|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 04:01 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
|
reply to post by tac109
1) It's a signature. Not a avatar.
2) He wasn't talking about factuality. He was talking about how people do things. I assumed that was self evident, though I guess I shouldn't have
assumed.
3) Just because I see the claimed "evidence" for NWO does not hold water what so ever and thusly call it false does not mean I know everything or
mean that I am even implying that. I am pretty sure you are abusing more logical fallacies than just ad hom here skippy.
4) Nor does it mean I am a liberal. 
[edit on 28-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 11:55 AM by agentofchaos
|
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
One more time, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. I'm not trying to start an argument/debate. I just want to understand what
exactly you're saying. You mean there is no group of people going through means to keep things the way they are? I can show you multiple times where
the government was doing something deceptive ,why wouldn't they now? I can through the laws that are in place now show you that they have been slowly
and by little extinguishing our rights and giving power to somewhere else. However, where is your proof that they are not doing these things. I'll
tell you what I'll go get the list of Laws that show our rights have been slightly stripped and power lies somewhat more in the U.N. then people
realize and you go get the proof that says these things aren't happening cool? Also, one more thing what do you consider to be evidence of the
"NWO"? Also, What would you do if you had proof of the "N.W.O."?
[edit on 28-10-2009 by agentofchaos]
[edit on 28-10-2009 by agentofchaos]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 06:16 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
|
reply to post by agentofchaos
The thing is I see a Non sequitur fallacious argument in the progression of going from
government doing not so on the "up and up" stuff and caused by a concerted effort that stretches back as far if not farther than our nation's
founding. To which I have been and do reply, the evidence isn't there or is subjectively circumstantial, which I have thus far been able to prove. I
am NOT defending the government and I am NOT saying they aren't doing shady crap, but what I AM saying is
the NWO conclusions is not supported by evidence from what I can see.
And incidently, this is my first statement on the subject to clarify:
It's nothing more than the paranoid fantasy of those afraid of a changing world. Old boundries and old social norms are dying. This scares
them. So they retreat into paranoid fantasy. Look how they claim to love peace yet cling to old nationalistic ideology that spawns by it's very
nature conflict. Look at how they CONSTANTLY seek to demonize that stuffed shirt figure head of a president who BY THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN represents a
unhideable example of change from old sensiblities in this nation. And of course certain people are encouraging it so that they can gain from it.
These divisions LIKE ALL DIVISIONS are exploited by those with NO MORALITY and no care for anything BUT POWER (political parties for example) and
money (Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh for example). The biggest question is when will we wake up from this manipulated madness to see the problem is NOT
some unified council of evil men. But our own natures being USED against us by preditory parasitical INDIVIDAULS that would slit each's throats IN A
HEART BEAT.
And I'm sure most of "them" aren't even consciously aware they are doing it. So powerful is the human ability for self delusion against
uncomfortable truths.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 06:35 PM by agentofchaos
|
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I agree for the most part with what you said on some levels. I understand better now atleast and I'm just going to say this one thing. I still hold
in my opinion anyways, that some governments are in cahoots with other governments in multiples of ways and on every level, but thats just me...
I also think though that if people were really dissatisfied with the government they would do something about it and its obvious people aren't
dissatisfied enough yet to bring "the man" down lol.
I'd still also like to know what you or anyone else would do if they had proof of the "N.W.O"?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 06:57 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
|
reply to post by agentofchaos
*shrugs* I am of the opinion that some situations, well, alot of situations, when someone declares what they would do in a given situation they
have yet to have been in they are generally lying. So, I will take the honest route and simply say, I am not sure how I would react. Would most likely
be a "fight fight fight" reaction I'd wager, but, having never been in that situation I don't know.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 09:26 PM by tac109
|
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Im still waiting for your rock solid undeniable proof that the NWO is a fake scam. I don't want to hear your "opinions" I want to hear facts.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 09:36 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
|
reply to post by tac109
Fake scam you say? Something tells me you need not use both words.
Anyways, there is the crux huh? Showing something to someone who does not wish to see it and whom can apparently only see what they want to see. Who
yet annoyingly enough repeatedly asks to be shown it. Once again, if the so called evidence that is supposed to prove the stance does not hold up what
is the natural result? We are talking logic here not metaphysics. I salute your stubbornness but stubbornness does not equal to validity I am
sorry.
And incidently, read the post to which you are responding not just the first few words. It makes you look really silly. That post was a response
to a question posed to me as to what I would do should the unlikely event NWO as currently viewed by CTs was to be undeniably confirmed. But I
understand how some people think the world needs to focus on them.
[edit on 28-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 10:11 PM by tac109
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 10:13 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
|
reply to post by tac109
Once again,
Once again, if the so called evidence that is supposed to prove the stance does not hold up what is the natural result?
So, you going to continue with that or ?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 10:16 PM by hoochymama
|
Your word play is simply silly...interesting..but silly...
It seems u aren't even interested in "discussing" but ur very interested in claiming your truth based on the original Founding Fathers.
If your point is that the Founding Fathers claimed NWO as a way to create an "optimism and their hope for a better future. Not some evil manifesto."
than kudos for them. But, they are no longer alive now r they??? Lets say the founding fathers were IN on the whole thing...is it possible??
What is your point besides that since the original intent was just that...the original intent??
Could it be that Britain still controls everything and creating the US was perfect for them to complete the ultimate goal??
Maybe....Maybe not..but...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 10:36 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
|
reply to post by hoochymama
No word play to it. The simple fact is you are basing your theory on the idea that because they used that wording back then that they must be "in
on" some century spanning conspiracy. Which is, I state again, a non sequitur (it does not
follow) for any number of reasons. Please please please, research the history and the meaning of the
Great Seal.
That saying was borrowed from from the fourth Eclogue of Virgil saying exactly what I am saying the who reason that phrase was included.
Latin
Ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis aetas;
Magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo.
iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna,
iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto.
English
Now comes the final era of the Sibyl's song;
The great order of the ages is born afresh.
And now justice returns, honored rules return;
now a new lineage is sent down from high heaven.
The forms saecla, saeclorum etc. were normal alternatives to the more common saecula etc. throughout the history of Latin poetry and prose. The
form saeculorum is impossible in hexameter verse: the ae and o are long, the u short by position. For the medieval exchange between ae, æ and e, see
Æ; medieval is another example.
Medieval Christians read Virgil's poem as a prophecy of the coming of Christ. The Augustan Age, although pre-Christian, was viewed as a golden age
preparing the world for the coming of Christ. The great poets of this age were viewed as a source of revelation and light upon the Christian mysteries
to come.
The word seclorum does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this
context) generation, century, or age. Saeculum did come to mean "age, world" in late, Christian Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through
secularis. However, the adjective "secularis," meaning "worldly," is not equivalent to the nominative plural possessive "seclorum," meaning "of
the ages."[2]
Thus the motto Novus ordo seclorum can be translated as "A new order of the ages." It was proposed by Charles Thomson, the Latin expert who was
involved in the design of the Great Seal of the United States, to signify "the beginning of the new American Era" as of the date of the Declaration
of Independence.
SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
