The Council on Foreign Relations (The CFR) is a shady organization.

RE:sponse mode. ======== RE: Marxism ======== Frankly, it matters not what the founder believed in. The truth is that policy recommendations from the CFR do not reflect a Marxist approach to politics. When the founder died, whatever he wanted to do through the organization died with him. What's left is a functional, helpful tool to political leaders and others who are curious about foreign policy issues. Since my opponent has made no connections between the CFR and Marxism except through the beliefs of the founder, it is a point with no backing. Marxism is irrelevant to this debate. ======== RE: "CFR Makes Recommendations"/Official stances ======== Of course they do. They're an organization whose sole purpose is to come up with workable policies and inform the public on foreign policy issues. It's not surprising that they also make recommendations. Even so, this does not mean that the organization has official positions. It is dynamic. This allows it to judge each situation based on significant specifics, rather than based on some overall dogmatic position they feel they must stand by. Incidentally, that sounds like a good idea. And since they're sound, well-backed recommendations, they're often used. And I have been given no evidence that they DO have official stances, other than the "The founder was Marxist" argument, which I already responded to. ======== RE: The Admiral's Quote ======== Here's the quote for reference: "Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. government should adopt a particular policy… the very substantial research facilities of the (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy… and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition." Here's a tidbit that might clear up the motive behind such action: opposition to a policy will reduce its acceptance, and this has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of the policy, or even of the entire government. Making arguments in favor of a policy you support is not shady. Ironic, too, that such accusations are made on a debating website, of all places. Of course they want arguments to back them up. "Discrediting the opposition" is something you always have to do if you want an idea accepted. Just as we presently seek to discredit each other in this very debate. ======== RE: "Bring X and Y into constructive accord" ======== Probably because this is the most helpful thing to do? I'm not sure what's bad about bringing governments, etc, into constructive accord. ======== RE: "So the CFR isn't shady because the website says it isn't?" ======== Yes and no. Just becasue they say it does not mean it is true, I admit that. However, the material I have cited from them does in fact resemble reality. If it was factually incorrect, it would be rather easy to point it out, would it not? They really do "produce and disseminate ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments." They really don't have official stances. ======== RE: Federal Reserve Act / 16th Amendment ======== I assumed that the Federal Reserve act was recommended by the CFR after reading my your first round. Seems I misread, and it was simply something suggested by the founder of the organization. Let's consider a few things here. A> The Federal Reserve Act has not been shown to be detrimental to the everyman. [And in fact, I would argue that it is helpful to the everyman, but that is for another debate.] B> Whether or not the Federal Reserve Act is good or bad, it is not connected to the CFR, so it wouldn't even show anything in that case. Also, I don't have extensive economic knowledge, but I have enough to see that the video you posted was made with an economically ignorant audience in mind, as most of the points in it do not really hold water, and rely mainly on the emotional response to the language used to get the points across. ======== RE: Big Business ======== Let's consider a few things. First, could it be that Big Business is interested in the CFR because Big Business thrives on sound foreign policy? What helps America helps Big Business more than anyone, since they're so... big. Second, my opponenet suggets that many or even most of the CFR members are rich white men. This may sound shady, if you take a conspiracy theorist look at it first, but think how much that makes sense anyway. Most people with successful politics carrers are rich, white, and male. Successful here leads directly to rich. It's no doubt poor people aren't members of the CFR: If they didn't have what it takes to be successful in life, they didn't have what it takes to be part of the CFR. Harvard and Yale aren't shady just because they're selective, and neither is the CFR. Next, white. Well first off, most people in America are white. Second, it is an unfortunate fact that being white and male has been and still continues to be [to a smaler extent] a required criterion for people to completely take you seriously. Here's a list of the top 13 richest American politicians. http://en.wikipedia.org... Notice anything strange? ALL OF THEM are white. And ALL OF THEM are male. This isn't some conspiracy, it just happens to be the gender and race role that's played out. Men are more likely to have careers in the first place. Men are more likely to be taken seriously when they do have careers. Whites are more likely to have an interest in politics, and more likely to get a good education. Thus, it is no surprise that the majority of members of the CFR are successful, white men. This isn't because of some left-behind shady criteria of the founders to look after their own, it's simply the fact that most of the qualified candidates for membership are rich, white, and male. ======== RE: "How do we know they're not hurting us?" ======== We don't, but it's ridiculous to say we don't know, so let's just assume they're hurting us. ======== RE: "They undermine our democracy, voters don't count." ======== Hah! Democracy? When did we have that? When's the last time you voted on a foreign policy issue? Never, that's right. Here in America, we've decided that the best way to do politics is to have specialized politicians make our policy decisions for us. We're a 'democratic' REPUBLIC. And keeping with that oh-so-American notion of letting specialized politicians make policies the work for us, we get the CFR, which is simply a resource for them to use. The CFR does not have the power to implement policies, they can simply get their voice heard. Just like you, me, or anyone can. If that's not democratic, tell me what is. ======== RE: They aim to abolish our United States sovereignty. ======== As he said in the quote you provided, yes. If everyone keeps full, independent sovereignty, how will the world ever enforce agreements on things like environmental hazards? War? We should indeed submit to global emission standards, so that others might do the same. This isn't our world to do with as we please, it is everyone else's too. Right now, that would seem to be the wisest course of action for the world, to preseve the environment we all depend on, irrespective of our country. It's been great so far, I look forward to R3.