The Illuminati and other Conspiracy Theories thread

[Enemem]

Citation required for how Agenda 21 is pro-rich rather than being completely anti-wealth.

And on the second, how does fracking fit into Agenda 21?

Well. I'm actually in favour of the spirit of Agenda 21, I do think that something like this is needed, however, fracking seems to fly in the face of this. Why ?

You know as well as I do, that the better ways of converting energy are green. And I mean that from an capitalist point of view.

“Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Hundreds of CEO’s, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather each February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead.

“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

“The group’s conclusions is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Is this what's happening?

 

[Dotini]

Well. I'm actually in favour of the spirit of Agenda 21, I do think that something like this is needed, however, fracking seems to fly in the face of this. Why ?

You know as well as I do, that the better ways of converting energy are green. And I mean that from an capitalist point of view.




Is this what's happening?

If there was a hidden agenda to make potable fresh water more scarce and hence more valuable to those holding rights to it, fracking would be a terrific way to accomplish it. Plus, fracking hastens the extraction of petroleum products from domestic reserves, temporarily reducing the leverage of foreign reserves of petroleum.

 

[Enemem]

If there was a hidden agenda to make potable fresh water more scarce and hence more valuable to those holding rights to it, fracking would be a terrific way to accomplish it. Plus, fracking hastens the extraction of petroleum products from domestic reserves, temporarily reducing the leverage of foreign reserves of petroleum.

Indeed if there were a hidden agenda to poison people, then fracking would fit into that nicely as well. Good spot. Reducing the leverage of foreign reserves of petroleum, is not a long-term solution.

 

[Dotini]

Indeed if there were a hidden agenda to poison people, then fracking would fit into that nicely as well. Good spot. Reducing the leverage of foreign reserves of petroleum, is not a long-term solution.

In the long term we are dead. Life is moving faster now. There is only the short term, the here and now.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Indeed if there were a hidden agenda to poison people, then fracking would fit into that nicely as well.

No, no it wouldn't. Just think about what you're saying; we already have water supplies with a number of state approved chemicals added, it's not a giant leap of the imagination to see how mass-poisoning might be implrmented much more easily than simply dumping loads of chemical through a frack and hoping that it makes its way to the clean water in the right quantities.

Reducing the leverage of foreign reserves of petroleum, is not a long-term solution.

Energy is a driver in every market, reducing foreign energy leverage is called "Energy Security" and is massively important to all major governments. It's a long-term solution that they all crave, hence the worries of many Gazprom-supplied European states right now.

 

[niky]

You know as well as I do, that the better ways of converting energy are green. And I mean that from an capitalist point of view.

The tone of your posts suggest that it's the left that supports fracking. The left whose authoritarian power is derived from Agenda 21. Agenda 21 which pushes for the development of non-fossil fuel energy.

Strange then, that it's the GOP that's most bullish about fracking:

http://www.gop.gov/energy/

A recent reassessment of oil and natural gas resources in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana revealed double the amount of oil and triple the amount of natural gas previously estimated. These new discoveries—accessible through technologies including hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling—will further stimulate America’s oil and natural gas renaissance, creating jobs and building the U.S. economy. However, while production overall has increased, oil and natural gas production on federal lands has dropped in recent years because of burdensome government regulations. Republicans support increasing access to America’s tremendous supply of oil and natural gas in order to create jobs and get the American economy moving again.

 

[Dotini]

The tone of your posts suggest that it's the left that supports fracking. The left whose authoritarian power is derived from Agenda 21. Agenda 21 which pushes for the development of non-fossil fuel energy.

Strange then, that it's the GOP that's most bullish about fracking:

http://www.gop.gov/energy/

Wise Republicans are astutely investing in water rights.

 

[niky]

That was actually a good idea even before the boom in fracking, considering agricultural run-off and regular pollution.

 

[Dotini]

That was actually a good idea even before the boom in fracking, considering agricultural run-off and regular pollution.

Also declining water table levels due to depletion quicker than replacement through precipitation. This is an issue in US midwest aquifers.

 

[niky]

Pretty much an issue anywhere you have large populations that rely on groundwater. I've had to redig my deep well several times over the past decade.

That's what happens when you have a golf course, a water park and an entire bloody city sitting right outside your doorstep.

 

[Scaff]

Rhetorical. Generalisations are one of the weapons of propaganda.
Back on topic.

Then why do you keep insisting on using gross generalizations and a lack of valid sources?

And if you don't want to play nice, then don't play. Some of those posts look like spam.

Yes some of them do, yours mainly.

Start contributing with valid and sourced discussion points that actually cover something, rather than nonsense images with zero explanation or sources.

 

[Enemem]

In the long term we are dead. Life is moving faster now. There is only the short term, the here and now.

Ain't apathy great?

No, no it wouldn't. Just think about what you're saying; we already have water supplies with a number of state approved chemicals added, it's not a giant leap of the imagination to see how mass-poisoning might be implrmented much more easily than simply dumping loads of chemical through a frack and hoping that it makes its way to the clean water in the right quantities.

Energy is a driver in every market, reducing foreign energy leverage is called "Energy Security" and is massively important to all major governments. It's a long-term solution that they all crave, hence the worries of many Gazprom-supplied European states right now.

So if clean drinking water for people, livestock and plants were the number one priority, would fracking be allowed?
It's not the number one priority, but it should be.

The tone of your posts suggest that it's the left that supports fracking. The left whose authoritarian power is derived from Agenda 21. Agenda 21 which pushes for the development of non-fossil fuel energy.
Strange then, that it's the GOP that's most bullish about fracking:
http://www.gop.gov/energy/

I'm sorry, but I don't do left and right, they've become so close over many of the most important issues, that left and right have no meaning. That and I'm not a student of politics.

That was actually a good idea even before the boom in fracking, considering agricultural run-off and regular pollution.

A better idea would be stand against it.

Then why do you keep insisting on using gross generalizations and a lack of valid sources?
Yes some of them do, yours mainly.
Start contributing with valid and sourced discussion points that actually cover something, rather than nonsense images with zero explanation or sources.

Because most people do. And because the governments do, why should it be in their armoury and not mine. At least, I am presenting something resembling interesting posts, which you find joy in heckling, that's okay. I do not need to prove everything I say, why would you hold me to a higher standard than the media/politicians, have they ever answered a good question with a straight answer. Obfuscation should be their middle names. Lies are not my bag, that doesn't mean I'm always right, and a man has to know his limitations.

Maybe I should have presented the picture with the caption. " What do you think of this?" It's obviously a depiction of sometype of policestate/robotic/prison with reference to Agenda 21. We've just been talking about it, but not because of anything you've said. I thought his was a place to have interesting chats, but you don't seem, to me, particularly interesting. But, you've got as much right to bore people as I have.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You seem keen to debate but then take a passive "I dunno" stance when questioned.

So if clean drinking water for people, livestock and plants were the number one priority, would fracking be allowed?

Presumably, why wouldn't it be? Are the two related in more than a few narrow geographic areas? Do you know where the bulk of drinking water comes from?

I'm sorry, but I don't do left and right, they've become so close over many of the most important issues, that left and right have no meaning. That and I'm not a student of politics.

Then get into the facts rather than the political views.

A better idea would be stand against it.

Against fracking? But why? On the say-so of a few boggle-cheeked hedge-farters, mad with bleary-eyed sleepiness in their horrid woollen hats?

Maybe I should have presented the picture with the caption. " What do you think of this?" It's obviously a depiction of sometype of policestate/robotic/prison with reference to Agenda 21. We've just been talking about it, but not because of anything you've said. I thought his was a place to have interesting chats, but you don't seem, to me, particularly interesting. But, you've got as much right to bore people as I have.

Wasn't obvious to me or, it seems, to other people.

Maybe you don't find Scaff interesting but he can debate (like you wouldn't believe) and doesn't come across as some arsehole who makes it up as he goes along then squeaks like a turd when questioned. Try to enjoy the experience - it will genuinely improve your mind.

 

[niky]

I'm sorry, but I don't do left and right, they've become so close over many of the most important issues, that left and right have no meaning. That and I'm not a student of politics.

A better idea would be stand against it.

While I think America's definition of left and right are pretty daft, since both parties tend to support corporate causes that agree with them, it pays to understand where your information is coming from. The rant against Agenda 21 comes from the far-right. The push against fracking comes from the far-left.

-----

Your argument is: Agenda 21! "Nobody should tell private individuals like me what I can do with my land. I'll do whatever I want with my land, and they can't force me to stop or to leave it."

And then... hey, fracking! "Private individuals doing what they want with their land are doing nasty things to my land as a result. We should force them to stop or to leave."

-----

Think about that for a minute.

I do not need to prove everything I say, why would you hold me to a higher standard than the media/politicians, have they ever answered a good question with a straight answer. Obfuscation should be their middle names. Lies are not my bag, that doesn't mean I'm always right, and a man has to know his limitations.

We hold everyone to the same standard here. Whether you're a politician, a leftist, a rightist, an activist or a regular person, your arguments need to be backed up with facts rather than simple rhetoric.

 

[Scaff]

Because most people do. And because the governments do, why should it be in their armoury and not mine. At least, I am presenting something resembling interesting posts, which you find joy in heckling, that's okay. I do not need to prove everything I say, why would you hold me to a higher standard than the media/politicians, have they ever answered a good question with a straight answer. Obfuscation should be their middle names. Lies are not my bag, that doesn't mean I'm always right, and a man has to know his limitations.

It doesn't matter what happens in the media or what you believe is an acceptable standard, what matters is the ToS and AUP of GT Planet (which you agreed to when you joined) and its quite clear in regard to the burden of proof.

One member has already in the last month discovered that replacing sourced and backed up claims with abuse and rhetoric will only lead to one end result, why you believe that you are immune from that fate is beyond me.

The AUP applies to all and as such if you make a claim then the burden of proof lies with you, continue to fail in that regard and you will find that the staff will take action. If you don't feel that you can live with that, then you need to consider if this is the right place for you to be airing these claims, but be under no doubt, we will require sourced proof for these claims and we will examine them in detail.

Maybe I should have presented the picture with the caption. " What do you think of this?" It's obviously a depiction of sometype of policestate/robotic/prison with reference to Agenda 21. We've just been talking about it, but not because of anything you've said. I thought his was a place to have interesting chats, but you don't seem, to me, particularly interesting. But, you've got as much right to bore people as I have.

You should (and in future will unless you want them to be removed) provide both context and sources.

 

[Enemem]

While I think America's definition of left and right are pretty daft, since both parties tend to support corporate causes that agree with them, it pays to understand where your information is coming from. The rant against Agenda 21 comes from the far-right. The push against fracking comes from the far-left.

Not my fault that I'm against fracking and the instigation of battery-people (like battery hens)(movement of people to population centres). Just because I disagree with both of them says what? Where the hell am I? Left, right, centre ? I don't know, and i don't care, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, maybe it shows I'm not represented by any of the political parties.

Your argument is: Agenda 21! "Nobody should tell private individuals like me what I can do with my land. I'll do whatever I want with my land, and they can't force me to stop or to leave it."

And then... hey, fracking! "Private individuals doing what they want with their land are doing nasty things to my land as a result. We should force them to stop or to leave."

Hmmm. Sounds reasonable logic, until to put in this proviso. "you can do what you want on your land, as long as it doesn't affect other people negatively". Then both sides get what they want, assuming they don't injure a neighbour. Isn't that how you live your life, why should laws be any different?

Think about that for a minute.

We hold everyone to the same standard here. Whether you're a politician, a leftist, a rightist, an activist or a regular person, your arguments need to be backed up with facts rather than simple rhetoric.

Sometimes facts aren't easy to find. And assumptions or guesses are the best we can do. Does that mean we shouldn't discuss them? Have you asked anyone to provide proof for god recently, or is it accepted as fact? No-one is in charge. Is that a fact? Can it be proved?

But I understand your point. And will endeavour to make myself, and anyone else I'm in discussion with to do similar.

 

[niky]

Hmmm. Sounds reasonable logic, until to put in this proviso. "you can do what you want on your land, as long as it doesn't affect other people negatively". Then both sides get what they want, assuming they don't injure a neighbour. Isn't that how you live your life, why should laws be any different?

Think about that for a minute.

Congratulations. You've just described Agenda21's stance on land use.

Again, this is why you should study the politics and positions behind things before attempting to discuss them.

Sometimes facts aren't easy to find. And assumptions or guesses are the best we can do.

Agenda21. Wikipedia entry describing how it works on the very first page of Google Search.

Does that mean we shouldn't discuss them?

Nope.

Have you asked anyone to provide proof for god recently, or is it accepted as fact? No-one is in charge. Is that a fact? Can it be proved?

Yes. No. Maybe. Maybe. No.

But I understand your point. And will endeavour to make myself, and anyone else I'm in discussion with to do similar.

That's all we ask.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not my fault that I'm against fracking and the instigation of battery-people

Why are you against fracking, what real harm does it cause in the overall scheme of things?

 

[Enemem]

Why are you against fracking, what real harm does it cause in the overall scheme of things?

Does it cause any harm? I don't know. After all, I can't say it does. Because I'll be asked for proof. This, I can't prove to anyone's satisfaction. However, maybe you can prove that it's safe to yourself. How will you do that? Listen to the frackers? Listen to the politicians? Or will you look for evidence that it causes harm? How hard will you look? A giraffe or an ostrich? Is it your call, or has someone already decided for you?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm against fracking

Does it cause any harm?

Most people's main objection to the recovery of oil or gas is the environmental damage that can be caused if great care isn't taken. My guess was that perhaps you were worried about the ecological issues.

Now I'm just worried that you might have had a stroke.

 

[Enemem]

Most people's main objection to the recovery of oil or gas is the environmental damage that can be caused if great care isn't taken. My guess was that perhaps you were worried about the ecological issues.

Now I'm just worried that you might have had a stroke.

What makes you think I'm not worried about the ecological issues? I can't prove there's a problem. And I don't want to be annoying anyone with unsubstantiated claims.

 

[niky]

What makes you think I'm not worried about the ecological issues? I can't prove there's a problem. And I don't want to be annoying anyone with unsubstantiated claims.

That's what research is for.

Go to http://www.google.com.

Type "fracking environmental issues" in the search box.

In the resulting search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking environmental issues&oq=fracking environmental issues&aqs=chrome..69i57.5182j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

This is the third entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States

While Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, it provides citations which will point you towards reliable sources.

Also pays to check links in google search from .edu websites and other scholarly websites, as these will contain mostly factual links. Websites like: http://www.dangersoffracking.com typically use a lot of hyperbole... though this one sticks mostly to the facts. Still, better to go to more scholarly websites than to rely on infographics and pictures of robot police to back up your arguments.

 

[Enemem]

That's what research is for.

Go to http://www.google.com.

Type "fracking environmental issues" in the search box.

In the resulting search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking environmental issues&oq=fracking environmental issues&aqs=chrome..69i57.5182j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

This is the third entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States

While Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, it provides citations which will point you towards reliable sources.

Also pays to check links in google search from .edu websites and other scholarly websites, as these will contain mostly factual links. Websites like: http://www.dangersoffracking.com typically use a lot of hyperbole... though this one sticks mostly to the facts. Still, better to go to more scholarly websites than to rely on infographics and pictures of robot police to back up your arguments.

Whilst I thank you for you for your advice, it's quite pointless. Some of the members here are unwilling to accept the evidence of any websites other than their own favourites, and will attack sites based on reputation rather than content. I'll stick to the moderators(Famine and Scaff) strategy from now on. It'll keep me out of trouble.

 

[niky]

Whilst I thank you for you for your advice, it's quite pointless. Some of the members here are unwilling to accept the evidence of any websites other than their own favourites, and will attack sites based on reputation rather than content. I'll stick to the moderators(Famine and Scaff) strategy from now on. It'll keep me out of trouble.

That's a gross misrepresentation.

Those of us who are regulars on the Opinions forum disagree about many things, but we can debate about them without getting upset, angry or emotional. Because this is a debate, and debates work on logic.

Most members here are unwilling to accept poorly-researched work as evidence.

If you cite nothing but tabloid-level science and politics as evidence, do you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously?

Proper debating is about preparation and research. Proper research is about double-checking and triple-checking your facts.

If you want to stick to Famine and Scaff's strategies... their strategies are very simple: Study, research, think. Study, research, think. Which is basically what you ought to do if you want to learn more about how the world really works.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm curious to know that if the user here believes in most conspiracy which they seem to...then what do they think about Majestic-12. Just curious to see how far this rabbit hole goes <- see what I did there.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Whilst I thank you for you for your advice, it's quite pointless. Some of the members here are unwilling to accept the evidence of any websites other than their own favourites, and will attack sites based on reputation rather than content. I'll stick to the moderators(Famine and Scaff) strategy from now on. It'll keep me out of trouble.

That's a good reply from @niky so I won't try to improve on it, but I'll put the idea to you a different way.

You feel strongly about Agenda 21 and what it might represent. I can say to you that the evidence you've seen isn't sufficient - not that it's wrong. So how do you find out more about it? Find some more information, weigh it up ("study, research, think" could be read as "read, google, smoke") and then present some evidence. Maybe you'll have changed your mind, maybe not.

Whatever happens you'll be better at discussing Agenda 21 with people who broach the subject in future, your brain will have freed up a little (we all need that!) and you'll be more sure of an opinion in your own mind - that's got to be good!

 

[Enemem]

I thought I'd bring it up as a discussion point. I don't know what I think of it. From what I've seen it has it's merits, officially. However, there may be a darker side to it.
[METAPHOR]There may be buildings on the dark side of the moon, and if they are there, then they're rather tricky to see. And if there were, would photographs be sent to the newspapers? [/METAPHOR]

Motives are everything, and you very rarely know what they are. Which of course leads to more questions.

 

[Dotini]

I thought I'd bring it up as a discussion point. I don't know what I think of it. From what I've seen it has it's merits, officially. However, there may be a darker side to it.
[METAPHOR]There may be buildings on the dark side of the moon, and if they are there, then they're rather tricky to see. And if there were, would photographs be sent to the newspapers? [/METAPHOR]

Motives are everything, and you very rarely know what they are. Which of course leads to more questions.

Supposed buildings on the moon is another terrible subject to dip your toes in!
An intelligent fellow might try lunar anomalies, which is backed by numerous data from professional and amateur astronomers, as well as NASA.

Another thing a wise man will stay well away from is the discussion of motives, one of the slipperiest subjects since vaginal lubricants.

 

[Enemem]

It's a METAPHOR ! I'm learning not to discuss things without facts to back it up.

Interesting news item though from Oklahoma though.



http://benswann.com/breaking-oklahoma-legislators-vote-to-nullify-agenda-21/

OKLAHOMA CITY, Mar. 4, 2014 – A bill that would nullify Agenda 21 in Oklahoma passed through the state house today.

“This bill protects your private property from being acquired by eminent domain from without a public vote or public hearing,” said bill sponsor, Rep. Lewis Moore.

HB2807, known as the “Oklahoma Community Protection Act,” would prohibit any state agency or political subdivision from adopting or implementing “policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe upon or restrict private property rights without due process.”

It also would void any previous commitments which may have been made under Agenda 21 or a similar program.

It reads, “any debt or commitment to an international or federal entity whereby the citizens did not have the ability to exercise their constitutional rights shall be considered null and void.”

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

 

[Dotini]

Ron Paul, beloved of libertarians, responds to a question on UN Agenda 21. His son, Rand, has views to search out.