10 Jul '09 00:53Originally posted by sh76Technology allows it? Its like the arugment that guns kill people rather than people kill people. Technology is just a mere tool. We should therefore, be looking at the ones using those tools instead of the tools themselves.
Globalization is happening because of advances in technology that allow it, not because of a shift in World attitude.
10 Jul '09 03:27Originally posted by whodeyI do say, the chap that has all of the answers to conventional politics is like a baby learning to crawl when tackling the one world order. He can only sling insults to cover up his ignorance. Dishing out labels in order to classify his foes merely serves to self bolster his own belief system. He must have numbers on his side and is quite suseptable to group think. Buzz-words such as conspiracy have been contorted untill the word has little meaning other than the new negative conotational form of labeling. The one world order is best left for discussion by those with open minds and tenacious search for truth.
Technology allows it? Its like the arugment that guns kill people rather than people kill people. Technology is just a mere tool. We should therefore, be looking at the ones using those tools instead of the tools themselves.
10 Jul '09 03:57Originally posted by sh76So you don't think the WB, the IMF, the WTO, thing like the 'G8', the E.U., elements of the U.N., multi-national corporations, and - of course - the U.S. - and a host of other entities - have been pushing a "globalization" agenda and you don't think that weaker entities/nations/economic systems around the world have had to "shift" their "attitudes" under pressure from the 'powerful' - a loose consortium which, by the way, likes to rather distract from what it is actually doing by wrapping it up in platitudes like "...globalization is happening because of advances in technology that allow it, not because of a shift in World attitude" ?
Globalization is happening because of advances in technology that allow it, not because of a shift in World attitude.
10 Jul '09 03:59Originally posted by joe beyserThe progressive movement is not in hiding nor do they hide their convictions. However, throw in the phrase "one world order" and then people instantly think our paranoid minds created this movement.
I do say, the chap that has all of the answers to conventional politics is like a baby learning to crawl when tackling the one world order. He can only sling insults to cover up his ignorance. Dishing out labels in order to classify his foes merely serves to self bolster his own belief system. He must have numbers on his side and is quite suseptable to gr ...[text shortened]... world order is best left for discussion by those with open minds and tenacious search for truth.
10 Jul '09 04:061 editOriginally posted by whodeyThe progressive movement is quite open about its objectives. Of course it can be as the masses have been brainwashed from childhood in believing paradigmes handed to them. It is similar to religious fanatics that see the corruption in thier respective organization and continue to donate to the cause.
The progressive movement is not in hiding nor do they hide their convictions. However, throw in the phrase "one world order" and then people instantly think our paranoid minds created this movement.
10 Jul '09 04:14Originally posted by sh76I agree with your larger point here, but it depends what you mean by "conservative economically". Reagan and GWB actually increased total govt spending by around 70% each per eight-year term -- whereas even Lyndon "both guns and butter" Johnson only increased total govt spending by about half that in five years. Reagan also greatly reduced taxes on corporations and the rich, thus plunging the country into debt when combined with his approximately doubling military spending.
Reagan and GWB were both more conservative economically than most of their predecessors. Communism collapsed around the World. Even China is now CINO (Communist in name only). I guess Latin America is another exception though.
10 Jul '09 04:22Originally posted by karnachzHow can you say that when GWB created the largest entitlement program of our time? Also, he doubled spending for education. Perhaps you have not been reading my posts.
It's only on -domestic- spending that the last three Republican presidents have been fiscally conservative.[/b]
10 Jul '09 12:031 editOriginally posted by karnachzGood point. I meant conservative in the Milton Friedman, trickle-down theory sense. Having large budget deficits is not "conservative" (or at least it shouldn't be).
I agree with your larger point here, but it depends what you mean by "conservative economically". Reagan and GWB actually increased total govt spending by around 70% each per eight-year term -- whereas even Lyndon "both guns and butter" Johnson only increased total govt spending by about half that in five years. Reagan also greatly reduced taxes on corporat mestic- spending that the last three Republican presidents have been fiscally conservative.
10 Jul '09 12:081 editOriginally posted by whodeyOkay; but globalization is human nature, when technology allows it.
Technology allows it? Its like the arugment that guns kill people rather than people kill people. Technology is just a mere tool. We should therefore, be looking at the ones using those tools instead of the tools themselves.
"In the cross hairs"
Back to Top