Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Agenda 21: UN's Globalization Plan
  • Subject: Agenda 21: UN's Globalization Plan
Subject: Agenda 21: UN's Globalization Plan

xCharging Saint
The Saint Effect


Posted by: Assassin 11D7

Posted by: Zuuru
While you may be right, I know there are at least a decent amount of mature members here who can accurately grasp this concept and what it means. So again I say, why not?

Srs question: If this is all real, why hasn't the U.N. said anything? Also, the U.N. never takes action, so why does it matter?

First, they have, but it's not widely publicized. Look it up on their official website. It's there.

Secondly, you have a point, and I hope you're right. League of Nations: Second Edition!

  • 01.06.2013 3:09 PM PDT

When the mods are away, the political trolls will come out to play.

  • 01.06.2013 3:09 PM PDT

xCharging Saint
The Saint Effect


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Zuuru

Posted by: Seggi31
Posted by: Zuuru
This man, knows what's up.


When you can find an actual source to demonstrate how much agenda 21 (Which is, I remind you, a nonbinding agreement that has to be manually implemented by individual governments at the local, regional and national levels.) is going to destroy everybody's freedumbs that isn't a fringe political website or a conservative pundit, maybe you can say I'm downplaying it. Until then, get your -blam!- together.

I'm not sure if you're trying to troll. But son, regardless, you're not grasping the bigger picture here. You want to debate semantics, which at this level, shouldn't really matter.

The fact is, is that Agenda 21 is still entirely a very real possibility, and it shouldn't be overlooked, OR downplayed.

Good day, sir.


>Calls legitimate desire for evidence "trolling"
>Calls legitimate debate opponent "son"
>Uses the word "sir" in any context

Yep, you've lost this argument according to Interwebz Debate Law.

>Desires evidence
>Refuses to use Google

Ok.

  • 01.06.2013 3:10 PM PDT

Es ist Zeit für einige Gefahr-pay

Bahaha, that entire "plan" is a joke.

Oh, UN, how useless you are....

  • 01.06.2013 3:11 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: Zuuru

>Desires evidence
>Refuses to use Google

Ok.


You are probably the worst debater ever.

Ooh ooh, let me try one:

Agenda 21 conspiracy is a lie. Don't believe me? Google it.

[Edited on 01.06.2013 3:14 PM PST]

  • 01.06.2013 3:11 PM PDT


Posted by: Satisfaxion
Holy hell.

Since when has the Flood turned into a bastion for far right, Fox-fed conspiracists? Has it always been like this; it's been quite some time since I've frequented here, I'm legitimately unable to remember. I blame southern parents and lead-based paint.


Maybe if you spent some time here you'd know that it's pretty much the opposite, like with most of the internet. Also, being concerned or at least trying to be aware of something this radical doesn't mean you are a close minded conservative.

  • 01.06.2013 3:13 PM PDT

Respect skill, Not rank.

http://fcwars.net/


Posted by: Zuuru
But that's where the good stops.

- Repurpose 50% of the land in the United States alone, to be National Environment Reserves, like National Parks, if you will. Now, to do that, the government would literally have to move millions upon millions of people from their homes to other population centers, to make way for this. In fact, it is outlined within the plan for there to be at least 30 or so citizens to an acre. Sounds impossible, right? They want to create "walking cities", intensely dense urban centers, where people will, simply put, walk to where they need to go.
- Eradicate the usage of automobiles within these "walking cities". To combat automobile pollution.
- Reduce population. To prevent crowding and other problems that stem from having such a sizable population to begin with.
- Ban weapons (such as guns). When you take away weapons, you take away people's power.
- Rely on bureaucracies for decision-making, not democracies.
- To focus on the collective, and NOT the individual. What this means, is that your rights and personal freedoms will be severely restricted to comply with the good of the collective (the entirety of the global population overall).
- For wealthy countries to provide for poor countries so they may be able to accomplish the necessary goals of Agenda 21. This means that the US and other wealthy countries will have to support third world countries financially and with key resources to help establish what they deem needs to be done.

What they say they want to do, is to solve the problems of the present, without compromising the future generations.


i fail to see how any of these things are bad. in fact, if done right it would solve nearly ever world-wide problem.

  • 01.06.2013 3:19 PM PDT


Posted by: Oa Beast292

Posted by: Satisfaxion
Holy hell.

Since when has the Flood turned into a bastion for far right, Fox-fed conspiracists? Has it always been like this; it's been quite some time since I've frequented here, I'm legitimately unable to remember. I blame southern parents and lead-based paint.


Maybe if you spent some time here you'd know that it's pretty much the opposite, like with most of the internet. Also, being concerned or at least trying to be aware of something this radical doesn't mean you are a close minded conservative.

No, it just makes you a far right conspirator, which I suppose is somewhat like a close minded conservative; an extreme variant, if you will. Throw in a chalkboard and he could get a show on Fox. Saying that he didn't want to add sources under the guise of "educating the masses" certainly didn't help his case.

And is it just me, or does most of the things he outlined in his original post sound appealing?

  • 01.06.2013 3:23 PM PDT

xCharging Saint
The Saint Effect


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Zuuru

>Desires evidence
>Refuses to use Google

Ok.


You are probably the worst debater ever.

Ooh ooh, let me try one:

Agenda 21 conspiracy is a lie. Don't believe me? Google it.

Try harder.

Also, please refer to my edit in the OP to understand my personal position on these matters, since you seem to be so bent on thinking of me as far right, which is not the case, nor has it ever been.

  • 01.06.2013 3:24 PM PDT

If you can read this, that means I'm not a Shaolin monk...

yet.

only a gun hogging redneck would view those things a negative

  • 01.06.2013 3:24 PM PDT

xCharging Saint
The Saint Effect


Posted by: silversleek 117

Posted by: Zuuru
But that's where the good stops.

- Repurpose 50% of the land in the United States alone, to be National Environment Reserves, like National Parks, if you will. Now, to do that, the government would literally have to move millions upon millions of people from their homes to other population centers, to make way for this. In fact, it is outlined within the plan for there to be at least 30 or so citizens to an acre. Sounds impossible, right? They want to create "walking cities", intensely dense urban centers, where people will, simply put, walk to where they need to go.
- Eradicate the usage of automobiles within these "walking cities". To combat automobile pollution.
- Reduce population. To prevent crowding and other problems that stem from having such a sizable population to begin with.
- Ban weapons (such as guns). When you take away weapons, you take away people's power.
- Rely on bureaucracies for decision-making, not democracies.
- To focus on the collective, and NOT the individual. What this means, is that your rights and personal freedoms will be severely restricted to comply with the good of the collective (the entirety of the global population overall).
- For wealthy countries to provide for poor countries so they may be able to accomplish the necessary goals of Agenda 21. This means that the US and other wealthy countries will have to support third world countries financially and with key resources to help establish what they deem needs to be done.

What they say they want to do, is to solve the problems of the present, without compromising the future generations.


i fail to see how any of these things are bad. in fact, if done right it would solve nearly ever world-wide problem.

Very true, but could it be done right? Probably not.

  • 01.06.2013 3:25 PM PDT

If you can read this, that means I'm not a Shaolin monk...

yet.


Posted by: Satisfaxion

Posted by: Oa Beast292

Posted by: Satisfaxion
Holy hell.

Since when has the Flood turned into a bastion for far right, Fox-fed conspiracists? Has it always been like this; it's been quite some time since I've frequented here, I'm legitimately unable to remember. I blame southern parents and lead-based paint.


Maybe if you spent some time here you'd know that it's pretty much the opposite, like with most of the internet. Also, being concerned or at least trying to be aware of something this radical doesn't mean you are a close minded conservative.

No, it just makes you a far right conspirator, which I suppose is somewhat like a close minded conservative; an extreme variant, if you will. Throw in a chalkboard and he could get a show on Fox. Saying that he didn't want to add sources under the guise of "educating the masses" certainly didn't help his case.

And is it just me, or does most of the things he outlined in his original post sound appealing?

agree completes

  • 01.06.2013 3:26 PM PDT

Es ist Zeit für einige Gefahr-pay


Posted by: Zuuru

Posted by: silversleek 117

Posted by: Zuuru
But that's where the good stops.

- Repurpose 50% of the land in the United States alone, to be National Environment Reserves, like National Parks, if you will. Now, to do that, the government would literally have to move millions upon millions of people from their homes to other population centers, to make way for this. In fact, it is outlined within the plan for there to be at least 30 or so citizens to an acre. Sounds impossible, right? They want to create "walking cities", intensely dense urban centers, where people will, simply put, walk to where they need to go.
- Eradicate the usage of automobiles within these "walking cities". To combat automobile pollution.
- Reduce population. To prevent crowding and other problems that stem from having such a sizable population to begin with.
- Ban weapons (such as guns). When you take away weapons, you take away people's power.
- Rely on bureaucracies for decision-making, not democracies.
- To focus on the collective, and NOT the individual. What this means, is that your rights and personal freedoms will be severely restricted to comply with the good of the collective (the entirety of the global population overall).
- For wealthy countries to provide for poor countries so they may be able to accomplish the necessary goals of Agenda 21. This means that the US and other wealthy countries will have to support third world countries financially and with key resources to help establish what they deem needs to be done.

What they say they want to do, is to solve the problems of the present, without compromising the future generations.


i fail to see how any of these things are bad. in fact, if done right it would solve nearly ever world-wide problem.

Very true, but could it be done right? Probably not.


Probably not?

No, it's a certainty it won't. It CAN NOT happen.

If this was so much as even hinted to be enacted, every first world nation would be burning in the night from riots.

  • 01.06.2013 3:27 PM PDT


Posted by: Satisfaxion
No, it just makes you a far right conspirator, which I suppose is somewhat like a close minded conservative; an extreme variant, if you will. Throw in a chalkboard and he could get a show on Fox. Saying that he didn't want to add sources under the guise of "educating the masses" certainly didn't help his case.

And is it just me, or does most of the things he outlined in his original post sound appealing?


So being educated and trying to learn about worldwide legislation that could be against your personal opinion makes you a far right conspirator? Agenda 21 isn't a conspiracy. One has every right to be concerned about it. The effects are purely speculation at this point. What you think may happen may be different from what the OP thinks will happen and just because he has a different opinion it makes him a conspirator?

  • 01.06.2013 3:29 PM PDT

I am the God Emprah of Mankind.

Deal with it.


Posted by: Zuuru

Posted by: Assassin 11D7

Posted by: Zuuru
While you may be right, I know there are at least a decent amount of mature members here who can accurately grasp this concept and what it means. So again I say, why not?

Srs question: If this is all real, why hasn't the U.N. said anything? Also, the U.N. never takes action, so why does it matter?

First, they have, but it's not widely publicized. Look it up on their official website. It's there.

Secondly, you have a point, and I hope you're right. League of Nations: Second Edition!

Well, the U.S. has done the majority of the U.N.'s work. They're not really in a position to tell the U.S. to do anything.

  • 01.06.2013 3:31 PM PDT


Posted by: Oa Beast292
So being educated and trying to learn about worldwide legislation that could be against your personal opinion makes you a far right conspirator?

No, reading scantly about piece of legislation, educating yourself with clearly biased diatribe, all the while failing to understand the basis tenets of how this type of legislation works and attacking those that do makes you a conspirator. I certainly hope you don't consider the message that the OP is attempting to convey to bear any semblance to being educated, it's quite the opposite.

Posted by: Oa Beast292
Agenda 21 isn't a conspiracy. One has every right to be concerned about it. The effects are purely speculation at this point.

No, he doesn't. Jesus, we haven't even ratified obligations like the Kyoto Protocol yet; why in the world would we do so to something that's far more encompassing? It falls in the realm of common sense.

Posted by: Oa Beast292
What you think may happen may be different from what the OP thinks will happen and just because he has a different opinion it makes him a conspirator?

Is this where we spout that false equivalency crap? He has an opinion and I have an opinion so they must both by definition be equal? His belief isn't at all based in reality.

  • 01.06.2013 3:38 PM PDT

Es ist Zeit für einige Gefahr-pay


Posted by: Assassin 11D7

Posted by: Zuuru

Posted by: Assassin 11D7

Posted by: Zuuru
While you may be right, I know there are at least a decent amount of mature members here who can accurately grasp this concept and what it means. So again I say, why not?

Srs question: If this is all real, why hasn't the U.N. said anything? Also, the U.N. never takes action, so why does it matter?

First, they have, but it's not widely publicized. Look it up on their official website. It's there.

Secondly, you have a point, and I hope you're right. League of Nations: Second Edition!

Well, the U.S. has done the majority of the U.N.'s work. They're not really in a position to tell the U.S. to do anything.


Just look at what happened to the emissions standards the UN wanted to have- the US just said "Not happening" and walked away.

  • 01.06.2013 3:41 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: Zuuru

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Zuuru

>Desires evidence
>Refuses to use Google

Ok.


You are probably the worst debater ever.

Ooh ooh, let me try one:

Agenda 21 conspiracy is a lie. Don't believe me? Google it.

Try harder.

Also, please refer to my edit in the OP to understand my personal position on these matters, since you seem to be so bent on thinking of me as far right, which is not the case, nor has it ever been.


I've never commented on your political beliefs. I have, however, pointed out that you are naive, foolish, gullible, ignorant, a poor debater, lazy, willfully deceitful, a liar, and in general just a silly person.

  • 01.06.2013 3:48 PM PDT

Stop banning me please.

Back out of the UN before it is too late!

  • 01.06.2013 3:49 PM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Posted by: Zuuru
I'm not sure if you're trying to troll. But son, regardless, you're not grasping the bigger picture here. You want to debate semantics, which at this level, shouldn't really matter.

The fact is, is that Agenda 21 is still entirely a very real possibility, and it shouldn't be overlooked, OR downplayed.

Good day, sir.


I'm not debating semantics, I'm telling you to find a valid source explaining what's so wrong with it.

Here's a freebie: try finding the exact passages in the actual text.

Posted by: RampantAssass1n
Are you saying you are against freedom? That is just how it looks from here.


lol, no, 'freedumb' is just the word I use to satirise tea party types.

Posted by: Zuuru
>Desires evidence
>Refuses to use Google

Ok.


I've used Google. All I've found, other than the actual text itself which I'm not going to trawl through for you, are a couple of fringe political websites (often with the word 'freedom' in the domain name) that are just reiterating the same claims without pointing to where they're made, or an unbiased analysis of the piece.

[Edited on 01.06.2013 3:57 PM PST]

  • 01.06.2013 3:50 PM PDT

Brainwashing, idiotic media: "hur dur, vido gaems cas vilenc n iz nt gud. dey ned 2 b baned."

Logic: Really? Then please explain how there's violence in third world countries. I guess they're all poor due to the large amount of video games they buy.

I have always loved the idea of walking cities, but give up my guns? No.

  • 01.06.2013 3:51 PM PDT

"If you want to test a man's character, give him power" -- Abraham Lincoln

This will be the end of the US if it takes place.

  • 01.06.2013 3:52 PM PDT

Regardless of whether this is true or not, the UN is literally the most useless thing on this planet, well, besides Snookie.

They literally have firepower of modern weapons, yet they watched as one tribe slaughtered another innocent tribe and raped their women, and did nothing. They're horribly useless.

  • 01.06.2013 3:52 PM PDT


Posted by: Satisfaxion
No, reading scantly about piece of legislation, educating yourself with clearly biased diatribe, all the while failing to understand the basis tenets of how this type of legislation works and attacking those that do makes you a conspirator. I certainly hope you don't consider the message that the OP is attempting to convey to bear any semblance to being educated, it's quite the opposite.


I have read more than simply what the OP has posted. I don't consider this to be "educating" us, I consider it to be informing us so that we can do our own research and draw our own conclusions, exactly like the OP stated in his post. He wants to inform us, give a brief outline (yes it may be relatively biased), and then have us research more to make our own decisions regarding this plan so that we can decide whether his possible bias is right or wrong. This is exactly what he posted in the OP.

No, he doesn't. Jesus, we haven't even ratified obligations like the Kyoto Protocol yet; why in the world would we do so to something that's far more encompassing? It falls in the realm of common sense.

Simply because it hasn't been ratified doesn't mean that you can't know and learn about it. Obviously it would be very hard to pass something like this, but who says you can't imagine the possible causes of this legislation based on your personal opinion? What you are saying is that no one should have any opinions on this or imagine the future under this bill because it hasn't even been ratified. That's silly. There is no problem with speculation, regardless of how far away the implementation could be.

Is this where we spout that false equivalency crap? He has an opinion and I have an opinion so they must both by definition be equal? His belief isn't at all based in reality.

Your opinion (if I'm not mistaken) is: If you speculate or worry about this legislation, you are a conspirator. His opinion is: I am informing the Flood about possible legislation so that they can research and form their own conclusions.

Yes, the OP makes Agenda 21 seems like the Big Bad Wolf in his post, but most of his very general facts are straight, it's the comments after them that add bias. Each of your opinions are no better than the other. So sure, I am spouting "false equivalency crap."

  • 01.06.2013 3:53 PM PDT

Es ist Zeit für einige Gefahr-pay


Posted by: ArchNinja64
This will be the end of the US if it takes place.


You really think the US or any other Western Country will let this happen?

  • 01.06.2013 3:54 PM PDT