So, we need:Harmor wrote:
We did it after the depression
a. massive government spending programs.
b. a world war.
a. massive government spending programs.
b. a world war.
Let me just say, if you think Obama's a Marxist then we're miles apart!Harmor wrote:
Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I believe we can pull outselves out of this mess. We did it after the depression and we did it after Carter.
I believe we are going to need a real Conservative in the White House. The first step would be for us to elect enough conservatives into the House and Senate to stop Obama's Marxist doctrine. We won't be able to overturn things like Obamacare or some of the stuff they have done so far because he'll just veto it, so it won't be until 2012 until we'll have a chance.
Alot of this depends on the type of people we elect this November. If the Democrat's stay in power then we're screwed.
But aside from that, how would conservatives help out? As far as I made out it was the lack of control that started this in the US.
And here, what the conservatives are doing is they took advantage of the crisis to impose heavy taxes on the lower classes, lower the minimum wage, make it easier for corporations to fire people etc etc. The measures are like a tombstone over an already struggling market. Not only do they not help minimise the country's debt, it simply obliterates the buying power of the middle class and widens the chasm between rich and poor.
ƒ³
Let me say, if DO NOT think Obama is a Marxist, we are miles apart. Govt. dependency is the goal of this administration, control over the people is power and when you hsve the people crawling to govt. for their every need, and govt. controls that need, that is power.oug wrote:
Let me just say, if you think Obama's a Marxist then we're miles apart!Harmor wrote:
Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I believe we can pull outselves out of this mess. We did it after the depression and we did it after Carter.
I believe we are going to need a real Conservative in the White House. The first step would be for us to elect enough conservatives into the House and Senate to stop Obama's Marxist doctrine. We won't be able to overturn things like Obamacare or some of the stuff they have done so far because he'll just veto it, so it won't be until 2012 until we'll have a chance.
Alot of this depends on the type of people we elect this November. If the Democrat's stay in power then we're screwed.
But aside from that, how would conservatives help out? As far as I made out it was the lack of control that started this in the US.
And here, what the conservatives are doing is they took advantage of the crisis to impose heavy taxes on the lower classes, lower the minimum wage, make it easier for corporations to fire people etc etc. The measures are like a tombstone over an already struggling market. Not only do they not help minimise the country's debt, it simply obliterates the buying power of the middle class and widens the chasm between rich and poor.
How would conservative help out? Oh I dunno by being able to keep their money instead of stripping it away, they could re-invest into their companies growing them and putting people to work. The lower class has never hd a heavy tax burden, in fact the rich are the ones that carry the tax load in our country. To sum up, read my sig. It fits perfectly in addressing your post.
All of this started by democrat intervention in a system that forced that system in providing loans to people who could not afford them. Period, the end.
Well I'm sorry lowing but Obama just isn't a marxist.lowing wrote:
The lower class has never hd a heavy tax burden, in fact the rich are the ones that carry the tax load in our country. To sum up, read my sig. It fits perfectly in addressing your post.
Now, I completely agree with Winston there. Taxing the hell out of the middle and lower classes - in other words the majority of a country's population - is most certainly pointless to say the least. I don't know specifics about the US tax system, but I do know that the average joe is far less taxed compared to here, and that's certainly a good thing.
Wait what's the purpose of that? Why would the dems interfere in this?lowing wrote:
All of this started by democrat intervention in a system that forced that system in providing loans to people who could not afford them. Period, the end.
ƒ³
how is this not Obama again?oug wrote:
Well I'm sorry lowing but Obama just isn't a marxist.lowing wrote:
The lower class has never hd a heavy tax burden, in fact the rich are the ones that carry the tax load in our country. To sum up, read my sig. It fits perfectly in addressing your post.
Now, I completely agree with Winston there. Taxing the hell out of the middle and lower classes - in other words the majority of a country's population - is most certainly pointless to say the least. I don't know specifics about the US tax system, but I do know that the average joe is far less taxed compared to here, and that's certainly a good thing.Wait what's the purpose of that? Why would the dems interfere in this?lowing wrote:
All of this started by democrat intervention in a system that forced that system in providing loans to people who could not afford them. Period, the end.
Definition of Marxism: The economic, social, political, pseudo-scientific philosophy, theory, belief, or system based on the works of Karl Marx of Germany. The theory seeks the elimination of the notion of private property in order to gain control of the economic "means of production" by taking it from the bourgeois (the wealthy or propertied class) for the benefit of the proletariat (working class.) His philosophy of history was called "historical materialism" in which his goal was to bring about the end of history, by means of an eventual perfect, classless, utopian society he called Communism.
Why would the democrats want to do this?...Votes, the same reason they want amnesty for illegals, the same reason the want to take from the earners and hand it out to the non-earners.. Remaining in power, is the only way they can move the ball forward on their socialist agenda. Govt. dependency is the key to this. TO act as if they are for the people insures they remain in power. Eventually leaving little choice for any of us.
War with Pakistan is coming...Reciprocity wrote:
So, we need:Harmor wrote:
We did it after the depression
a. massive government spending programs.
b. a world war.
Ultimately, no... but race, religion, culture, age, and gender all still serve as very potent distractions.oug wrote:
There never was any other form of division.Turquoise wrote:
class differences will become the main divisions in society
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-08 16:25:16)
I'd say class is a difference, but it won't separate people as much as race and religion.Turquoise wrote:
Ultimately, no... but race, religion, culture, age, and gender all still serve as very potent distractions.oug wrote:
There never was any other form of division.Turquoise wrote:
class differences will become the main divisions in society
Religion does seem to be one of the most divisive things ever constructed by humans.Cybargs wrote:
I'd say class is a difference, but it won't separate people as much as race and religion.Turquoise wrote:
Ultimately, no... but race, religion, culture, age, and gender all still serve as very potent distractions.oug wrote:
There never was any other form of division.
Alledged differences between races are merely caused by peoples' surroundings. A race living in the jungle is bound to differ from one living in the desert. But said differences are only superficial - and in the modern world they've been blown out of proportion intentionally by groups of people who profit from this separation.Cybargs wrote:
I'd say class is a difference, but it won't separate people as much as race and religion.
The latter applies entirely in the case of religion. All major religions are basically selling the same product - only with different packaging.
Class on the other hand is the one thing that is entirely tangible and measurable. And as long as resources are not distributed equally among all people there will always be a division between those who have em and those who don't. The rest purposefully serve are mere distractions from that fact.
ƒ³
* burp, yawn * Still trying to get rid of the hangover from celebrating the " Change ", yet somehow understood your post.ATG wrote:
I THINK ABOUT 3% OF YOU ARE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE op.
Super rich, super powerful world bankers
v
control
v
The president
v
Hires
v
Former bankers and board members on banks/companies with a special interest
v
creates
v
legislature that furthers the ideas of the elite who are in control
The system that is in control of our money is a privately owned company, which follows no regulations and is not auditable. It has simply the interests of the owners in mind for the last 90 years. Are you supposed to just believe their intentions are good?
v
control
v
The president
v
Hires
v
Former bankers and board members on banks/companies with a special interest
v
creates
v
legislature that furthers the ideas of the elite who are in control
The system that is in control of our money is a privately owned company, which follows no regulations and is not auditable. It has simply the interests of the owners in mind for the last 90 years. Are you supposed to just believe their intentions are good?
15 more years! 15 more years!
I thought you were a free market thinker that doesn't want government intervention and regulation.Mitch wrote:
Super rich, super powerful world bankers
v
control
v
The president
v
Hires
v
Former bankers and board members on banks/companies with a special interest
v
creates
v
legislature that furthers the ideas of the elite who are in control
The system that is in control of our money is a privately owned company, which follows no regulations and is not auditable. It has simply the interests of the owners in mind for the last 90 years. Are you supposed to just believe their intentions are good?
God damn you people should stop watching that bullshit of a "documentary" called zeitgeist.
I dont support that documentary. Just because it shares similar ideas with other documentaries.Cybargs wrote:
I thought you were a free market thinker that doesn't want government intervention and regulation.Mitch wrote:
Super rich, super powerful world bankers
v
control
v
The president
v
Hires
v
Former bankers and board members on banks/companies with a special interest
v
creates
v
legislature that furthers the ideas of the elite who are in control
The system that is in control of our money is a privately owned company, which follows no regulations and is not auditable. It has simply the interests of the owners in mind for the last 90 years. Are you supposed to just believe their intentions are good?
God damn you people should stop watching that bullshit of a "documentary" called zeitgeist.
Please watch Fall of the Republic. It's long, but just watch the first 30 minutes if you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
15 more years! 15 more years!
Taking shit out of context. When people refer to a "global governance" they mostly refer to the role of the UN and cooperation between member states. I don't exactly get what is wrong with global governance unless it violates the UDHR or the UN Charter.Mitch wrote:
I dont support that documentary. Just because it shares similar ideas with other documentaries.Cybargs wrote:
I thought you were a free market thinker that doesn't want government intervention and regulation.Mitch wrote:
Super rich, super powerful world bankers
v
control
v
The president
v
Hires
v
Former bankers and board members on banks/companies with a special interest
v
creates
v
legislature that furthers the ideas of the elite who are in control
The system that is in control of our money is a privately owned company, which follows no regulations and is not auditable. It has simply the interests of the owners in mind for the last 90 years. Are you supposed to just believe their intentions are good?
God damn you people should stop watching that bullshit of a "documentary" called zeitgeist.
Please watch Fall of the Republic. It's long, but just watch the first 30 minutes if you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
The fuck is the guy on about the "delusion of choice." There are thousands of different burger joints, soda companies and fucking telecom companies. Not their fucking fault to provide better service than the competition.
Of course people want a single currency, it makes business transactions A LOT EASIER. US dollars right now is the "global currency." Economic crisis' cannot simply be "engineered."
America will not simply "fall" into the footnotes of history. Sure it might not be No. 1 in the long road, but it will still exist.
Corporations aren't as powerful as you think Mitch. Nor is ANY government in the world.
No matter what you think can happy in a perfect world, the combining of countries into a 'global governance'Cybargs wrote:
I don't exactly get what is wrong with global governance unless it violates the UDHR or the UN Charter.Mitch wrote:
I dont support that documentary. Just because it shares similar ideas with other documentaries.Cybargs wrote:
I thought you were a free market thinker that doesn't want government intervention and regulation.
God damn you people should stop watching that bullshit of a "documentary" called zeitgeist.
Please watch Fall of the Republic. It's long, but just watch the first 30 minutes if you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
.
over rules countries' laws. (the constitution)
creates no way to escape the laws you dislike. You cannot move to another country if its a global law.
global laws would be the worst thing to happen to the planet. say the global government decides that violent games need to be cencored - suddenly nowhere in the world can have a game where you shoot someone.
its absurd.
15 more years! 15 more years!
You do realize in the UN that sovereignty is a BIG BIG issue when it comes down to passing resolutions, even security council ones. With such a liberal (classical liberal, not what you americans call "liberal") institution I doubt they would pass anything that would be an infringement on the UDHR. And why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You guys have Veto power in the UNSC.Mitch wrote:
No matter what you think can happy in a perfect world, the combining of countries into a 'global governance'Cybargs wrote:
I don't exactly get what is wrong with global governance unless it violates the UDHR or the UN Charter.Mitch wrote:
I dont support that documentary. Just because it shares similar ideas with other documentaries.
Please watch Fall of the Republic. It's long, but just watch the first 30 minutes if you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
.
over rules countries' laws. (the constitution)
creates no way to escape the laws you dislike. You cannot move to another country if its a global law.
global laws would be the worst thing to happen to the planet. say the global government decides that violent games need to be cencored - suddenly nowhere in the world can have a game where you shoot someone.
its absurd.
The ones with the power to veto are the ones who have the same idea of global governance.Cybargs wrote:
You do realize in the UN that sovereignty is a BIG BIG issue when it comes down to passing resolutions, even security council ones. With such a liberal (classical liberal, not what you americans call "liberal") institution I doubt they would pass anything that would be an infringement on the UDHR. And why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You guys have Veto power in the UNSC.Mitch wrote:
No matter what you think can happy in a perfect world, the combining of countries into a 'global governance'Cybargs wrote:
I don't exactly get what is wrong with global governance unless it violates the UDHR or the UN Charter.
.
over rules countries' laws. (the constitution)
creates no way to escape the laws you dislike. You cannot move to another country if its a global law.
global laws would be the worst thing to happen to the planet. say the global government decides that violent games need to be cencored - suddenly nowhere in the world can have a game where you shoot someone.
its absurd.
15 more years! 15 more years!
No the ones with Veto power are the ones who won WW2. Did you ever pick up a history textbook? There's so much bickering within the UN I doubt they can do any real harm. Most people in the UN are a bunch of pussies anyway.Mitch wrote:
The ones with the power to veto are the ones who have the same idea of global governance.Cybargs wrote:
You do realize in the UN that sovereignty is a BIG BIG issue when it comes down to passing resolutions, even security council ones. With such a liberal (classical liberal, not what you americans call "liberal") institution I doubt they would pass anything that would be an infringement on the UDHR. And why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You guys have Veto power in the UNSC.Mitch wrote:
No matter what you think can happy in a perfect world, the combining of countries into a 'global governance'
over rules countries' laws. (the constitution)
creates no way to escape the laws you dislike. You cannot move to another country if its a global law.
global laws would be the worst thing to happen to the planet. say the global government decides that violent games need to be cencored - suddenly nowhere in the world can have a game where you shoot someone.
its absurd.
Edit: I doubt the French are able to dominate the world with their Veto power lulz.
Last edited by Cybargs (2010-07-13 09:18:01)
difference between "hard" law and "soft" law
Tu Stultus Es
ide rather not 'doubt' they can do any harm, i would rather be sure they cant do any harm.Cybargs wrote:
No the ones with Veto power are the ones who won WW2. Did you ever pick up a history textbook? There's so much bickering within the UN I doubt they can do any real harm. Most people in the UN are a bunch of pussies anyway.Mitch wrote:
The ones with the power to veto are the ones who have the same idea of global governance.Cybargs wrote:
You do realize in the UN that sovereignty is a BIG BIG issue when it comes down to passing resolutions, even security council ones. With such a liberal (classical liberal, not what you americans call "liberal") institution I doubt they would pass anything that would be an infringement on the UDHR. And why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You guys have Veto power in the UNSC.
countries need there own laws just like states need there own laws. the federal government cant help but to take over states laws, just like the world government wouldnt be able to help but to steal countries laws.
its a quest for power. just realise it.
15 more years! 15 more years!
OMG mitch READ THE UN CHARTER. First off, the only thing the UN can pass that is legally binding is SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS, which have a specific purpose to specific conflicts. Countries do have their own laws and will not be replaced any time soon. and shit any treaties country sign HAVE TO BE PASSED IN THEIR OWN LEGISLATURE FIRST.Mitch wrote:
ide rather not 'doubt' they can do any harm, i would rather be sure they cant do any harm.Cybargs wrote:
No the ones with Veto power are the ones who won WW2. Did you ever pick up a history textbook? There's so much bickering within the UN I doubt they can do any real harm. Most people in the UN are a bunch of pussies anyway.Mitch wrote:
The ones with the power to veto are the ones who have the same idea of global governance.
countries need there own laws just like states need there own laws. the federal government cant help but to take over states laws, just like the world government wouldnt be able to help but to steal countries laws.
its a quest for power. just realise it.
God damn I thought you were dumb mitch but this takes it to a whole new level.
You do realize that the UN isn't the only international organization influencing nation-states and the global economy right?Cybargs wrote:
You do realize in the UN that sovereignty is a BIG BIG issue when it comes down to passing resolutions, even security council ones. With such a liberal (classical liberal, not what you americans call "liberal") institution I doubt they would pass anything that would be an infringement on the UDHR. And why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You guys have Veto power in the UNSC.Mitch wrote:
No matter what you think can happy in a perfect world, the combining of countries into a 'global governance'Cybargs wrote:
I don't exactly get what is wrong with global governance unless it violates the UDHR or the UN Charter.
.
over rules countries' laws. (the constitution)
creates no way to escape the laws you dislike. You cannot move to another country if its a global law.
global laws would be the worst thing to happen to the planet. say the global government decides that violent games need to be cencored - suddenly nowhere in the world can have a game where you shoot someone.
its absurd.
There's also a huge difference in the way the UN theoretically works and the way it actually works. Anyone can regurgitate 'how a bill becomes a law' as seen on Saturday morning cartoons but does that reflect the reality? Political posturing abounds in virtually any political institution. Playing MUN doesn't mean you have some sort of esoteric knowledge of the UN.
National legislatures still have to agree to any treaty before it becomes part of national law. That's why the US didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You do realize that the UN isn't the only international organization influencing nation-states and the global economy right?Cybargs wrote:
You do realize in the UN that sovereignty is a BIG BIG issue when it comes down to passing resolutions, even security council ones. With such a liberal (classical liberal, not what you americans call "liberal") institution I doubt they would pass anything that would be an infringement on the UDHR. And why the fuck are you Americans so paranoid? You guys have Veto power in the UNSC.Mitch wrote:
No matter what you think can happy in a perfect world, the combining of countries into a 'global governance'
over rules countries' laws. (the constitution)
creates no way to escape the laws you dislike. You cannot move to another country if its a global law.
global laws would be the worst thing to happen to the planet. say the global government decides that violent games need to be cencored - suddenly nowhere in the world can have a game where you shoot someone.
its absurd.
There's also a huge difference in the way the UN theoretically works and the way it actually works. Anyone can regurgitate 'how a bill becomes a law' as seen on Saturday morning cartoons but does that reflect the reality? Political posturing abounds in virtually any political institution. Playing MUN doesn't mean you have some sort of esoteric knowledge of the UN.
