"In the cross hairs"

Originally posted by sh76
Globalization is happening because of advances in technology that allow it, not because of a shift in World attitude.

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.

Originally posted by whodey
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.

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 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.

Originally posted by sh76
Globalization is happening because of advances in technology that allow it, not because of a shift in World attitude.

So 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" ?

Originally posted by joe beyser
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.

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.

Originally posted by whodey
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.

The 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.

Originally posted by sh76
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.

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 corporations and the rich, thus plunging the country into debt when combined with his approximately doubling military spending.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

It's only on -domestic- spending that the last three Republican presidents have been fiscally conservative.

Originally posted by karnachz
It's only on -domestic- spending that the last three Republican presidents have been fiscally conservative.[/b]

How 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.

Originally posted by karnachz
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.

Good 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).

Originally posted by whodey
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.

Okay; but globalization is human nature, when technology allows it.

Think about it. We now have technology that allows us to communicate with anyone in the World at any time for free (or basically for free).

If I need computer work done and I can pay the guy down the block $30/hr or someone equally adept in India $5/hr, it's human nature for me to choose the latter. The ability to communicate with anyone anywhere naturally causes people to think in terms of globalization. I can't find a product in New York? Fine. Let's see if we can find it in Hong Kong.

Governments certainly can help or hurt the process of globalization. But given the technology, the process of globalization is human nature.

Clearly, I don't think it's fair to say that the reason there was less globalization in the 50s was that there was more hostility to it in World attitude. In the 50s it was much harder and much more expensive to communicate with people, making much globalization impractical.

Originally posted by joe beyser
The leadership here is on board with it, but the population needs more dumbing down.

I'm confused. Could you elaborate a little? Exactly what makes it a dumb idea?

Originally posted by whodey
Also, he doubled spending for education.

I must say, all the warmongering and idiotic statements the man made completely overshadowed
some of his better moves. How come we never read about these things in the papers, I wonder.

Originally posted by Jigtie
I'm confused. Could you elaborate a little? Exactly what makes it a dumb idea?

In this country we have the freedom to be rich.

Originally posted by joe beyser
In this country we have the freedom to be rich.

Only if you are a politician. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Only if you are a politician. 😛

since when are you an anarchist?

Originally posted by joe beyser
In this country we have the freedom to be rich.

"work hard and get what you want" sounds like a good philosophy to me.

That's one of the things I like about America.