Is a World Order a bad idea?

Originally posted by whodey
The term hollow promise is what is key here. It is like Obama saying that health care will not raise the national deficit over the next 10 years or that unemployment will not break 8% or that his stimulus package will create over half a million jobs. Once we take the bait and believe those promises no one cares when they never come to pass. All we are left ...[text shortened]... tist powers over us that will never be removed and broken promises that will never come to pass.

And debt.

Originally posted by whodey
The term hollow promise is what is key here. It is like Obama saying that health care will not raise the national deficit over the next 10 years or that unemployment will not break 8% or that his stimulus package will create over half a million jobs. Once we take the bait and believe those promises no one cares when they never come to pass. All we are left ...[text shortened]... tist powers over us that will never be removed and broken promises that will never come to pass.

A politician makes hollow promises. Unprecedented in history!

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
That right there is one hell of a reach to make. On individual progressive issue, be it taxation, healthcare, social liberties, etc. why can't you just take each each issue based on merit? Why does there have to be some underlying, secret world domination agenda?

I'm sorry, but your post did sound quite paranoid. I didn't look at your co ...[text shortened]... by nature. So according to you both should be suspect for trying to implement a world order.

As I said before, whether you are working towards a one world order or are just taking issue by issue giving power to centralized government you would still be working towards the same goal which is centralized government so who cares what your ultimate objectives are since they accomplish the same thing?

And yes, I am from the US and conceed that both political parties have been working toward statist goals. I would refer to the Democrats as statists and the Republicans as neo-statists for the most part.

I would say that collectivism or statism is nothing other than human nature which is to seek power, secure power, and increase ones power. It is only when others fight for this power that they can be frustrated or even stopped.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A politician makes hollow promises. Unprecedented in history!

It makes you wonder why we ever believe anything they say, no?

Originally posted by joe beyser
And debt.

I once heard that the US pays interest on the national debt every year that is equivalent to 2 Katrina's a year. Can you imagine how many people could be helped with this kind of money instead of flushing it down the commode? It is just sickening

Originally posted by whodey
I once heard that the US pays interest on the national debt every year that is equivalent to 2 Katrina's a year. Can you imagine how many people could be helped with this kind of money instead of flushing it down the commode? It is just sickening

That money alone would feed a lot of people. Debt is control and that is the system we find ourselves in.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The main goal of the UN is to promote worldwide peace and stability by providing a platform for diplomatic negotiations between the most important heads of state. The UN has no possible way or seizing worldwide power, since it relies on its member states to supply peacekeeping forces.

As I have said before, the model to follow is the US federal government if the UN wants to seize power world wide. To do that, they need a world income tax and a standing army. At that point, they will become the monster that the US federal government has become. Of course, these concepts have already been proposed even though not adopted as of yet.

Originally posted by joe beyser
That money alone would feed a lot of people. Debt is control and that is the system we find ourselves in.

Exactly. It matter little who is at the helm of the country if all their resources MUST go towards paying off debt. In short, Obama and company are putting more and more shackles on us with every dollar they spend. The $64 question then becomes, is this purposfull or otherwise.

Originally posted by whodey
As I have said before, the model to follow is the US federal government if the UN wants to seize power world wide. To do that, they need a world income tax and a standing army. At that point, they will become the monster that the US federal government has become. Of course, these concepts have already been proposed even though not adopted as of yet.

Proposed by whom?

Originally posted by whodey
As I have said before, the model to follow is the US federal government if the UN wants to seize power world wide. To do that, they need a world income tax and a standing army. At that point, they will become the monster that the US federal government has become. Of course, these concepts have already been proposed even though not adopted as of yet.

I don't know for sure about that. What is released to the public is only what they want us to hear. Who is to say the UN isn't in control of key national armies. It would look as though a nation was going to war, instead of the UN. controlling it. I don't like the thought of our nuclear arsenel being in the hands of Republican or Democrats at this point. That may be paranoid right there, but we all have plenty of legit reasons to be paranoid.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A movement that does not exist can not move towards anything.

Is disinformation proof of ascendant conspiracy?

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly. It matter little who is at the helm of the country if all their resources MUST go towards paying off debt. In short, Obama and company are putting more and more shackles on us with every dollar they spend. The $64 question then becomes, is this purposfull or otherwise.

You're exaggerating here. The US public debt is about 60-70% of GDP, and even though the rising trend is worrying, that's about average for industrialized nations. Japan has a debt of almost 200% of GDP and they have not collapsed (yet?).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You're exaggerating here. The US public debt is about 60-70% of GDP, and even though the rising trend is worrying, that's about average for industrialized nations. Japan has a debt of almost 200% of GDP and they have not collapsed (yet?).

We are not alone in this world wide debt slavery scam. Thanks for proving the point.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Proposed by whom?

http://www.lewrockewell.com/paul/paul329.html
This was written by Senator Ron Paul

"Rest assured that the UN is absolutely serious about imposing a global tax. In fact, it has been discussing a global currency tax for years. The "Tobin Tax", named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN. The Tobin Tax is not the ony idea being considered. Some have suggested taxing all airline travel or carbon emissions.(LOL) The ultimate goal is an income tax, which will be imposed after we've all swallowed the concept of UN taxing authority. Fortunately, the House of REpresentatives last week passed my language in the 2007 Foreign Ooperations bill that prohibits the Treasury from paying UN dues if the organization attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on the US citizens. But that only protects us for another year. Given the stated goals of the UN, it would be foolish to believe the idea of a global tax will go away."


God bless Ron Paul. :'(

The statist knows that in order to accomplish their goals, they must move in increments. They must lie in wait for global catastrophy's or economic hard times in order to move in increments. They then point to "unfairness" within the world system, which will never go away, to try and justify their goals. This is how they gain ground that they never relinquish.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.lewrockewell.com/paul/paul329.html
This was written by Senator Ron Paul

"Rest assured that the UN is absolutely serious about imposing a global tax. In fact, it has been discussing a global currency tax for years. The "Tobin Tax", named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a ...[text shortened]... e foolish to believe the idea of a global tax will go away."


God bless Ron Paul. :'(

Who inside the UN is in support of this? What Security Council members are in favor of it?