Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate - New World Order

[Rick Otto]

On the back of who's dollar bill? Certainly not the one in my wallet.

I'm sure you were simply distracted and not being rude, evasive, or inadequate to the task of answering:


"Why would you think those terms are oxymorons?"

 

[Albion]

Let the Linguists & wallets be buried with the Linguists & the wallets...

I'll just pretend you guys actually know what Novo Ordo refers to instead of the NWO

Even if it did mean what you want it to mean, this phrase by itself doesn't tell us what kind of new world order is intended or how to achieve it. I'd love to have orderliness operate among the world's nations, democracy, prosperity, and peace.

 

[Rick Otto]

Even if it did mean what you want it to mean, this phrase by itself doesn't tell us what kind of new world order is intended or how to achieve it. I'd love to have orderliness operate among the world's nations, democracy, prosperity, and peace.

Even if it does mean what I desperately need it to mean, I would never expect one (tho far from obscure) reference to tell more information than a symbol is ever meant to, or how it not giving that unrealistically expected information delegitimizes 'what I want it to mean'.

...But we can be confident the eye on top of the pyramid in the NWO logo on the back of our one dollar bill, will make the trains run on time.

 

[Simpleman25]

Even if it does mean what I desperately need it to mean, I would never expect one (tho far from obscure) reference to tell more information than a symbol is ever meant to, or how it not giving that unrealistically expected information delegitimizes 'what I want it to mean'.

...But we can be confident the eye on top of the pyramid in the NWO logo on the back of our one dollar bill, will make the trains run on time.

Good grief.

Albion, at least we know what type of person we're dealing with.

 

[Albion]

Good grief.

Albion, at least we know what type of person we're dealing with.

Actually, I feel like saying that don't know what kind of person we're dealing with here, brother.

He's so perceptive and analytical on almost all other issues that appear on CF, often bringing clarity to confused discussions, but at the same time willing to believe the most absurd myths about some things he has no knowledge of. And that includes accepting as true whatever some kook literature or website assembled by conspiracy theorists have written, even though they've been proven wrong on point after point (as has literally been done here on CF). Why the "don't bother me with the facts" line of thought should win out with him on this particular issue, but isn't given any credence when it comes to other topics, is indeed something of a mystery to me.

However, I agree with you that no attempt to discuss Masonry--as all of us on out side are more than willing to do--will get anywhere if the opponent won't even consider anything said by us. To that extent, "type of person we're dealing with" is probably a correct way of putting it--sadly enough.