Of course not. Sure, it's a possibility, but I see no evidence to substantiate it and thus no reason to make the assumption.

Even assuming that Rockefeller runs the show, this doesn't change. Means, motive, and opportunity are not grounds to convict. Perhaps they make Rockefeller a "person of interest", and I'm more than happy to say that I consider him and Bilderberg suspect, but to crusade outright against them with nothing more than conjecture on your side is fallacy. Find some actual evidence that points to their guilt, or your "theory" will never find an audience larger than a biased internet message board.

The two year old behavior refers to your dismissiveness. You do not address core statements or issues, but simply brush them aside or question everything. It is akin to a two year old responding either "So?" or "why?" to every statement or question addressed to him by an adult.

I ask "so?" when what is presented as grounds for conviction doesn't actually add up to grounds for conviction. And I ask "why?" because I am a reasonable person, always looking to find reason behind action. If asking "so?" and "why?" are the charges, then I respond with stating that such inquiries are the most logical parts of a two year old, eager to learn the mechanics of the world around them. I know, I've been the parent of a two year old. Their curiosity is something adults should emulate, because it stops cold the desire to prejudicially JUDGE something on which we don't have enough information.

It does when you're also funding it and on the steering committee, able to choose who is invited and who isn't.

It is still not a necessary connection. It's a possible, even likely connection, but it is not a necessary connection, and as such it requires further insight. As the old saying goes - make sure your guns are loaded before you show up to the duel.

I never said he was in "total control". That's an assumption on your part.

You're right, I assumed it because you are using his background to place blame on the organization, which implies that he has control over the organization.

He is, however, a founder, a funder, and a steering committee member. And if that doesn't give a level of control and influence, perhaps you'd suggest alternative conclusions?

I don't have an alternative conclusion. I just don't know enough about the organization to draw a conclusion. But here's the thing - neither do you. You just assume.

Pure dismissiveness.

And justifiably so. You assume that my exposure to the media leads to contamination - a claim that I'm sure you cannot prove (if you care to, now's your chance).

Is that a "yes" to my question about your watching television?

No, that was a joke, not that the challenge is at all relevant as plenty of people who watch TV are capable of forming an intelligent opinion.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Nathan,
Do you think that Henry Kissenger is a "good man" without any sort of nefarious agenda? David Rockefeller? Richard Perle? Vernon Jordan? James Wolfenson? Richard Holbrooke? Rick Perry? Richard Haas?

Suppose all of these men came together (pack mentality) and met without any oversight whatsoever- and in complete secrecy. What would you expect would be the result of those meetings?

I don't have enough information to "expect" anything in particular to result from these meetings. Is there cause for concern? Absolutely! But is there cause for immediate condemnation? Far from it. See, identifying means, motive, and opportunity is a great step. It's essential in identifying persons of interest. But it's not enough to go off on a crusade against someone or something, at least in my opinion. I'd rather have actual evidence that shows their evil.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Prediction: Nathan Hale will NOT answer your questions directly, but rather will respond with a dismissive, side-stepping reply.

This from the master of question ducking himself.

 

[Nathan Hale]

For Nathan Hale: WHO are the Architects of Economic Collapse?

If you want credible information on what we're trying to convince you of, Boudicca is the one who can point it out for you. Read her blog. There is more than enough information and documentation for you. If she can't convince you, I'm sorry, but you aren't wanting to see the light.

I checked out the article you posted, and I agree with most of it. But I don't see how it points to some Bilderberg conspiracy to control the world. Once again, it's not about "seeing the light", it's about assuming, without concrete evidence, that you're actually seeing the light. I have a good idea that Bilderberg is corrupt and evil, but I would never dream of going after them unless I had some actual evidence that they were so. Perhaps that's the difference between us - you want to hear about the probability of "the light". I want to see the light.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Here's more proof of intention. You Tube

I just watched it. Where's the proof of intent and the tie to Bilderberg?

 

[Nathan Hale]

Before the European Union was created, there were many facts out there that indicated they were trying to make it. The media and the governments of Europe called anyone who said they were trying to make the EU a "conspiracy theorist."
But they were not conspiracy theorists, they were just looking at the facts. Shortly after, the EU was created. They are trying to make the NAU. It is a fact. But the media labels anyone who believes it as a conspiracy theory.

Then show the facts. Don't show the circumstance that you've pieced together to assume intent - show the facts.

This is the same exact situation. The media really pumps up this conspiracy crap.
It is called independent thinking (aka not buy into the garbage the media says). Entire generations have been conditioned to sheep think and view any independent thinkers as conspiracy nuts.

I enjoy independent though, and pride myself on being an independent thinker. I consider one of the prime directives of an independent thinker to be logical thought and reserved sensibilities. That means figuring out a conclusion, making that conclusion bulletproof, and then acting on it. But this is just an example of people running off half-cocked with rumor and conjecture on their side.

Since when does looking at facts make you a conspiracy theorist???

I've never said it has.

These guys have even said in CONGRESS that their goal is to eliminate national sovereignty and promote a united economy and currency. My sig is one example of it.

Your signature talks about a CFR member, which is another debate entirely. But even so, individuals do not speak for large organizations when they speak in front of Congress, unless they explicitly state in their presentation that they are speaking on behalf of a specific organization.

They admit it themselves, they are trying to make one body that sets the rules and controls the economy (aka one government). How can you deny it??

Because "they" don't admit it. Some individuals admit it. And we are stupid to run off accusing these organizations of acting as proxies for those individuals without something solid that shows such a relationship.

 

[revolutionary8]

I don't have enough information to "expect" anything in particular to result from these meetings. Is there cause for concern? Absolutely! But is there cause for immediate condemnation? Far from it. See, identifying means, motive, and opportunity is a great step. It's essential in identifying persons of interest. But it's not enough to go off on a crusade against someone or something, at least in my opinion. I'd rather have actual evidence that shows their evil.

Immediate condmnation? LMAO. they have been meeting since the 50's!!!!!!!!!
Fail.

 

[revolutionary8]

I don't have enough information to "expect" anything in particular to result from these meetings. Is there cause for concern? Absolutely! But is there cause for immediate condemnation? Far from it. See, identifying means, motive, and opportunity is a great step. It's essential in identifying persons of interest. But it's not enough to go off on a crusade against someone or something, at least in my opinion. I'd rather have actual evidence that shows their evil.

Immediate Condemnation? LMAO. they have been meeting in secret since the 50's!!!!!!!!!
Your answer is total bullshit.

Originally Posted by ihsv

Prediction: Nathan Hale will NOT answer your questions directly, but rather will respond with a dismissive, side-stepping reply.

Ding Ding- we have a winnah.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Immediate condmnation? LMAO. they have been meeting since the 50's!!!!!!!!!
Fail.

It seems as though you don't know the meaning of the word "immediate". My use of the word does not suggest ignorance of the fact that Bilderberg has been meeting since the 50's, but you seem to think it does.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Your answer is total bullshit.

Are you then saying that means, motive, and opportunity are enough on which to condemn, even if you have no actual evidence of wrongdoing?

 

[Bro.Butch]

The Elite's Master Plan 3 of 12: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4uR0XjS7ZI

 

[Athan]

So do we take this to courts all across the nation or what? Treason is a serious offense that may just fly in court rooms across the nation.

 

[Nathan Hale]

So do we take this to courts all across the nation or what? Treason is a serious offense that may just fly in court rooms across the nation.

In order to take this to the courts you need the kind of evidence that courts accept, which Bilderberg critics have yet to produce.

 

[revolutionary8]

In order to take this to the courts you need the kind of evidence that courts accept, which Bilderberg critics have yet to produce.

yessss.
yessssssssssssssssssssss...........
(as it is up to the Bilderbergs to produce evidence) Hey Foxy, keep guarding the henhouse woodya?
lmao.
how much did they pay for your soul, or how much did you pay/accept for your soul? OR, what is the price for blindness?
since when was it up to the defense to "produce evidence?????????????"
you are funny.
Too bad you aren't a teenager.
You MIGHT have an excuse.
As far as the pros go, which is who would need EVIDENCE to construct a case, I would gather that this would make Saddam Hussein's trial look like a walk in the park. Would you be willing to die?
I am guessing not. lmao.
-7th and proud
Come and git it.
TROLL

 

[Nathan Hale]

Folks, it doesn't get better than this:

yessss.
yessssssssssssssssssssss...........
(as it is up to the Bilderbergs to produce evidence) Hey Foxy, keep guarding the henhouse woodya?
lmao.
how much did they pay for your soul, or how much did you pay/accept for your soul? OR, what is the price for blindness?
since when was it up to the defense to "produce evidence?????????????"
you are funny.
Too bad you aren't a teenager.
You MIGHT have an excuse.
As far as the pros go, which is who would need EVIDENCE to construct a case, I would gather that this would make Saddam Hussein's trial look like a walk in the park. Would you be willing to die?
I am guessing not. lmao.
-7th and proud
Come and git it.
TROLL

Revolution8, in the above-quoted mess masquerading as a legitimate post, manages to barely articulate a single claim. I'll isolate it from the rest his logical abortion for the benefit of those who don't want to have their IQ sucked away by reading it in its entirety:

It is up to the Bilderbergs to produce evidence. since when was it up to the defense to "produce evidence"?

Rev, apparently you have the roles reversed here. Since you and yours are the ones with claims about Bilderberg, that makes you the plaintiff and Bilderberg the defense. As you so eloquently pointed out in your previous post, "since when was it up to the defense to 'produce evidence'?"

 

[Bro.Butch]

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell