Jump to content

Tea Party or Global Conspiracy?


Recommended Posts

I find this intriguing:

But Tucker says the Bilderbergers are not pleased with Harper. It's because of Kyoto. The Bilderberg group, Tucker says, is behind the Kyoto Protocol. They're the ones who pushed it. Like they pushed NAFTA and the World Trade Organization - and "turned NATO into the UN's standing army. It's a step," Tucker writes, "on the road to creating world government."

The CBC lambastes the Bilderberg group and defends Harper against them?? Not the type of coverage that I would expect from th CBC at all.

On second thought, he is now the Prime Minister and maybe they are sucking up to him. Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From all the tin foil hat stuff I have read. This is the just of it.

Basicly , you have the elite of the elite.

High ranking dimplomats.

CEOs of some of the largest corporations on the planet.

CEOs of banks

Former presidents, ministers (of various kinds) from many countries

Even some UN officials.

The way I see it, when you get the richest people in the world together in the same place, you can bet they are up to no good. I am convinced they can influence policy, but to what extent I am not sure of. Could also be just a huge lobby group, but for what purpose?

They could be influencing for the good, but why all the secrecy? I am always suspicious of 'Hey we are trying to do good in the world, but we don't want to tell you anything about how we are doing this.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, when you get the richest people in the world together in the same place, you can bet they are up to no good. I am convinced they can influence policy, but to what extent I am not sure of. Could also be just a huge lobby group, but for what purpose?
Why? It could be nothing more than a trade convention where people with similar interests get together to exchange information. I am sure they have many politically incorrect conversations which would explain the secrecy but people in all walks of the life will say things in private that would sound really bad if plastered on the front pages of newspapers. So I don't see anything wrong with the high and mighting enjoying the same opportunity to let loose and shoot the s**t.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I don't see anything wrong with the high and mighting enjoying the same opportunity to let loose and shoot the s**t.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all either, but it's probably a little naive to think that nothing of great consequence gets resolved by such meetings. Personally, I like the idea of a strong world government, but I'd rather see it be open and cooperative than closed and corporate. I found the paragraph at the end about Kyoto quite interesting, and it makes me wonder if Harper is really no friend to the forces of globalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I don't see anything wrong with the high and mighting enjoying the same opportunity to let loose and shoot the s**t.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all either, but it's probably a little naive to think that nothing of great consequence gets resolved by such meetings. Personally, I like the idea of a strong world government, but I'd rather see it be open and cooperative than closed and corporate. I found the paragraph at the end about Kyoto quite interesting, and it makes me wonder if Harper is really no friend to the forces of globalization.

Well, Harper was a Bilerberg guy for a year or two - causing theorists to surmize he was being groomed for his current stint as PM.

And while some may see this as just a gathering of minds to shoot the s**t, I think the privacy angel is to prevent people from knowing that some government officials present were discussing policy matters - something that is illegal for government officials to discuss while they are still in office.

They let one journalist in - from the Economist. Hmmmmm....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the privacy angel is to prevent people from knowing that some government officials present were discussing policy matters - something that is illegal for government officials to discuss while they are still in office.

Really? Then how are they supposed to determine policy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the privacy angel is to prevent people from knowing that some government officials present were discussing policy matters - something that is illegal for government officials to discuss while they are still in office.

Really? Then how are they supposed to determine policy?

Let me clarify - any government official who discusses policy matters while not in their place of governance is committing a crime. This is also why the privacy issue is suspect - because if the public knows they are dicussing policy matters in the improper setting (i.e. - an open debate in the House is considered proper) the group will be considered to be engaging in criminal acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify - any government official who discusses policy matters while not in their place of governance is committing a crime. This is also why the privacy issue is suspect - because if the public knows they are dicussing policy matters in the improper setting (i.e. - an open debate in the House is considered proper) the group will be considered to be engaging in criminal acts.

Is this some kind of international law or are you speaking of a particular nation here ? It sounds like you're talking about Canada, so perhaps you could reference the specific law and what exactly they're not allowed to discuss.

Government officials meet with individuals and groups all the time to discuss policy, so I don't know what you refer to here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am referring to Canada and the United States - it is illegal to discuss policy matters without the input of opposition parties and without a formal debate in the house.

That's why when Wolfowitz went while serving in the Bush administration there were reporters who questioned whether or not public figures should be engaging in these types of discussions. Of course, as I stated earlier, the privacy issue leaves many to wonder whether it is this type of illegal discussion they are trying to hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be nothing more than a trade convention where people with similar interests get together to exchange information. I am sure they have many politically incorrect conversations which would explain the secrecy but people in all walks of the life will say things in private that would sound really bad if plastered on the front pages of newspapers.
Of course! They only want to use politically incorrect language!

Adam Smith:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
As quoted no less than by Alan Greenspan Federal Reserve

Now then, before Adam Smith or Alan Greenspan get mixed up in some conspiracy theory, it is worth considering the inconsistency of some basic assumptions. People usually assume that Conrad Black and Ken Lay and so on are ambitious, competitive and greedy. And some people assume that these same greedy, competitive, ambitious bastards are capable of working together cooperatively inside a conspiratorial cartel.

That doesn't make sense. The likes of Black and Lay would cheat at the first opportunity. Capitalists by nature are not cooperative people.

I am referring to Canada and the United States - it is illegal to discuss policy matters without the input of opposition parties and without a formal debate in the house.

That's why when Wolfowitz went while serving in the Bush administration there were reporters who questioned whether or not public figures should be engaging in these types of discussions. Of course, as I stated earlier, the privacy issue leaves many to wonder whether it is this type of illegal discussion they are trying to hide.

That's nonsense. Heads of government or state frequently designate someone to speak or negotiate on their behalf. Your example of Wolfowitz is slightly different. The journalists were questioning his authority to negotiate a matter that could possibly be considered within the jurisdiction of the Congress. IOW, the journalists were playing partisan politics, US-style.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addmittedly, I am having trouble citing the law. I will keep trying.

I think it may be common knowledge though - that a government official is barred from discussing domestic policy issues with Bilerbergs. I believe the process begins with a motion whereby government officials can discuss policy within the House (for Canada).

To discuss Canada's policy concerns or possible future polciy motions with a group outside the framework of Canadaian government is not only suspect, it goes against government transparency.

I will continue sifting until I can find a source however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's nonsense. Heads of government or state frequently designate someone to speak or negotiate on their behalf. Your example of Wolfowitz is slightly different. The journalists were questioning his authority to negotiate a matter that could possibly be considered within the jurisdiction of the Congress. IOW, the journalists were playing partisan politics, US-style.

Yes, Heads of States often do send one person in to negotiate - but the Bilderbergs is a PRIVATE organization.

WHo in this world who leads a sovereign nation would discuss PUBLIC policy matters with a PRIVATE organization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
From all the tin foil hat stuff I have read. This is the just of it.

Basicly , you have the elite of the elite.

High ranking dimplomats.

CEOs of some of the largest corporations on the planet.

CEOs of banks

Former presidents, ministers (of various kinds) from many countries

Even some UN officials.

The way I see it, when you get the richest people in the world together in the same place, you can bet they are up to no good. I am convinced they can influence policy, but to what extent I am not sure of. Could also be just a huge lobby group, but for what purpose?

They could be influencing for the good, but why all the secrecy? I am always suspicious of 'Hey we are trying to do good in the world, but we don't want to tell you anything about how we are doing this.'

Its weird but speculation does little good. Also, they have very good security details. I mean *very* *good*.

However, if we, as thinking individuals, were to assume that they were just having tea, I think we would be being foolish. What do the most powerful people in the world talk about over lunch? Shop, I would guess.

Yeah, I'm not convinced these are the kinds of people we want in control, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...