New World Order - Love's Got The World In Motion

[xelabale]

2012 is definitely going to be a cataclysmic year - the Olympics in London??? Brother

[MeDeFe]

2012 is definitely going to be a cataclysmic year - the Olympics in London??? Brother

This "End of the world" hype is one reason why I'm really looking forward to 2012. It's going to be so much fun! Will the NWO grant us a zombie apocalypse if we ask really nicely?

[TheProwler]

Carebian Knight made an excellent post. He summarized the answer into a perfect format, easy for all to understand.

So you have your answer xelabale. Why not just STFU now?

Seriously, you disbelievers spend more time and energy not worrying about it than I ever spent worrying about it.

[xelabale]

Carebian Knight made an excellent post. He summarized the answer into a perfect format, easy for all to understand.

So you have your answer xelabale. Why not just STFU now?

Seriously, you disbelievers spend more time and energy not worrying about it than I ever spent worrying about it.

But the question I've been asking is how do their supposed actions help them gain power in the event of a cataclysm (which they fortunately survive)? How does putting fluoride in the water, collapsing the banking system and poisoning people with contrails help the NWO to take control post-apocalypse?

[TheProwler]

And capt.crazy and others that follow that stuff are not answering you. Maybe they feel you don't deserve to be educated.

But keeping people weak in the present will generally prevent them from positioning themselves to be strong in the future. Also, when someone can't afford groceries for the week, they generally won't fight as hard to retain their right to keep and bear arms.

Use your imagination. Or just skip the threads.

[Snorri1234]

This argument has descended into an “I’m right and your wrong” stage. Fortunately that’s the part I like best.

@Woodruff: Most of the posts by the so called “conspirators” are aimed toward why the NWO doesn’t want to lose power. So why do you constantly ask why they would want to, when the opposite has already been said? They have said that the NWO is simply planning for the future in case the highly believed 2012 prophecy comes true.

Bollocks, they are said to be causing it.

[Woodruff]

@Woodruff: Most of the posts by the so called “conspirators” are aimed toward why the NWO doesn’t want to lose power. So why do you constantly ask why they would want to, when the opposite has already been said? They have said that the NWO is simply planning for the future in case the highly believed 2012 prophecy comes true. They have no control over natural disasters and just about everything is predicted to happen, not just by “conspiracy theorists” but by trusted scientists as well.

Incorrect...the conspiracy theorists here are largely stating that the NWO IS DOING THESE THINGS that will cause them to lose power (use of nuclear weapons, for instance).

Want to bet how many of them are more educated than you?

Oh, I'd be very willing to take up that mantle (of course, there's no way to prove anything in that regard, so...). I feel very confident that MOST (I certainly wouldn't say all) do not have my education level either in real world experience nor in the educational system.

Your need for fact for everything is going to kill you someday. Fact isn’t always the answer, sounds odd doesn’t it, and isn’t always available. Sometimes faith and belief is all you have to go on.

I accept that sometimes faith and belief is all you have to go on, and I respect that. Heck, that's what religion is in its entirety. What I DON'T respect is people who are telling me that I'M WRONG (definitively) when all THEY have to go on is faith and belief...that I do NOT respect, nor should anyone. If someone is going to tell me that I am wrong, then I'm going to ask for proof. If they fail to provide proof, then they will be treated as they well deserve.

Facts today come mostly through the media(need I say more?)

Facts today don't come through the media unless you're an idiot. I am not an idiot. Should I presume that you are, or have I misunderstood you? I'm pretty sure the media HATES facts, now that I think on it.

[Carebian Knight]

Incorrect...the conspiracy theorists here are largely stating that the NWO IS DOING THESE THINGS that will cause them to lose power (use of nuclear weapons, for instance).

The only people I've seen saying the NWO would use these weapons are the ones that don't believe the theory. I know jay has already said that nukes will be used, but not by the NWO. Please point out the post where one of the theorists said that the NWO would use nukes.

I accept that sometimes faith and belief is all you have to go on, and I respect that. Heck, that's what religion is in its entirety. What I DON'T respect is people who are telling me that I'M WRONG (definitively) when all THEY have to go on is faith and belief...that I do NOT respect, nor should anyone. If someone is going to tell me that I am wrong, then I'm going to ask for proof. If they fail to provide proof, then they will be treated as they well deserve.

How can they provide proof if all they have is faith and belief?

Facts today don't come through the media unless you're an idiot. I am not an idiot. Should I presume that you are, or have I misunderstood you? I'm pretty sure the media HATES facts, now that I think on it.

Let me clarify that. Most people here will agree the media is useless to find anything dependable. Your facts come from someone else, right? How dependable is that person and how dependable is the person they got it from? Keep going down the list to the first source. How many times has that "fact" changed? I'll agree that most competent people could find something good enough to pass for fact, but how much can you trust something that you weren't there to witness or haven't figured out yourself? Everything that you find on the internet has to come with some faith and belief.

[Woodruff]

I accept that sometimes faith and belief is all you have to go on, and I respect that. Heck, that's what religion is in its entirety. What I DON'T respect is people who are telling me that I'M WRONG (definitively) when all THEY have to go on is faith and belief...that I do NOT respect, nor should anyone. If someone is going to tell me that I am wrong, then I'm going to ask for proof. If they fail to provide proof, then they will be treated as they well deserve.

How can they provide proof if all they have is faith and belief?

If all they have is faith and belief, then they can't tell me definitively that I am wrong, because they simply CANNOT KNOW DEFINITIVELY.

Facts today don't come through the media unless you're an idiot. I am not an idiot. Should I presume that you are, or have I misunderstood you? I'm pretty sure the media HATES facts, now that I think on it.

Let me clarify that. Most people here will agree the media is useless to find anything dependable. Your facts come from someone else, right? How dependable is that person and how dependable is the person they got it from? Keep going down the list to the first source. How many times has that "fact" changed? I'll agree that most competent people could find something good enough to pass for fact, but how much can you trust something that you weren't there to witness or haven't figured out yourself? Everything that you find on the internet has to come with some faith and belief.[/quote]

I'll say again...facts don't come from the media, which includes the internet. Facts simply are.

[2dimes]

Facts today come mostly through the media(need I say more?)

If I'm following, what you mean to say is, "Most things the general public believes to be fact are derived by statements that are quite often intentional miss information placed in public media."

[TheProwler]

Incorrect...the conspiracy theorists here are largely stating that the NWO IS DOING THESE THINGS that will cause them to lose power (use of nuclear weapons, for instance).

The only people I've seen saying the NWO would use these weapons are the ones that don't believe the theory. I know jay has already said that nukes will be used, but not by the NWO. Please point out the post where one of the theorists said that the NWO would use nukes.

Ignored = conceded that he was wrong.

[Carebian Knight]

@Prowler:

@2dimes: That's another way of putting it, but I'm talkking on a larger scale.

@Woodruff: True, real facts simply are. These facts can also be easily construed when told to someone else. Take for example 314x345, simple math for anyone that cares to work it out. Leave out one number though when you say the answer or say it wrong and most people would take for granted that you are right. Few today would actually check it. If you missed the first problem and someone just told you the incorrect answer and you were to use it in another problem, your answer would be off. Keep going with just the first incorrect answer and your final answer could be way off. You made no mistake, but your original fact was incorrect. Can you honestly say you check every fact you receive? All I'm saying is that most things you "know" could have come from an incorrect fact somewhere down the road.

As for the faith/fact thing, I get what you're saying.

[Woodruff]

Incorrect...the conspiracy theorists here are largely stating that the NWO IS DOING THESE THINGS that will cause them to lose power (use of nuclear weapons, for instance).

The only people I've seen saying the NWO would use these weapons are the ones that don't believe the theory. I know jay has already said that nukes will be used, but not by the NWO. Please point out the post where one of the theorists said that the NWO would use nukes.

Ignored = conceded that he was wrong.

Not quite...more like Ignored = willing to give the benefit of the doubt because I didn't feel like bothering to look it up

@Woodruff: True, real facts simply are. These facts can also be easily construed when told to someone else. Take for example 314x345, simple math for anyone that cares to work it out. Leave out one number though when you say the answer or say it wrong and most people would take for granted that you are right. Few today would actually check it. If you missed the first problem and someone just told you the incorrect answer and you were to use it in another problem, your answer would be off. Keep going with just the first incorrect answer and your final answer could be way off. You made no mistake, but your original fact was incorrect. Can you honestly say you check every fact you receive?

If it's something I actually CARE GREATLY about, yes...I check every fact.

[TheProwler]

If it's something I actually CARE GREATLY about, yes...I check every fact.

Dude, that's verging on being ridiculous.

You don't have to time or ability or resources.

If a component of a "fact" is the result of an expensive scientific experiment, are you trying to tell us that you redo the experiment in case the original scientists made a mistake?

Our "facts" are built on building blocks of other "facts". At times, we discover that a proven "fact" was actually misunderstood and proofs of several (or many) other "facts" come tumbling down.

[GabonX]

thanks a lot prowler now I don't know what to believe

[Carebian Knight]

thanks a lot prowler now I don't know what to believe

WTH?

That's the same thing I've been saying this whole time. Thank you prowler, you put it much simpler than I did. I was trying to hard

[Woodruff]

If it's something I actually CARE GREATLY about, yes...I check every fact.

Dude, that's verging on being ridiculous.

You don't have to time or ability or resources.

If a component of a "fact" is the result of an expensive scientific experiment, are you trying to tell us that you redo the experiment in case the original scientists made a mistake?

Of course not...you're the one being ridiculous here. My point was that I certainly don't rely on someone or some thing (such as the media) to tell me what the fact is...I research it. By researching it, I see who (scientist-wise) agrees with the finding and who doesn't, at which point IF it is indeed a fact, then it becomes apparent. If it is NOT indeed a clear fact, then there will be lots of disagreement and speculation. It's really quite a simple process.

Our "facts" are built on building blocks of other "facts". At times, we discover that a proven "fact" was actually misunderstood and proofs of several (or many) other "facts" come tumbling down.

Of course...that's what science IS.

[TheProwler]

So a "fact" isn't necessarily a fact.

And that's a fact.

[InkL0sed]

So a "fact" isn't necessarily a fact.

And that's a fact.

Only fact here is you're a long-winded troll that people take seriously way too often.

And you like sentences with line breaks.

At least when they're intended to be clever.

[Woodruff]

So a "fact" isn't necessarily a fact.
And that's a fact.

Duh, that's science. That's why, for instance, it's called the THEORY of gravity, not the FACT of gravity.

But there are some things that we can readily treat as actual facts.

Hell, nobody can even PROVE that the world isn't just a figment of their own imagination and nothing actually exists outside of their mind.

[MeDeFe]

This is fact up, it has descended to the level of puns.

[Carebian Knight]

So a "fact" isn't necessarily a fact.
And that's a fact.

Duh, that's science. That's why, for instance, it's called the THEORY of gravity, not the FACT of gravity.

But there are some things that we can readily treat as actual facts.

Hell, nobody can even PROVE that the world isn't just a figment of their own imagination and nothing actually exists outside of their mind.

So you would agree that you can't say we're wrong since you can't prove anything DEFINITIVELY, including even the most basic "facts" of our world.

[TheProwler]

So a "fact" isn't necessarily a fact.

And that's a fact.

Only fact here is you're a long-winded troll that people take seriously way too often.

And you like sentences with line breaks.

At least when they're intended to be clever.

Ahhh, but you can't


prove it.




Now do you understand?


And stay on-topic. You've done nothing for this thread.

Now do you understand?

[xelabale]

So a "fact" isn't necessarily a fact.

And that's a fact.

Only fact here is you're a long-winded troll that people take seriously way too often.

And you like sentences with line breaks.

At least when they're intended to be clever.

Ahhh, but you can't


prove it.




Now do you understand?


And stay on-topic. You've done nothing for this thread.

Now do you understand?

Yeah, unless you know any other good world cup songs SHUT THE f*ck UP

[TheProwler]

Any parting words xelabale?

Are you satisfied with your education in this thread?

Maybe you should be polite and say "Thank you."