|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 16, 2012 14:47:52 GMT
It appears that what we observe today concerning the UN is vastly different than the original charter.
The UN has expanded, as most government will do, its role in the world.
The 21 agenda is nothing to be scoffed at.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 16, 2012 15:26:47 GMT
Forget the hockey game with its fraudulent stick. Watch your wallet as the thieves grab for it in the name of the fraud. I suggest the believers should just make donations to the cause in line with their rhetoric. Of course I understand that is not how the fascist game is played and really it is all my fault. "Report: UN to consider $1,300 green tax on US" ""We recognize that subsidies for non-renewable energy development should be eliminated and replaced with a global tax on the production of energy from non-renewable energy sources," the UN draft agenda, amended by non-governmental organizations at the invitation of the UN, says. "The income of this tax should be allocated to renewable energy development." The draft agenda was obtained by the Center for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a group skeptical of the UN's position on global warming. President Obama has adopted similar policy positions in his discussions of energy and tax policy over recent months. "I am writing to urge you to take immediate action to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, and to use those dollars to invest in clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," Obama said in an April 26 letter to top-ranking members of the House and Senate." campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/un-consider-1300-green-tax-us/596056 |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 16, 2012 20:35:53 GMT
This from the UN's preamble. Note there is nothing in it concerning a new world order, one monetary currency, the Bilderberger's or Bigfoot. WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations. I honestly think you don't read much. The Bilderberg Group is real. Bigfoot has yet to be proven, or has it?  Twenty or thirty years ago such talk was only found in obscure conspiracy theory newspapers and books. People then were called kooks for claiming the U.N. had ambitions of world domination. It is quite simply, even by their own definition, a World Socialist organization whose stated goal is for a central authority to control commerce including food, energy and money; basically everything people do. Today the U.N. and it's surrogates openly state what their PLANS are. The U.N. is vying for control of the internet too. I don't see that in their preamble. Hmm, strange isn't it? No such thing as global governance? www.globalgovernancewatch.org/Note the NGO section. What do you think the Bilderberg Group is? A rock band? articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this. Experts from both worlds should participate.- United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon But you said there are no plans for such debauchery; it is just ramblings of conspiracy theorists. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 16, 2012 20:46:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 17, 2012 3:29:45 GMT
magellan, believe what you want to. But yes I think that it is just the ramblings of of conspiracy theorists.
|
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 17, 2012 9:43:34 GMT
Glennkoks:
In Spanish we say: "no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver" (something like "there is no worst blind man that the one that doesn´t want to see"). I think it applies to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 17, 2012 14:44:17 GMT
hrizzo, we have a saying in english "he is crazy as a loon". And if you believe in a conspiracy by the Bilderberger's to form one world economic order and the existance of Bigfoot or the Easter Bunny it probably applies to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 17, 2012 14:53:13 GMT
To clarify my position. I do believe there is a Bilderberger group. This from their website. www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.phpI do not believe they are scheming to create a new world government and currency. I do not believe in Bigfoot or Easter Bunny. However, there could be something to the whole JFK thing. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 17, 2012 22:28:36 GMT
To clarify my position. I do believe there is a Bilderberger group. This from their website. www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.phpI do not believe they are scheming to create a new world government and currency. I do not believe in Bigfoot or Easter Bunny. However, there could be something to the whole JFK thing. Please stop using logical fallacy in your arguments. It is getting obnoxious. PETA has a mission statement on their website too. Naive people believe that statement. You have been given exact quotes from the U.N. and a link to a website that reports what the U.N. is doing, yet your eyes are covered. |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 18, 2012 14:00:17 GMT
magellan, your posts are the very definition of obnoxious. Bilderberger, new world order, birther nonsense. But believe what you want, I will stick to common sense and reason. By the way you dodged by question two or three times. Just when are we going to lose our status as the worlds reserve currency resulting in our cataclysmic economic decline? This year? next year? 10 years? Or is your prediction open ended so you can continue to ramble on indefinitely?
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 18, 2012 18:12:00 GMT
magellan: With shale oil etc, the US now has over 38% of the worlds fossil fuel reserves. The question will be....can we get it out of the ground. The same arguments were used about NG. Now there is a glut. Sometime in the past I linked to various sources. Coal to gas is yet another option for as little $20 bbl equivalent. And don't forget Bill Clinton locked up over $1 Trillion in high grade coal in Utah before he left office with a stroke if his pen. |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 18, 2012 22:34:31 GMT
magellan, your claim of coal to gas for as little as 20 bbl equivalent is laughable. Nothing is cheaper or more easily refined than light sweet crude. Depending on casing, fracking costs and rig rates drilling for Oil in this country at this time is not feasible when the price drops below 60.00 a barrel if not higher.
The Fischer Tropsch process to produce a synthetic oil substitute from coal may be cost effective at 150 dollars a barrel if not more. The process using coal is very energy intensive and at this time not really cost effective. However, my neighbor works at Shell and they built a multibillion dollar plant in Qatar that uses the Fischer Tropsch process to create fuels from natural gas. It is not cost effective at prices less than 80.00 dollars a barrel.
So your coal to gas for as little as 20 bbl equivalent is another one of your fairy tales.
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 18, 2012 23:28:40 GMT
magellan, I do not tolerate fools well. To claim that "coal to gas is yet another option for as litlle as 20 bbl equivalent is beyond preposterous. Best case if you stretch it you can get 3 barrels of fuel from one ton of coal. Most estimates are closer to two. Then there is transportation costs, the 6 to 8 billion dollars to build a plant, the excessive amount of water used and the energy costs of processing.
Stick to conspiracy theory, its much harder to prove you wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 18, 2012 23:53:39 GMT
glenn:
We have a syn fuel plant in ND. Old plant now, cost to convert coal to oil equivilant is approx 92.00 per barrel.
The plant is still running because of subsidies and research to try and lower that cost. So far, no luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 19, 2012 3:49:42 GMT
sigurdur, without subsidies the cost is closer to 150.00 dollars a barrel. The process is costly and uses lots of energy and water
|
|
