Bilderberg Protests?

[Mr. Zero]

Apparently, nobody likes the Bilderberg Organization. Tea Party and Occupy protesters hanging out together...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/bilderberg-virginia-tea-party-occupy

[Rafterman]

Sorry, that article can't exist because the Bilderberg Conference isn't covered in the mainstream media - according to some around here.

[Left-Field]

Sorry, that article can't exist because the Bilderberg Conference isn't covered in the mainstream media - according to some around here.

Either your comprehension skills are poor, or you purposely misrepresent what people "around here" say.

The claim is that the mainstream media doesn't cover the Bilderberg Conference. That part you have correct. You fail to understand what people mean, however, when they make that statement.

What is meant by it is that the mainstream media doesn't report on what is said at the conference. They don't interview the attendees. They don't even bother trying to do so. They don't even contemplate on anything regarding the Bilderberg talks themselves.

The linked to article in the opening thread of this post is a report on protesters outside the location of where the Bilderberg Conference was held this weekend. It is not a report on the Conference itself.

It'd be the equivalent of opening up the sports page to read about the baseball game your city's team played in last night and reading an article about a drunken brawl by tailgaters in the parking lot instead and then claiming that that article covered the baseball game.

Do you understand why that article couldn't and wouldn't be considered coverage of the game?

Edited June 4, 2012 by Angel Left Wing

[Space Commander Travis]

Either your comprehension skills are poor, or you purposely misrepresent what people "around here" say.

The claim is that the mainstream media doesn't cover the Bilderberg Conference. That part you have correct. You fail to understand what people mean, however, when they make that statement.

What is meant by it is that the mainstream media doesn't report on what is said at the conference. They don't interview the attendees. They don't even bother trying to do so. They don't even contemplate on anything regarding the Bilderberg talks themselves.

Surely this has been discussed plentifully in the other thread, but do you still not acknowledge that no one, no organisation be it in politics or business or anywhere, would publish public viewing exactly what they'd discussed in a private conference and what they decided and who said what. That's what conferences are for, discussingt things in private. In fact, the Bilderbeck lot are, as has been remarked, rather more transparent than most in that they do appear to publish at least the agenda of what they discuss.

[Rafterman]

Either your comprehension skills are poor, or you purposely misrepresent what people "around here" say.

The claim is that the mainstream media doesn't cover the Bilderberg Conference. That part you have correct. You fail to understand what people mean, however, when they make that statement.

What is meant by it is that the mainstream media doesn't report on what is said at the conference. They don't interview the attendees. They don't even bother trying to do so. They don't even contemplate on anything regarding the Bilderberg talks themselves.

The linked to article in the opening thread of this post is a report on protesters outside the location of where the Bilderberg Conference was held this weekend. It is not a report on the Conference itself.

It'd be the equivalent of opening up the sports page to read about the baseball game your city's team played in last night and reading an article about a drunken brawl by tailgaters in the parking lot instead and then claiming that that article covered the baseball game.

Do you understand why that article couldn't and wouldn't be considered coverage of the game?

Naw, I just like posting a single sentence and seeing you respond with half a page.

Maybe the press doesn't bother because Alex Jones does such a good job covering it?

[Left-Field]

Naw, I just like posting a single sentence and seeing you respond with half a page.

Maybe the press doesn't bother because Alex Jones does such a good job covering it?

Sounds like you just admitted defeat.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Angel Left Wing

[lliqerty]

Surely this has been discussed plentifully in the other thread, but do you still not acknowledge that no one, no organisation be it in politics or business or anywhere, would publish public viewing exactly what they'd discussed in a private conference and what they decided and who said what. That's what conferences are for, discussingt things in private. In fact, the Bilderbeck lot are, as has been remarked, rather more transparent than most in that they do appear to publish at least the agenda of what they discuss.

So what is their agenda? No, when their existence has been denied for decades, I don't think they are any more transparant than they have to be. Now, you may think it's their business if they want to be transparant or not. And you are right. But our government officials, people that we elect and trust, who go to those meetings and refuse to disclose what if anything has influenced them, they give the appearance that they have something to hide. If they are hiding something we should not elect them.

[preacherman76]

Ive said it before and I will say it again. Evil men do thier evil in darkness, that the light wont expose what they have done.

[lliqerty]

At least they are getting some exposure now. Before they didn't get any. Still can't get inside but they can't deny their existence any longer.

Okay, guys, the usual ones, send me some hate words.

If they are hiding they have something to hide. Those who speak out to defend government secrecy are part of it.