Quote: PopTart "There is no counter argument apart from there being no evidence of it in the history of time.
If you'd said one particular country or group were trying to take over the world then although it's unlikely to succeed it has been tried before many times so perfectly feasible. I would then be interested to look at your evidence.
But saying all the governments are conspiring together is just so fanciful there isn't even a science fiction version of that story.
So you are welcome to believe it, but that is why some people are putting you in the David Icke category as he had equally unfeasible ideas with no evidence. I'm not saying you are the same or that you have said the same as him before you write a page in false outrage. I'm just explaining why people raise the subject when you try to discuss that topic.'"
There is no counter argument apart from there being no evidence of it in the history of time.
I see, if it's not in history it can't happen. Wonderful logic there Pop Tart.
If you'd said one particular country or group were trying to take over the world then although it's unlikely to succeed it has been tried before many times so perfectly feasible. I would then be interested to look at your evidence.
Hmm!, I'm just a teeny bit suspicious of this lot.... The USA....800 military bases around the world. Umpteen invasions, constantly at war, sanctions everywhere. CIA plots everywhere, especially South America. Corporations with more economic clout than the many countries they rape and pillage, sorry, operate in. A good book to read..”Confessions of an economic hit man.” No, it's not a comedy. .Need I go on?
But saying all the governments are conspiring together is just so fanciful there isn't even a science fiction version of that story.
]I don't read science fiction and it's years since I read Aldous Huxley's “Brave New World” or even Orwells “1984”.
So you are welcome to believe it, but that is why some people are putting you in the David Icke category as he had equally unfeasible ideas with no evidence. I'm not saying you are the same or that you have said the same as him before you write a page in false outrage. I'm just explaining why people raise the subject when you try to discuss that topic.
How do you know Icke has “no evidence,” where is yours to make that statement? You seem to be lecturing others over “lack of evidence.
It seems to me Icke is used as a stick to beat people with but when challenged it appears no one has the slightest knowledge of him, just a perceived third hand view or a ten second gander of a web page.