Jack Hunter talking about "Global Elites" on Freedom Watch on Fox Business - 2011

[parocks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eIs17YISP4

I agree with THIS Jack Hunter

[Indy Vidual]

Welcome to the Brave New World.

[nobody's_hero]

Fuck Fox news for getting rid of freedom watch.

[July]

He's talking about the UN, and yes the idea of globalism is very provable and out in the open. Our leaders openly talk about it. There are UN treaties being signed by our President that we can point to. Even Rush Limbaugh discuses it. It's not conspiracy theory.

That's not the same as Bilderberg. Although we know Bilderberg exists, it's not known exactly what goes on there and a large part of that is still speculation--which makes theory about what they are doing difficult to prove, and difficult to discuss with others unfamiliar with it. Why focus on Bilderberg, when the UN is openly attempting to pass international treaties, regulating guns, the internet, etc. Bilderberg is a diversion at this point.

It's pretty obvious to me that Jack's article was about sticking with provable facts instead of speculation. And about calling out the behavior (intolerance) of a small number of people who attack, call each other names, and become extremely suspicious/paranoid every time someone in the movement does something they don't agree with or don't like....even while those people are clearly trying to help.

[airborne373]

I would give this thread one star, but someone beat me to it. I am done with the fraud known as Jack Hunter.

[Revolution9]

He's talking about the UN, and yes the idea of globalism is very provable and out in the open. Our leaders openly talk about it. There are UN treaties being signed by our President that we can point to. Even Rush Limbaugh discuses it. It's not conspiracy theory.

That's not the same as Bilderburg. Although we know Bilderburg exists, it's not known exactly what goes on there and a large part of that is still speculation--which makes theory about what they are doing difficult to prove, and difficult to discuss with others unfamiliar with it. Why focus on Bilderburg, when the UN is openly attempting to pass international treaties, regulating guns, the internet, etc. Bilderburg is a diversion at this point.

It's pretty obvious to me that Jack's article was about sticking with provable facts instead of speculation. And about calling out the behavior (intolerance) of a small number of people who attack, call each other names, and become extremely suspicious/paranoid every time someone in the movement does something they don't agree with or don't like....even while those people are clearly trying to help.

WE do know what goes on there. Enough waiters, hotel personal and other professions serving them have verified the attendance of various entities and the agendas have been leaked and played out as projected. The busiest power brokers in the world do not have time to take three and four days off to lollygag about., This is pure business.

His attitude cuts in both directions. Before the Bilderbergers there was the FedRes. We were asked to shut up about that back in the day as it would cost us as well. How many more will we have to go through before we uncover the whole set of shenanigans in plain view and obvious what they are up to?

Rev9

[NoOneButPaul]

He's talking about the UN, and yes the idea of globalism is very provable and out in the open. Our leaders openly talk about it. There are UN treaties being signed by our President that we can point to. Even Rush Limbaugh discuses it. It's not conspiracy theory.

That's not the same as Bilderburg. Although we know Bilderburg exists, it's not known exactly what goes on there and a large part of that is still speculation--which makes theory about what they are doing difficult to prove, and difficult to discuss with others unfamiliar with it. Why focus on Bilderburg, when the UN is openly attempting to pass international treaties, regulating guns, the internet, etc. Bilderburg is a diversion at this point.

It's pretty obvious to me that Jack's article was about sticking with provable facts instead of speculation. And about calling out the behavior (intolerance) of a small number of people who attack, call each other names, and become extremely suspicious/paranoid every time someone in the movement does something they don't agree with or don't like....even while those people are clearly trying to help.

This.

[jmdrake]

He's talking about the UN, and yes the idea of globalism is very provable and out in the open. Our leaders openly talk about it. There are UN treaties being signed by our President that we can point to. Even Rush Limbaugh discuses it. It's not conspiracy theory.

That's not the same as Bilderburg. Although we know Bilderburg exists, it's not known exactly what goes on there and a large part of that is still speculation--which makes theory about what they are doing difficult to prove, and difficult to discuss with others unfamiliar with it. Why focus on Bilderburg, when the UN is openly attempting to pass international treaties, regulating guns, the internet, etc. Bilderburg is a diversion at this point.

It's pretty obvious to me that Jack's article was about sticking with provable facts instead of speculation. And about calling out the behavior (intolerance) of a small number of people who attack, call each other names, and become extremely suspicious/paranoid every time someone in the movement does something they don't agree with or don't like....even while those people are clearly trying to help.

We don't know what goes on at the Federal Reserve. Maybe we should assume that it might be okay and only worry about things we can "prove". :rolleyes: And it's funny how people want to rewrite Jack's article to put him in a better light. He wasn't talking about people calling folks names that disagree with them. He was talking about people raising concerns about "heros" of the liberty movement like Mark Sanford and Peter Thiel who just "happened" to be members of the Bilderberg group. And what did Mark Sanford do for hero status? Turn down stimulus money from a democratic president? Did he turn down republican George W. Bush stimulus money? Why is being partisan, as opposed to being consistent, enough for "hero" status? I'm glad a republican governor is willing to stand up to a democratic president. But show me a republican governor standing up to a republican president before you ignorantly throw around the phrase "hero of the liberty movement" as Jack Hunter did.

[jmdrake]

I would give this thread one star, but someone beat me to it. I am done with the fraud known as Jack Hunter.

Ummm...you realize the point of the thread is to criticize Jack Hunter for talking about global conspiracies on Fox while criticizing those who openly talk about global conspiracies?

[ninepointfive]

This is pure gold.

Hit the road, Jack!

[July]

WE do know what goes on there. Enough waiters, hotel personal and other professions serving them have verified the attendance of various entities and the agendas have been leaked and played out as projected. The busiest power brokers in the world do not have time to take three and four days off to lollygag about., This is pure business.

His attitude cuts in both directions. Before the Bilderbergers there was the FedRes. We were asked to shut up about that back in the day as it would cost us as well. How many more will we have to go through before we uncover the whole set of shenanigans in plain view and obvious what they are up to?

Rev9

I get it. Bilderberg is suspicious.

But waiters and hotel staff and leaked documents don't compare, when you can go print off hard copies of official US gov and UN documents that are open for all to see. It doesn't have to be leaked or speculated on. It's low hanging fruit. People can't put together what is right in front of them, not because so much is hidden...but because political philosophy isn't taught or discussed. People don't know where this idea of global government comes from, or who might desire it, or why. But once you do, you can see it without needing to go into conspiracy theory.

The Fed was always there, in plain sight. People weren't looking at it, and weren't questioning where their money comes from. Ron Paul made huge progress on calling attention to the Fed, because he talked about monetary policy and inflation, not because he spent so much time on Bilderberg, etc.

[PaulConventionWV]

I would give this thread one star, but someone beat me to it. I am done with the fraud known as Jack Hunter.

LOL what? Because he admits the existence of the globalist agenda?

[July]

We don't know what goes on at the Federal Reserve. Maybe we should assume that it might be okay and only worry about things we can "prove". :rolleyes: And it's funny how people want to rewrite Jack's article to put him in a better light. He wasn't talking about people calling folks names that disagree with them. He was talking about people raising concerns about "heros" of the liberty movement like Mark Sanford and Peter Thiel who just "happened" to be members of the Bilderberg group. And what did Mark Sanford do for hero status? Turn down stimulus money from a democratic president? Did he turn down republican George W. Bush stimulus money? Why is being partisan, as opposed to being consistent, enough for "hero" status? I'm glad a republican governor is willing to stand up to a democratic president. But show me a republican governor standing up to a republican president before you ignorantly throw around the phrase "hero of the liberty movement" as Jack Hunter did.

Nobody said anything about blindly assuming its all ok. But, by the same token some seem to have no problem assuming others are up to no good. At what point does paranoia start to become destructive? As a thought experiment, go back and re-read Jack's article, but instead of Peter Thiel and Mark Sanford, insert the names Rand Paul and Jack Hunter. Our ammunition is aimed at each other.

[jmdrake]

Fine and dandy. It's easier to read to people the open U.N. reports than the hidden Bilderberg ones. Here's the question though. Once you've learned enough about Bilderberg to be suspicious of Bilderberg do you have cause to be at least somewhat suspicious of people associated with Bilderberg like Mark Sanford, or do you say "He opposed Obama's stimulus package so he must be good for the liberty movement"?


I get it. Bilderberg is suspicious.

But waiters and hotel staff and leaked documents don't compare, when you can go print off hard copies of official US gov and UN documents that are open for all to see. It doesn't have to be leaked or speculated on. It's low hanging fruit. People can't put together what is right in front of them, not because so much is hidden...but because political philosophy isn't taught or discussed. People don't know where this idea of global government comes from, or who might desire it, or why. But once you do, you can see it without needing to go into conspiracy theory.

The Fed was always there, in plain sight. People weren't looking at it, and weren't questioning where their money comes from. Ron Paul made huge progress on calling attention to the Fed, because he talked about monetary policy and inflation, not because he spent so much time on Bilderberg, etc.

[jmdrake]

Nobody said anything about blindly assuming its all ok. But, by the same token some seem to have no problem assuming others are up to no good. At what point does paranoia start to become destructive? As a thought experiment, go back and re-read Jack's article, but instead of Peter Thiel and Mark Sanford, insert the names Rand Paul and Jack Hunter. Our ammunition is aimed at each other.

Here's the deal. I have a lot more data points for Rand Paul than I do for Mark Stanford. Jack Hunter of off one data point declared Mark Sanford "hero of the liberty movement". Even without the Bilderberg association that's pretty asinine don't you think? Here's a thought experiment that you should do. Pick anyone that you know is against the liberty movement such as Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich and see if you can find single data points similar to what Hunter praised Stanford for. I think Gingrich shutting congress down to fight against Bill Clinton is at least as "heroic" as Stanford refusing the Obama stimulus money. Is Gingrich then "one of our own"? And to be fair to Jack, I do think it's find to point out good things people say or do that you might otherwise disagree with. Sometimes I begrudgingly find myself agreeing with David Duke for instance. There are certainly things I have agreed with Beck, Gingrich, Savage etc. I'm not ready to give any of them the "hero" label. And Thiel? All he did was give money. I appreciate that, don't get me wrong. But that alone says nothing about character. Maybe he's a good guy, maybe he isn't. Time will tell. Nothing wrong with keeping eyes open to who's really on your side and who may be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[The Goat]

Here's the deal. I have a lot more data points for Rand Paul than I do for Mark Stanford. Jack Hunter of off one data point declared Mark Sanford "hero of the liberty movement". Even without the Bilderberg association that's pretty asinine don't you think? Here's a thought experiment that you should do. Pick anyone that you know is against the liberty movement such as Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich and see if you can find single data points similar to what Hunter praised Stanford for. I think Gingrich shutting congress down to fight against Bill Clinton is at least as "heroic" as Stanford refusing the Obama stimulus money. Is Gingrich then "one of our own"? And to be fair to Jack, I do think it's find to point out good things people say or do that you might otherwise disagree with. Sometimes I begrudgingly find myself agreeing with David Duke for instance. There are certainly things I have agreed with Beck, Gingrich, Savage etc. I'm not ready to give any of them the "hero" label. And Thiel? All he did was give money. I appreciate that, don't get me wrong. But that alone says nothing about character. Maybe he's a good guy, maybe he isn't. Time will tell. Nothing wrong with keeping eyes open to who's really on your side and who may be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I wouldn't go as far as to say Sanford was a "hero" of the liberty movement but here in SC he played a part in it. If you like Tom Davis, you should know that Mark Sanford played a big part in Davis political carrier.

[qh4dotcom]

Ummm...you realize the point of the thread is to criticize Jack Hunter for talking about global conspiracies on Fox while criticizing those who openly talk about global conspiracies?

Exactly.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/bilderberg-conspiracies-have-become-a-handicap-for-the-liberty-movement/Content?oid=4101798

[airborne373]

Ummm...you realize the point of the thread is to criticize Jack Hunter for talking about global conspiracies on Fox while criticizing those who openly talk about global conspiracies?

Wow thanks for that info Sherlock Holmes. :toady: Where would us simple people be without the guidance and direction of the MEGA POSTER? Oh, that's right .... doing real things in the real world.

Look Jack Hunter is like other frauds he sometimes tells the truth while spewing propaganda. If are unaware of Jack's other videos he been ridiculing the freedom/liberty movement for questioning govts. official stories. So if you want to gush all over Jack Hunter, Bill O'Really, Rachel Maddow or anyone else because they sometimes say something you like go right ahead.

[airborne373]

LOL what? Because he admits the existence of the globalist agenda?


No, because it is Jack the fraud Hunter.

[jmdrake]

Wow thanks for that info Sherlock Holmes. :toady: Where would us simple people be without the guidance and direction of the MEGA POSTER? Oh, that's right .... doing real things in the real world.

Look Jack Hunter is like other frauds he sometimes tells the truth while spewing propaganda. If are unaware of Jack's other videos he been ridiculing the freedom/liberty movement for questioning govts. official stories. So if you want to gush all over Jack Hunter, Bill O'Really, Rachel Maddow or anyone else because they sometimes say something you like go right ahead.

Okay. Explain your hostility towards me please? Where was I gushing over Jack Hunter? Where was the OP gushing over Jack Hunter? Why do you say "stop gushing over Jack Hunter" to people who aren't gushing over Jack Hunter? Since you are obviously so much wiser than me (otherwise you wouldn't be using such brilliant sarcasm) you can explain what I missing. And the world must stop so that we can all hear how brilliant and wonderful you are.

[kuckfeynes]

Politicians, all of 'em. Statesmen, not a one of 'em. They've got beltway stars in their eyes like budding actors in Hollywood. And I've read this script before...

[July]

Here's the deal. I have a lot more data points for Rand Paul than I do for Mark Stanford. Jack Hunter of off one data point declared Mark Sanford "hero of the liberty movement". Even without the Bilderberg association that's pretty asinine don't you think? Here's a thought experiment that you should do. Pick anyone that you know is against the liberty movement such as Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich and see if you can find single data points similar to what Hunter praised Stanford for. I think Gingrich shutting congress down to fight against Bill Clinton is at least as "heroic" as Stanford refusing the Obama stimulus money. Is Gingrich then "one of our own"? And to be fair to Jack, I do think it's find to point out good things people say or do that you might otherwise disagree with. Sometimes I begrudgingly find myself agreeing with David Duke for instance. There are certainly things I have agreed with Beck, Gingrich, Savage etc. I'm not ready to give any of them the "hero" label. And Thiel? All he did was give money. I appreciate that, don't get me wrong. But that alone says nothing about character. Maybe he's a good guy, maybe he isn't. Time will tell. Nothing wrong with keeping eyes open to who's really on your side and who may be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I don't know why Jack called them heroes, and what in particular he personally likes about them--but if people want to know his deeper reasoning-- then why not just ask Jack to explain and clarify why he thinks so? Instead some people jump off the rails and assume Jack must sold us out. Maybe they were just well known examples he pulled out to make a point. Or maybe he genuinely appreciates them, or thinks some of their actions have been useful. Guilt by association can be a sticky thing. Maybe they are libertarian globalists, even. If so, would such a person be an ally? I don't know.

Wolves in sheeps clothing are everywhere--I think everyone has the potential of doing bad things, or selling out. I don't believe that people are either totally good, or totally evil. But if you spend all your energy trying to block people you think are controlled opposition, they will keep you consumed forever. More importantly, you will keep yourself consumed forever.

[jmdrake]

I don't know why Jack called them heroes, and what in particular he personally likes about them--but if people want to know his deeper reasoning-- then why not just ask Jack to explain and clarify why he thinks so? Instead some people jump off the rails and assume Jack must sold us out. Maybe they were just well known examples he pulled out to make a point. Or maybe he genuinely appreciates them, or thinks some of their actions have been useful. Guilt by association can be a sticky thing. Maybe they are libertarian globalists, even. If so, would such a person be an ally? I don't know.

Wolves in sheeps clothing are everywhere--I think everyone has the potential of doing bad things, or selling out. I don't believe that people are either totally good, or totally evil. But if you spend all your energy trying to block people you think are controlled opposition, they will keep you consumed forever. More importantly, you will keep yourself consumed forever.

I never said Jack "sold out", just that he doesn't have the moral right to go around attacking people for questioning Peter Thiel and Mark Sanford based on the Bilderberg associations simply on his single data points of "Mark Sanford stood up to (democratic) stimulus" and "Peter Thiel gave a lot to a liberty PAC". If Jack wants to ignore those who raise questions then he should just ignore them. If he wants to attack them then he should do better than that.

[jmdrake]

Please seek professional help with your personality disorder. I do not know you, do not know what you look like, if your male or female, young or old. I don't spend any time thinking about you, but you believe that I do. Your inflated sense of self causes you to believe you have enemies. Because "important" people have enemies. Your narcissism is what is driving your compulsive posting also. I assure you I have no hostility for you at all. In fact I will not even think about you a few moments after posting this.

LOL I see projection must be very strong with you. I simply pointed out what seemed to be obvious confusion from you about the purpose of this thread. Your rating it "one star" because you don't like Jack Hunter is pretty stupid because the thread is actually critical of Jack Hunter. But maybe you just enjoy being stupid so I'll leave you to your stupidity. No "professional help" needed.

[July]

I wouldn't go as far as to say Sanford was a "hero" of the liberty movement but here in SC he played a part in it. If you like Tom Davis, you should know that Mark Sanford played a big part in Davis political carrier.

Tom Davis is great.

[July]

I never said Jack "sold out", just that he doesn't have the moral right to go around attacking people for questioning Peter Thiel and Mark Sanford based on the Bilderberg associations simply on his single data points of "Mark Sanford stood up to (democratic) stimulus" and "Peter Thiel gave a lot to a liberty PAC". If Jack wants to ignore those who raise questions then he should just ignore them. If he wants to attack them then he should do better than that.

Guilt by association arguments are sticky because they come from collective thinking, so the fact that Jack doesn't do that is a good thing, in my opinion. People would probably be suspicious of me too, if they knew what industry I have worked in. I'm not a public blogger though.

[alucard13mmfmj]

I like how people just discard everyone in the Ron Paul campaign as time goes on...

[RecoveringNeoCon]

I like how people just discard everyone in the Ron Paul campaign as time goes on...

This!

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm skeptical.

[ninepointfive]

I like how people just discard everyone in the Ron Paul campaign as time goes on...

Jack is the one who is discarding people, not the other way around.
Jack Hunter disregarded many people who are grassroots activists. Jack wouldn't have had a job without them.
Now we have evidence that jack is not only a hypocrite, but guilty of dividing a movement which propped him up upon their shoulders.



Ohh well, I guess people need to jockey for the, "leadership role" going into the future of the movement. It's up to you who you follow, or whether you decide to become a leader yourself. Even forum regulars who make it their career posting on RPF are trying to jockey for some sort of, "liberty movement authority". It's laughable how pathetic it is.

I sure as hell won't be following Jack Hunter after this crap. He's just going to assimilate the liberty movement into the GOP Borg, just like what happened to the Tea Party. We've seen it happen before. I will still support Rand and Jack in this regard, but they need to be twice as cunning as the devils and four times as tenacious. Godspeed, Rand. But others are going to part ways and try different routes towards securing liberty. Hopefully there is some way for you two to stay true to principle, and we can all unite when we meet at the convergence.

[jmdrake]

Guilt by association arguments are sticky because they come from collective thinking, so the fact that Jack doesn't do that is a good thing, in my opinion. People would probably be suspicious of me too, if they knew what industry I have worked in. I'm not a public blogger though.

Praise based on one act of partisan "good" is just as collective as guilt by association. Tell me this, if the association was StormFront would you be so cavalier about it? I'm not suggesting that Sanford or Thiel should be guilty based on their association. That's merely one bad data point put up against one good data point. Think about that, and you may get my point. ;)

[jolynna]

If it wasn't for the advertising, bought with Peter Theil's money, that took out Gingerich and Santorum, Tampa might be looking different.

Just my opinion.

[jmdrake]

If it wasn't for the advertising, bought with Peter Theil's money, that took out Gingerich and Santorum, Tampa might be looking different.

Just my opinion.

Yeah. We might actually have a brokered convention. Hmmmmm.....

[Brian4Liberty]

He's talking about the UN, and yes the idea of globalism is very provable and out in the open. Our leaders openly talk about it. There are UN treaties being signed by our President that we can point to. Even Rush Limbaugh discuses it. It's not conspiracy theory.

That's not the same as Bilderberg. Although we know Bilderberg exists, it's not known exactly what goes on there and a large part of that is still speculation--which makes theory about what they are doing difficult to prove, and difficult to discuss with others unfamiliar with it. Why focus on Bilderberg, when the UN is openly attempting to pass international treaties, regulating guns, the internet, etc. Bilderberg is a diversion at this point.

It's pretty obvious to me that Jack's article was about sticking with provable facts instead of speculation. And about calling out the behavior (intolerance) of a small number of people who attack, call each other names, and become extremely suspicious/paranoid every time someone in the movement does something they don't agree with or don't like....even while those people are clearly trying to help.

A very wise man was bold enough to speculate: "they probably get together and talk about how they're going to control the banking systems of the world and natural resources".

It's common sense. These are groups of mostly powerful people who discuss all sorts of issues. In undocumented side conversations, they are probably more open then usual when discussing and negotiating exactly how certain proposals will benefit them, their companies, and their associates. These conversations no doubt will help to shape the actual documented proposals that appear in Congress, the UN, the G20, GATT, IMF, etc. No huge mystery or conspiracy theory is required. It's all very mundane (but not for mundanes). ;)

[July]

Praise based on one act of partisan "good" is just as collective as guilt by association. Tell me this, if the association was StormFront would you be so cavalier about it? I'm not suggesting that Sanford or Thiel should be guilty based on their association. That's merely one bad data point put up against one good data point. Think about that, and you may get my point. ;)

Come on, we already had a discussion about Thiel in another thread, and I agreed he was neutral at best. This is about Jack, and whether he deserves this guilt and suspicion now, for expressing an opinion.

[jmdrake]

Come on, we already had a discussion about Thiel in another thread, and I agreed he was neutral at best. This is about Jack, and whether he deserves this guilt and suspicion now, for expressing an opinion.

Okay. I'm officially confused. What is Jack being held guilty of association of and by whom? :confused: This thread isn't about Jacks associations but the consistency of his words. To be fair to Jack the OP video is about the "New World Order" and not "Bilderberg". But in the eyes of the average mainstream American a "conspiracy is a conspiracy". I'm sure there are people who say "Whenever I hear the words New World Order I give up trying to have an adult conversation with the person who said them." and "With all that's going on in congress we proven things to worry about and shouldn't be concerned about some shadowy New World Order." And to be doubly fair to Jack, the OP video was from 2011. Maybe he changed his mind about certain things. ;)

[July]

Okay. I'm officially confused. What is Jack being held guilty of association of and by whom? :confused: This thread isn't about Jacks associations but the consistency of his words. To be fair to Jack the OP video is about the "New World Order" and not "Bilderberg". But in the eyes of the average mainstream American a "conspiracy is a conspiracy". I'm sure there are people who say "Whenever I hear the words New World Order I give up trying to have an adult conversation with the person who said them." and "With all that's going on in congress we proven things to worry about and shouldn't be concerned about some shadowy New World Order." And to be doubly fair to Jack, the OP video was from 2011. Maybe he changed his mind about certain things. ;)

Yep, conspiracy theories can be used a weapon to shut down trust, and shut down open conversation and dissent.
Jack is guilty, I suppose, of pointing that out.

I have no issue with conspiracy theories, but at the same time, I find no one seems to believe in central planning moreso than those who see conspiracy everywhere.

[jmdrake]

Yep, conspiracy theories can be used a weapon to shut down trust, and shut down open conversation and dissent.
Jack is guilty, I suppose, of pointing that out.

And criticism of conspiracy theories can be used to shut down trust, open conversation and dissent. Jack is guilty, I suppose, of engaging in that. :rolleyes: There are people who have been dissenting of Rand's tactics long before there was any conspiracy angle. Oh, but you can't do that now else you are labeled a "conspiracy nut".



I have no issue with conspiracy theories, but at the same time, I find no one seems to believe in central planning moreso than those who see conspiracy everywhere.

Let's see. This entire movement is based on the thesis that there is an international central banking conspiracy founded at Jekyll Island and that has infected all levels of government. Sorry but I don't play the silly "some conspiracies are more equal than others" game. Maybe Herman Cain is right. Maybe there isn't some secret stuff going on at the fed and there's no need for an audit beyond the so called "independent audit" that is supposedly already being done. After all, if I believe the Federal Reserve really is controlling the U.S. economy then I must believe in "central planning" and by extension be a communist.

[ninepointfive]

Let's see. This entire movement is based on the thesis that there is an international central banking conspiracy founded at Jekyll Island and that has infected all levels of government. Sorry but I don't play the silly "some conspiracies are more equal than others" game.


While I enjoy reading your rebuttals, I'm not sure your time is being put to good use. The forum is somewhat devoid of those who are actively working towards a common goal. Moreover, trolls, shills, and remnants of a freedom movement in need of a new direction.

[July]

And criticism of conspiracy theories can be used to shut down trust, open conversation and dissent. Jack is guilty, I suppose, of engaging in that. :rolleyes: There are people who have been dissenting of Rand's tactics long before there was any conspiracy angle. Oh, but you can't do that now else you are labeled a "conspiracy nut".

Well, it's because of us/them type thinking. It's why the left/right paradigym is so successful--once someone takes a side, the other falls into darkness out of view, as a matter of perception.

It's normal and inevitable, I guess. It's deep into human psychology. Americans get snookered into it every election cycle. There are entire philosophies and religions built around this concept. :p

I guess it's not all bad, in a way.


Let's see. This entire movement is based on the thesis that there is an international central banking conspiracy founded at Jekyll Island and that has infected all levels of government. Sorry but I don't play the silly "some conspiracies are more equal than others" game. Maybe Herman Cain is right. Maybe there isn't some secret stuff going on at the fed and there's no need for an audit beyond the so called "independent audit" that is supposedly already being done. After all, if I believe the Federal Reserve really is controlling the U.S. economy then I must believe in "central planning" and by extension be a communist.

That's not what I meant. I just mean, at some point, there is some level of spontaneous order in human interaction with each other. There's a limit to how much the talking heads in the MSM, etc.. can spin things and manipulate you, if you aren't focused on them.

[parocks]

He's talking about the UN, and yes the idea of globalism is very provable and out in the open. Our leaders openly talk about it. There are UN treaties being signed by our President that we can point to. Even Rush Limbaugh discuses it. It's not conspiracy theory.

That's not the same as Bilderberg. Although we know Bilderberg exists, it's not known exactly what goes on there and a large part of that is still speculation--which makes theory about what they are doing difficult to prove, and difficult to discuss with others unfamiliar with it. Why focus on Bilderberg, when the UN is openly attempting to pass international treaties, regulating guns, the internet, etc. Bilderberg is a diversion at this point.

It's pretty obvious to me that Jack's article was about sticking with provable facts instead of speculation. And about calling out the behavior (intolerance) of a small number of people who attack, call each other names, and become extremely suspicious/paranoid every time someone in the movement does something they don't agree with or don't like....even while those people are clearly trying to help.

Jack just changed his position from last year to now.

[parocks]

Okay. I'm officially confused. What is Jack being held guilty of association of and by whom? :confused: This thread isn't about Jacks associations but the consistency of his words. To be fair to Jack the OP video is about the "New World Order" and not "Bilderberg". But in the eyes of the average mainstream American a "conspiracy is a conspiracy". I'm sure there are people who say "Whenever I hear the words New World Order I give up trying to have an adult conversation with the person who said them." and "With all that's going on in congress we proven things to worry about and shouldn't be concerned about some shadowy New World Order." And to be doubly fair to Jack, the OP video was from 2011. Maybe he changed his mind about certain things. ;)

Right. He might've changed his mind. Or he was threatened. Or someone was threatened and Jack knows about it. Perhaps the global elites (Bilderberg) said "stop talking about the global elites". And someone who considers self-preservation decided to tell other people to stop talking about global elites.

I've been talking about Bilderberg for 10 years. I feel it's useful to talk about Bilderberg. If everyone knew that Bilderberg is where the global elites gather And to collectively plot the future, we'd be in better shape. And it's clear that's what Bilderberg is, exactly, a meeting of the global elites. When someone says "you're a crazy conspiracy theorist, things just happen by accident" you can reply "everyone knows about Bilderberg. Everyone knows that's where the global elites meet to plan the future."

I won't vote for a Bilderberg for President. And if enough people said that, politicians would stop going to Bilderberg.

[jolynna]

Whether you believe that Bilderberg is a conspiracy group or not, it is indisputable that the advertising bought with Theil's money changed the course of the 2012 GOP campaign for president.

As MANY, MANY, MANY of us who were delegates can attest, the GOP mainstream from our LOCAL DISTRICTS plotted, conspired, intimidated and even cheated to keep ELECTED delegates from doing what we were ELECTED to do. In my district, it wasn't just Ron Paul supporter delegates who were shut off either. It was EVERYBODY that didn't want Romney. I don't care who we now are "supposed" to blame. .

If the LOCAL GOP chairs and committee members who live in the same communities we do and that have to face and interact with us later can blatantly use such tactics, for an "atta boy" from a bigger-wig Republican, WHY is it so far fetched to think that people on higher levels--with MORE power, money and the greatest gain in the world possible at stake--wouldn't do the same???

Look, I don't go to tea party meetings and tell the people I meet there for the first time that I am for gay marriage because I want my gay nephew to have the prospect of "happily ever after". I get why not bringing up "controversial" subjects isn't as effective toward getting people to work with you toward a common goal as is finding "common ground".

But, it is still undeniable fact, that corruption is occurring and HAS occurred in THIS election process. I won't say the Bilderberg is behind anything...I didn't even know there was such a thing before I started looking at Ron Paul videos on you.tube. But, as I have said in many previous posts, the ads Ron Paul ran (some with Peter Theil money) may have changed the course of the GOP nomination. And NOT in a good way for Ron Paul.

Just by BEING a RON PAUL supporter, I stuck my neck out and made enemies with former AARP-age-group friends. So did other Ron Paul supporters with position in my community. Jack Hunter needs to stand by supporters who took risk for the man Jack Hunter is hired to represent. Because even if the Bilderberg group was NOT part of any of the corruption that occurred during the primaries and caucuses, CHEATING and INTIMIDATION happened.

The 2012 nomination process was NOT a fair one and even IF the Ron Paul crowd named the "wrong" bad guy (by saying it was Bilderberg), they are still RIGHT about CORRUPTION going on and they shouldn't be criticized, for noticing.

In my opinion.

[parocks]

Whether you believe that Bilderberg is a conspiracy group or not, it is indisputable that the advertising bought with Theil's money changed the course of the 2012 GOP campaign for president.

As MANY, MANY, MANY of us who were delegates can attest, the GOP mainstream from our LOCAL DISTRICTS plotted, conspired, intimidated and even cheated to keep ELECTED delegates from doing what we were ELECTED to do. In my district, it wasn't just Ron Paul supporter delegates who were shut off either. It was EVERYBODY that didn't want Romney. I don't care who we now are "supposed" to blame. .

If the LOCAL GOP chairs and committee members who live in the same communities we do and that have to face and interact with us later can blatantly use such tactics, for an "atta boy" from a bigger-wig Republican, WHY is it so far fetched to think that people on higher levels--with MORE power, money and the greatest gain in the world possible at stake--wouldn't do the same???

Look, I don't go to tea party meetings and tell the people I meet there for the first time that I am for gay marriage because I want my gay nephew to have the prospect of "happily ever after". I get why not bringing up "controversial" subjects isn't as effective toward getting people to work with you toward a common goal as is finding "common ground".

But, it is still undeniable fact, that corruption is occurring and HAS occurred in THIS election process. I won't say the Bilderberg is behind anything...I didn't even know there was such a thing before I started looking at Ron Paul videos on you.tube. But, as I have said in many previous posts, the ads Ron Paul ran (some with Peter Theil money) may have changed the course of the GOP nomination. And NOT in a good way for Ron Paul.

Just by BEING a RON PAUL supporter, I stuck my neck out and made enemies with former AARP-age-group friends. So did other Ron Paul supporters with position in my community. Jack Hunter needs to stand by supporters who took risk for the man Jack Hunter is hired to represent. Because even if the Bilderberg group was NOT part of any of the corruption that occurred during the primaries and caucuses, CHEATING and INTIMIDATION happened.

The 2012 nomination process was NOT a fair one and even IF the Ron Paul crowd named the "wrong" bad guy (by saying it was Bilderberg), they are still RIGHT about CORRUPTION going on and they shouldn't be criticized, for noticing.

In my opinion.

"the ads Ron Paul ran (some with Peter Theil money) may have changed the course of the GOP nomination. And NOT in a good way for Ron Paul."

not arguing, could you elaborate on this? These would be PAC ads if Thiel spent a lot of money on them, Ron Paul did not run them. I don't know the ads you're talking about. I don't think that Thiel was behind the RevPac ads or the Santa Rosa ads (which I thought were solid). Which were the Thiel ads, and how did they hurt?

[PaulConventionWV]

No, because it is Jack the fraud Hunter.

I must have missed something. I have no idea why people are calling Jack Hunter a fraud.

[jolynna]

Theil gave $900,000 in December and $1.7 million in January as well as smaller amounts before that. Whoever claims to be responsible for whichever ad, the anti-Santorum and anti-Gingerich ads that ran did NOTHING to help Ron Paul, who should have WANTED a brokered Tampa convention. I never understood the strategy behind those ads.

When Romey was besieged and under attack for his leveraged buyouts and looking like a heartless vulture, Ron Paul ran ads against Gingerich (ignoring that Romney was guilty of the same things he accused Gingerich of doing only Romney did those things on a MUCH bugger scale). He even came to Romney's defense saying Romney's critics were anti-capitalist.

Then Santorum had a 15 point lead in some polls right before the Michigan primary DESPITE spending HARDLY ANY MONEY compared to Romney. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/polls-santorum-leads-romney-in-michigan.php A loss in Michigan would have put Romney candidacy in jeopardy, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-17/michigan-primary-santorum-romney/53159656/1.

I was elated when Romney's tail was dragging in the mud.

I'd looked up Romney's history when I found out that the corporate interests and bankers had invested so heavily in him. There is no getting around that Romney's advisers scary & dangerous men. I think Romney's relationship with Netanyahu will prevent Romney from being unbiased and level-headed in the middle east. And I especially don't like that Romney is pro-torture, owns spy centers and really got into writing anti-liberty op-eds. I was ecstatic when Santorum and Gingerich surged in the polls, no way would they be allowed to win and it was looking like a brokered convention.

Yet who does Ron Paul attack? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjiYMElU19o

I couldn't believe it.

Worse, 3 days BEFORE the attack ad ran, the New York Times had came out with an article about Ron Paul's and Mitt Romney's "friendship" which sorta gave the impression that Romney is a "nice" guy. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-ron-paul-friendly-amid-the-rivalry.html?pagewanted=all

Between helping Romney and attacking Santorum during the before-Michigan-primary debate and the attack ads he ran against Santorum, Paul saved Romney when Romney was screwed.

And the momentum was such that I really believe despite the blackouts, EVERYTHING could have been different. The "alliance" rumors made ME feel like I'd been punched in the stomach. And I don't think I'm the only one that was made uneasy and found my enthusiasm ebbing because of the rumors either.

Considering the way everything went down, I see why supporters are considering ANY & ALL possibilities including wilder sounding conspiracy theories. Those of us that got involved and became delegates saw conspiracy AT LOCAL LEVELS. Why wouldn't we also wonder and let our imaginations run wild about what might be going on with people at higher levels? Are we supposed to think people get PURER as they move up through the ranks?

No, I am NOT saying Ron Paul was in on anything. But, the people around him...and the never-even-pretended-to-be-pure, anti-liberty & publically flip-flopping at the drop of a hat Romney and Romney's local followers that I SAW intimidating people who didn't fall in line...I put NOTHING past any of them.

Just my opinion.