[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by Takk...Ros

Ok. Well, I haven't read it in it's entirety. I just now read the Rio Declaration and the Sustainable Management of Forests. It all sounds pretty good to me, but I don't think anyone is really doing anything about it. The reason I asked about NWO and the like is because I used to date a guy who freaked out about all this saying they were going to use agenda 21 as a way to control us and would eventually thin down the population and put us into camps. Dude was wrong in my opinion because none of this is a) legally binding or b) happening. Do you see any countries really working towards environmental sustainability? Eliminating the gap between the rich and the poor? Getting indigenous people and women involved in decision making processes? Helping underdeveloped countries figure out how to responsibly manage their forests? Also there is a decent bit of emphasis on nation's individual sovereignty in the literature I just read so I'm thinking this is all much ado about nothing.

Now, what are you thoughts on this?

I haven't read the entire document yet, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions right away, which is part of the reason I started the thread by asking "Has anyone read this?"

I've heard certain things about it, but I like I said, without reading it, I'm trying not to form an opinion. I have however seen some things that make me believe that it is being implemented.

Do you have any reason to believe that "none of this is happening"?

Also why do you associate this with NWO? Did your ex try to connect the two?
Aside from whatever your ex said about this, have you ever heard about or looked into NWO or Agenda 21?

I'm just interested in finding out more about this document and a few others that are similar to it.

[Takk...Ros]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

I haven't read the entire document yet, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions right away, which is part of the reason I started the thread by asking "Has anyone read this?"

I've heard certain things about it, but I like I said, without reading it, I'm trying not to form an opinion. I have however seen some things that make me believe that it is being implemented.

Do you have any reason to believe that "none of this is happening"?

Also why do you associate this with NWO? Did your ex try to connect the two?
Aside from whatever your ex said about this, have you ever heard about or looked into NWO or Agenda 21?

I'm just interested in finding out more about this document and a few others that are similar to it.

For the bolded, I already mentioned it. I don't see anyone making real strides towards environmental sustainability besides some lip service to renewable energy. I don't see anyone in power trying to solve the wage gap. Women, minorities, and indigenous people are routinely and consistently left out or ignored when it comes to ANY kind of policy making. I'm curious about what you've seen that's being implemented?

I also don't see what would be wrong if these things WERE being put into action. There's nothing in the Rio Declaration or the sustaining forest thing (which is all I took the time to read) that I find problematic, in fact, these are the kinds of things I would love to see countries adopting. I'm all about the environment and income equality.

My ex did connect the two, but he also believed in every conspiracy theory ever in the history of the world. I haven't looked into it a whole lot, but from what I can tell it's a very silly belief held by overly paranoid people.

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by Takk...Ros

For the bolded, I already mentioned it. I don't see anyone making real strides towards environmental sustainability besides some lip service to renewable energy. I don't see anyone in power trying to solve the wage gap. Women, minorities, and indigenous people are routinely and consistently left out or ignored when it comes to ANY kind of policy making. I'm curious about what you've seen that's being implemented?

I also don't see what would be wrong if these things WERE being put into action. There's nothing in the Rio Declaration or the sustaining forest thing (which is all I took the time to read) that I find problematic, in fact, these are the kinds of things I would love to see countries adopting. I'm all about the environment and income equality.

My ex did connect the two, but he also believed in every conspiracy theory ever in the history of the world. I haven't looked into it a whole lot, but from what I can tell it's a very silly belief held by overly paranoid people.

As far as believing in EVERY conspiracy theory ever, I will agree that is for overly paranoid people. I do believe in SOME conspiracy theories, but I think that a lot of people draw conclusions about one thing, and then another, and the think they can put all the pieces of the puzzle into place. There are some pieces that I think fit, and others that do not.

As far as THIS document in particular goes, I've only HEARD about some of the things in it, so it's pure speculation at this point. I too am in favor of "sustainable development" however from what I've HEARD the document's definition of this is far different than what you and me would think of when we hear the words, "sustainable development"

Like I said, I don't know what the document actually says, because I haven't read it yet, but I have reason to believe that the document is being implemented because I've seen evidence that supports that it's being implemented....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_...of_Agenda_ 21
from the wikipedia page alone, you can see that it is not a law, as you stated, but it can, and has been implemented voluntarily.

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_sd21st..._Synthesis.pdf
from the UN's own documents, implementation plans

http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/agenda21rpt.htm
http://thenewamerican.com/tech/envir...-uns-agenda-21
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/agenda-21...ot-conspiracy/
just a few more sites with some interesting information

The main problem that I see with the document (and again I emphasize, I still have only read small parts of it) is that it's been implemented without ever being brought before Congress.

[Love As Arson]

Originally Posted by Nuns On A Bus

I still can't believe that so many people in this thread actually accept LAA's whole "racism requires the racist party to be a member of a group that has power in society" thing, as if that excuses or justifies racism of minorities against whoever is deemed "in power". It blows my mind that anyone who has actually spent time around members of other races/groups could come to this conclusion.

So,in your mind, a slave in the antebellum south who hates white people is espousing the same ideological platform as the slave-owner? You would say that the deficit in power between the two is meaningless, that the relations which enshrine the owner's position is irrelevant - all that we can say is they are both racist. If that is the case, then the term racism is conceptually useless and we should just use the term mutual dislike or something; because we clearly have no use for specificity, analysis or the broader socio-historical underpinnings of race relations.

[Nuns On A Bus]

Originally Posted by Love As Arson

So,in your mind, a slave in the antebellum south who hates white people is espousing the same ideological platform as the slave-owner? You would say that the deficit in power between the two is meaningless, that the relations which enshrine the owner's position is irrelevant - all that we can say is they are both racist. If that is the case, then the term racism is conceptually useless and we should just use the term mutual dislike or something; because we clearly have no use for specificity, analysis or the broader socio-historical underpinnings of race relations.

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. I would say that the deficit in power changes it for sure: certainly part of the situation for the slave would be the fact that he's getting screwed over. But I would say that a generalized hatred of all white people everywhere is still racism, in my mind. Certainly a much more justified racism than the reverse, but racism nonetheless. I don't see how using racism to describe different situations makes the term useless in any way.

[Takk...Ros]

What have you HEARD that has you so concerned? I understand that you haven't read the document in it's entirety, but you obviously have some opinions about what is going on.

From wikipedia, it looks like this is being put to use mostly on a local level. If communities have decided that these goals are what's best for them I don't see how you can tell them they're wrong. And I have yet to see anything that would be bad in Agenda 21's proposal. Our way of living is unsustainable. It's not some big conspiracy against the American people to point that out.

The UN report cites only patchy progress in a few areas. Even if there is some big dark side to this that I'm missing, there have been no huge leaps towards the total implementation of Agenda 21 and it doesn't really look like there will be. It has been met with resistance in some places and with differing ideas on how to move forward where it is accepted.

Your other links are...sketchy at best. I am completely disregarding the sovereignty.net one and the other two I'm taking with a grain (or several) of salt. None of them were really that clear on what terrible things they think will happen. They are just certain it's SOMETHING and that other intelligent people will see what it is. Maybe I'm stupid, but I am not seeing what is so terrible about any of this.

[caveBEAR]

It's always 'something' () that's going to happen. Can we merge all of these threads into one 'suicidesaints gets his panties in a bunch over fantasy' thread?

[Takk...Ros]

Best part of those last three links is how everything is in scare quotes, "it is a "partnering" organization...the environmental "council"...putting money in planned parenthood for "contraceptive development"..." like that explains anything. If I just use "quotation" marks "everyone" will see the evil "plan" for what it "is". Don't even have to worry about pesky facts.

[caveBEAR]

Takk gets it.

[David87]

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

It's always 'something' () that's going to happen. Can we merge all of these threads into one 'suicidesaints gets his panties in a bunch over fantasy' thread?

This is the EXACT reason why I started this thread by saying "Has anyone read this thing?"

Like I said I've only heard things about it... and while some of the things I've heard may be true, it's likely that some of what I've heard is bullshit.

I just wanted to get opinions... and it looks like that's what I'm getting

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by Takk...Ros

What have you HEARD that has you so concerned? I understand that you haven't read the document in it's entirety, but you obviously have some opinions about what is going on.

From wikipedia, it looks like this is being put to use mostly on a local level. If communities have decided that these goals are what's best for them I don't see how you can tell them they're wrong. And I have yet to see anything that would be bad in Agenda 21's proposal. Our way of living is unsustainable. It's not some big conspiracy against the American people to point that out.

The UN report cites only patchy progress in a few areas. Even if there is some big dark side to this that I'm missing, there have been no huge leaps towards the total implementation of Agenda 21 and it doesn't really look like there will be. It has been met with resistance in some places and with differing ideas on how to move forward where it is accepted.

Your other links are...sketchy at best. I am completely disregarding the sovereignty.net one and the other two I'm taking with a grain (or several) of salt. None of them were really that clear on what terrible things they think will happen. They are just certain it's SOMETHING and that other intelligent people will see what it is. Maybe I'm stupid, but I am not seeing what is so terrible about any of this.

While you may be right about some of the links being "sketchy at best" I only posted them to show you that this Agenda 21 is being implemented in certain places in the U.S.

I'm not arguing as to which parts are being implemented, or if they are good or bad... just that it IS happening, and that this document has not been approved by Congress.

Like I pointed out before, I have not read the document so I cannot speak on its content, but I can say that I do not agree with implementation of "agendas" (check it out "scary quotes") without Congress' approval.

Originally Posted by Takk...Ros

Ok. Well, I haven't read it in it's entirety. I just now read the Rio Declaration and the Sustainable Management of Forests. It all sounds pretty good to me, but I don't think anyone is really doing anything about it. The reason I asked about NWO and the like is because I used to date a guy who freaked out about all this saying they were going to use agenda 21 as a way to control us and would eventually thin down the population and put us into camps. Dude was wrong in my opinion because none of this is a) legally binding or b) happening. Do you see any countries really working towards environmental sustainability? Eliminating the gap between the rich and the poor? Getting indigenous people and women involved in decision making processes? Helping underdeveloped countries figure out how to responsibly manage their forests? Also there is a decent bit of emphasis on nation's individual sovereignty in the literature I just read so I'm thinking this is all much ado about nothing.

Now, what are you thoughts on this?

[KingsCrossing]

Dude got "takken" down hard!

*retreats back to corner*

[suicidesaints]

Originally Posted by KingsCrossing

Dude got "takken" down hard!

*retreats back to corner*

Nice play on words, but I didn't get shut down at all. If you read my posts, you would all see that the only thing I'm claiming is that this agenda was put into effect without Congress' approval.

If you'd like to debate that, then by all means...

My issue with this whole thing, and other things that take place in our government, is that the Constitution is continuously getting stepped on.

[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by suicidesaints

Nice play on words, but I didn't get shut down at all. If you read my posts, you would all see that the only thing I'm claiming is that this agenda was put into effect without Congress' approval.

If you'd like to debate that, then by all means...

My issue with this whole thing, and other things that take place in our government, is that the Constitution is continuously getting stepped on.

It's a UN initiative, I don't think our Congress has the power to overturn the UN. Nor is the UN part of "our government".