Awards Moderator HarmonicGenerator Posted March 18, 2010 Awards Moderator Share Posted March 18, 2010 Britain wasn't given a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I don't like that. Neither do I to be honest. Â I see it as our leaders thinking they know better than us, when they are supposedly elected to represent us. A simple vote is all I ask. It comes back to this elitist attitude. Â So they want a new order under a global structure. Is it their right to move us in that direction without input from the people? Whether their intentions are good or not? I don't think it is. Â Quick question, please clear up if you can - Â Wouldn't you be worried that your vote wouldn't count for anything? I mean, if everyone is as corrupt and hell-bent on world domination as you say, surely they'd nullify any dissenting votes and just do what they wanted anyway? In that situation, where the elites ignore your vote and do what they like regardless, what's the point in demanding democratic process? Â Just wondering, is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) Just in case Loki or anyone else says I've dropped out of this discussion and not answered them, I wanted a chilled vibe for my birthday today Edited March 18, 2010 by Dynamite Duane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) Quick question, please clear up if you can - Â Wouldn't you be worried that your vote wouldn't count for anything? I mean, if everyone is as corrupt and hell-bent on world domination as you say, surely they'd nullify any dissenting votes and just do what they wanted anyway? In that situation, where the elites ignore your vote and do what they like regardless, what's the point in demanding democratic process? Â Just wondering, is all. Not sure if that was asked of me as well, but i'm not a believer that "everything" is corrupt. I just figured we were surely entitled to a vote on the subject. Edited March 18, 2010 by hardcore_harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted March 18, 2010 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2010 Just in case Loki or anyone else says I've dropped out of this discussion and not answered them, I wanted a chilled vibe for my birthday today  Cool, I'll expect to see your replies to all the sailent points tomorrow then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keelan Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Quick question, please clear up if you can - Â Wouldn't you be worried that your vote wouldn't count for anything? I mean, if everyone is as corrupt and hell-bent on world domination as you say, surely they'd nullify any dissenting votes and just do what they wanted anyway? In that situation, where the elites ignore your vote and do what they like regardless, what's the point in demanding democratic process? Â Just wondering, is all. Â While there is still a voting system, votes will count. But we're moving in to a post democratic world, where they count less and less. As Europe expands, we may have a general election, but still answer to Bureaucrats in Brussels. A lot of our laws now come from Europe. Â I've seen no evidence of vote fraud, although there was some hoohah about George Bush in the US that I haven't really looked in to. Â I don't think every one is corrupt. It's a top down system, a chain of command. It's not as though the local lady taking in the voting slips is in on it. But she'll happily take votes from people who might have only been exposed to information from the BBC. (not that i'm for taking anybody's vote a way, but you catch my drift). Â Like the other analogy. Bob the bank clerk doesn't know when he takes people's savings that he's holding up a multi-national banking cartel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) I for one am hugely glad that we're moving to more of a united world. The sort of issues which face us are global in nature - environment, poverty, food shortage, universal healthcare, and only by working as a consensual community of nations can we hope to improve the lot of everyone at the same time. The history of the twentieth century shows a relentless improvement in the overall standards of life and the explosive spread of democracy and liberalism, both of which are positive forces for good. The United Nations, which you seem to see as some sort of bogeyman, was created specifically to put an end to the sort of spiralling world conflict which had engulfed the world in the previous few decades. That's a role it's actually achieved extremely well.  It matters to me not one jot that fantasists like Keelan see this advance towards a more tight-knit global community as an evil thing because most normal, free-thinking people can see the immense benefits that globalisation brings. We need to concentrate on ensuring that the process has appropriate checks and balances and that the new global infrastructure is open and transparent rather than barking at the moon about Jews and Bildersburg. But those who can, do, and those who can't sit at home with tinfoil on their heads banging out crackpot blogs. Personally I don't want a one world government I want to keep the sovereignty of our nation.  Reading your post brings to mind this BBC documentary, not a conspiracy theory video but one documenting history, psychology, politics and more.   On Google video: The Century Of The Self - Part 1 of 4 - By Adam Curtis  If this is the correct one I'm thinking of it shows how people have been manipulated by appealing to the individual. This is how Thatcher and Bush were successful in the 80s, a great example of we have the have the wool pulled over eyes. In one hand Thatcher gave people the right to buy their council homes then with the other she took away jobs by closing the coal-mines. Edited March 18, 2010 by Dynamite Duane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 It was only the other week that unelected Fabian-Socialist Bilderberger Gordon Brown called for a New World Order. Â How is he unelected? Gordon Brown was not elected Prime Minister. Blair stepped down and the party decided between them. WE didn't vote him in at PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keelan Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 On Google video: The Century Of The Self - Part 1 of 4 - By Adam Curtis  If this is the correct one I'm thinking of it shows how people have been manipulated by appealing to the individual. This is how Thatcher and Bush were successful in the 80s, a great example of we have the have the wool pulled over eyes. In one hand Thatcher gave people the right to buy their council homes then with the other she took away jobs by closing the coal-mines.  Curtis also did a great documentary on the contrived threat of terrorism: The Power of Nightmares  A real eye opener when I first saw that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Britain wasn't given a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I don't like that. Neither do I to be honest. Â I see it as our leaders thinking they know better than us, when they are supposedly elected to represent us. A simple vote is all I ask. It comes back to this elitist attitude. Â So they want a new order under a global structure. Is it their right to move us in that direction without input from the people? Whether their intentions are good or not? I don't think it is. Â Quick question, please clear up if you can - Â Wouldn't you be worried that your vote wouldn't count for anything? I mean, if everyone is as corrupt and hell-bent on world domination as you say, surely they'd nullify any dissenting votes and just do what they wanted anyway? In that situation, where the elites ignore your vote and do what they like regardless, what's the point in demanding democratic process? Â Just wondering, is all. The idea has been going around of a box to cross for none of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators neil Posted March 18, 2010 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2010 Gordon Brown was not elected Prime Minister. Blair stepped down and the party decided between them. WE didn't vote him in at PM. Â WE don't vote in the PM. That's what THEY want you to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) You hate the lizard man assumptions, yet tinfoil hat wearers always assume that the people who don't buy into that believe everything the media and politicians tell them. Somehow, I think it's a projection of that conspiracy mindset where you want to believe the supposed evidence so badly, you'll totally accept it at face value. If you really think the majority of people believe in their governments or aren't suspicious and aware of their lies and the lies* of the media, then I don't know what internet you've been reading. *regular lies, not David Icke style bollocks. Excellent post, Woyzeck. I'm fascinated by this aspect of conspiracy nuts as well. They ignore and dismiss the sane, valid criticism that people heap at the government constantly. If you're not screaming that the NWO is going to enslave us all, you must be a government-controlled sheep. Edited March 18, 2010 by Pityinthecityofsin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Surf Digby Posted March 18, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted March 18, 2010 Do you believe vaccines are truly safe when the five big giants have all been involved in eugenics programmes? Andre, Silvera, Big Show.......... Â I actually quoted several posts to put some responses to, but after 13 pages, I've actually forgotten what I was planning to put. Your mind control works well, Keelen. Â I'll sum up by saying your line of arguing is akin to Mr Russell's teapot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keelan Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 You hate the lizard man assumptions, yet tinfoil hat wearers always assume that the people who don't buy into that believe everything the media and politicians tell them. Somehow, I think it's a projection of that conspiracy mindset where you want to believe the supposed evidence so badly, you'll totally accept it at face value. If you really think the majority of people believe in their governments or aren't suspicious and aware of their lies and the lies* of the media, then I don't know what internet you've been reading. *regular lies, not David Icke style bollocks. Excellent post, Woyzeck. I'm fascinated by this aspect of conspiracy nuts as well. They ignore and dismiss the sane, valid criticism that people heap at the government constantly. If you're not screaming that the NWO is going to enslave us all, you must be a government-controlled sheep.  I don't see that at all, in fact I think most conspiracy theorists agree with most of the "legitimate" crticism of the government and obviously a lot more on top. In fact I find it more common that a lot of people agree with 90% of what I say, but just don't join the dots. Because I might use the term new world order, everything becomes a whacko conspiracy theory, despite it being more or less what they agree with.  I'm anti-EU I see it taking my rights I'm against the banking system I think the war on terror is blown way out of proportion and events like 9/11 are a bit fishy I think Blair is a cunt and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should end now CCTV is getting out of control etc etc  Most people I've ever spoke to agree with this. But if you say  The idea of a EU has been down on paper and pushed long before now The banking system was hijacked and is now flawed 9/11 has all the hallmarks of being allowed to happen as a false flag the wars are based on lies because...  Then its ohhhhhh shit man must be conspiracy theorist.  You can lead a horse to water... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) Gordon Brown was not elected Prime Minister. Blair stepped down and the party decided between them. WE didn't vote him in at PM. WE don't vote in a Prime Minister, do we? Â WE vote in a political party to Govern the country. The leader of that party is decided by the party members. Â You can lead a horse to water... ...but you can't make it drink fluoride-infested water. Edited March 18, 2010 by hardcore_harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted March 18, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) tl;dr Edited March 18, 2010 by SmokeSoapBar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts