Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Can someone explain to me in logical terms(no crazy crap allowed) the fear of globalism?

Posted 6 years ago on Nov. 13, 2011, 8:42 p.m. EST by fredastaire (203)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


By re-reading the post about globalism without fighting, read what all of the others besides you explained to me. Take it into consideration. These are the naked fears of your fellow Americans/Human beings. Both for and against. Regardless, they are afraid, JUST LIKE YOU.


I struggle with this. I can't wrap my head around the fear of globalism. I hear a lot about it but it's always crunched in with a lot of crazy people and volumes of unsubstantiated claim. Linking to a document doesn't mean the document backs your argument.

Chocolate is taking over the world http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/27/us-hershey-idUSTRE79Q2TF20111027 DOES NOT qualify.

Not sarcasm at all.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JonoLith (467) 6 years ago

Here's the difficulty.

You have a working economy with everyone doing pretty well. This is what happened in the 50s and 60s. Corporations paid their employees, and a certain level of respect was expected.

Then it became profitable to not pay those people, and to send all of their factories elsewhere, where they could enslave the population. Rather then paying an employee 100 dollars a day, they could pay an employee 5 cents a day. Rather then allowing the employee to move at a reasonable pace, they can set a timeline that dictates what a person should be doing second to second.

In the end the impoverish and enslave both nations.

The global movement to stop these abuses has just now started.

[-] 3 points by DrGonzo71 (44) from Beijing, Beijing 6 years ago

Fear? What about healthy skepticism? Perhaps there are those who believe pursuit of wealth and acquisition of stuff should be the predominant motivator in world affairs? After all, look what it's gotten us so far: environmental degradation, exploitation of developing countries and all the associated nasties you get with that, resource depletion, not to mention corporate cartels defining the playing field of the market itself. Globalization is not only the death of capitalism, but also the continuance of its worst aspects.

[-] 2 points by DrGonzo71 (44) from Beijing, Beijing 6 years ago

"shouldn't be the predominant motivator"

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

i would guess that past generations did not know enough about their foreign neighbors so out of lack of information, myth and conspiracy grew. maybe that is still the case.

[-] 0 points by roloff (244) 6 years ago

Thats right people that were not born in this time were stupid and we are smarter, I love knowing I am the smartest man alive

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

you live among people who are the smartest people to ever live. Those that are younger than you will be smarter than you when they get to your point in life. if you cant believe what i say, you have a sorry view of your fellow human and a juvenile grasp of history

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 6 years ago

That is a grossly incorrect assumption. I've lived long enough to see that the education my children are getting is not the same quality of education that I have received. Just because someone is born in a newer age that's not going to leave them predisposed to be "smarter".

[-] 1 points by roloff (244) 6 years ago

wow I know where you stand. I got to say this, I don't know why this arrogance comes from almost every person on this site that "They" are so much more in the know than the majority. I constantly read post that "Most people don't know" or "People just don't realize." It's laughable that you guys have no concept of humility, all of you are so much smarter than everyone else, it's laughable. It's funny OWS is supposed to represent the 99%, yet all the members have this idea that the 99% are a bunch of morons and the OWS supporters are the enlightened 1% of the 99%. Laughable all of you guys.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

dude, lighten up.

[-] 0 points by roloff (244) 6 years ago

I know you will never admit it but your an arrogant elitist know it all and you know what your a dime a dozen.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

well if having the ability to envision something new makes me a know it all, thank you. i talk big but walk lightly. you should try it.

[-] 0 points by roloff (244) 6 years ago

Making generalizations that past generations are dumber than you even though the reason our world is the way it is, is because of those fools. But then again you probably beleive the world we live in is the worst period of human history, but thats an assumption on my part

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

ideas get taken to a gross extreme and then cooler heads prevail. as long as we don't go attacking any other nations we, Americans, can gain trust in each other once more. but if we keep kicking the can down the way, it will blow up in our faces.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 6 years ago

Just because time passes, I don't think people necessarily get smarter. In fact, I think you could say that we have moved into a kind of dark age. There is a lot of suppression of knowledge now and dumbing down of the people.

[-] 1 points by julianzs (147) 6 years ago

What does it matter if they died because they did not know of germs, and had no anti-biotic. Today, we extend life by gene therapy, fly like a bird, and interact wireless?

[-] 0 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 6 years ago

This is a load. The people who built this nation used five times the brainpower used by today's OWS.

Let's see one of you try to build a nation with your bare hands.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 6 years ago

Better yet, Let's see YOU do it!

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 6 years ago

Yes, the monopoly of the global economy by the world's central banks who have brought us the financial mess we are in now and would most certainly create numerous sequels to it.

[-] 1 points by flashcards (39) 6 years ago

If you go to costco and buy some ground beef, it says PRODUCT OF:- USA,CANADA, ARGENTINA,MEXICO...... and at least 2 other countries. This is about 2lbs of ground beef. Anyone know what the average cow weighs.

If you cannot determine which country you food comes from, or State, or county, or Farm, or even which cow,...... they know you cannot blame them when you get sick. That's the goal of globalization, protection from the individual.

[-] 1 points by flashcards (39) 6 years ago

OK, I see a lot more about money and respect and such perhaps I need to explain my last point a little better. "That's the goal of globalization, protection from the individual." I as in individual cannot be a globalized entity.

My representatives, (the government?) are localized not globalized. They have tried to fight this a little over the years with things like the UN/ Trade embargoes etc, or to some extent the EEC can stand up to companies within Europe, but that is still local to a global corporation.

Global companies ARE more powerful than governments. Governments are supposed to protect the people, but are helpless. So they just give in to the corporations and make as much money as they can in the process. Hence the corporations have complete protection from the grievances of the individual, or their collective might under the current system.

I just felt that Ground beef at cosco was an apt example, without getting over complicated.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

globalisation is the next logical step. fear of the unknown is its only impediment.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

We don't have to wait for full globalism to answer that question.

Look at Haiti. It was decided that Haitians were to be factory workers to the world. They were forced off subsistence farms (their native pigs were even slaughtered) and into cities for the factories. Clinton played a huge role in this, which he now regrets. Now there are no factories and few farms, look how difficult that has made recovering from the hurricane.

NAFTA destroyed the Mexican corn farmers. They couldn't compete with subsidized U.S. corn. Forced to leave the land to survive they crowded into the cities and became illegal immigrants into the U.S. Now Mexico can't even feed itself, which is insane.

That's globalism. No freedom and decisions are made for you. Want to live your own life and make your own career/life choices. Not anymore. The efficiency principle rules. This nation will produce palm oil. That one will work in factories. Globalism is beyond neocolonialism, it is really neoslavery.

There can be no compromise with globalism. It will die or OWS will die (though OWS may not know this yet). OWS is the struggle to create societies that respond to human needs not corporate greed. Globalism is corporate greed on a gargantuan scale, a sociopathic scale.

Further there can be no democracy without national sovereignty. Those who think a global, democratic world is feasible at this point are fools of the worst sort (though useful fools for the globalists). The efficiency principal cannot allow for any democratic choice. We would merely be worker units to be moved around as the neoslavers saw fit.

[-] 1 points by frontierteg (137) from Kalamazoo Township, MI 6 years ago

2 words. European Union


[-] 1 points by LiveAndLetLive (79) from Fort Lauderdale, FL 6 years ago

globalism is a fear to those who think their country being no. 1 is their birth right and they should have all the luxuries whether or not they have worked towards it. We should all thrive towards a luxurious life, but also keep in mind that the rest of the world has an equal opportunity.

During the time of the Great Depression, people lived in poverty, took low wages, worked extra hours and kept doing so till the time they could turn things around and live a life of luxury! Now we complain that workers in other countries can do it cheaper because they can live in poverty and we being the privileged ones, should not be poor..... we should be able to afford luxurious life styles by flipping burgers and bagging groceries!

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 6 years ago

Yes the crazy shit basically. Now with many sovereign nations, if one nation oversteps their bounds, they will fall. People have opportunities, although many times limited, to leave oppressive nations. What if there is only one government and that one government wants to trample on the people? Where do we go? We can't leave the Earth. I guess I just explained to you a really possiblity without including any crazy conspiracy theories. I don't think anyone in their right mind would think that under a one world government, the elite would just start looking out for everyone's interests overnight. Just the thought of that should make most people at least a little worried.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

loss of identity by nation


[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

we are fighting against a certain type of globalism - one that pits workers in china against workers in the usa to create profit for large corporations. there is another type (or perhaps many types) where workers and people could join hands to exchange goods and help each other in different ways. no one is against being able to phone a friend in italy or travel to china - what globalism has come to mean is neoliberal economic exploitation of working people by and for the .01%

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

And this is a new concept you just realized existed. The only thing missing on the forum is the requirement that everyone who posts has to post their age and educational level and real life experience (Such as 69-MA-this part was posted in detail earlier)

Now lets go back to the days when. JCPenney was just starting out in business. I remember buying button-down short sleeve shirts for $2.50 each and fully made in America. What I can't believe is that Mr. Penney DID NOT shop around the country for the best manufacturer at the lowest price - thus practicing "neoliberal economic exploitation of working people" we just called it common sense back then,

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 6 years ago

Yes, we should go back to the Gilded Age when everything was wonderful.

People happen to like there being middle class. Everything we fought for over the 20th century, and the prosperity and relative equality that came with it, is being undone by neoliberal globalization. Time for us to fight again.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

back then it was called "exploitation of working people" - the neoliberal came later! how can you be 69 with an ma and still not very smart - did you read the question at the top of the page? if you did then you are in trouble - check it out then get back to me if i did not answer properly

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 6 years ago

I believe that as resource consumption normalizes and competition drives down the exuberant lifestyle we are used to people are afraid of losing what they have or having to work harder /and/or continually educate themselves to compete.

In short people want to have all their stuff and not work hard for it.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 6 years ago

Up until now, we have been a fear-driven society, easily manipulated as a whole by those who want us to do something, like buy a car or elect a politician. The recognition by those who are taking to the streets that we have been so consistently manipulated has caused them to look for alternatives -- the most effective of which (in my opinion) is working together to come to consensus, building trust in each other, and ultimately overcoming false fears.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Globalization ≠ Globalism.

I think you are confusing these two;

Globalization refers to the increasing unification of the world's economic order through reduction of such barriers to international trade as tariffs, export fees, and import quotas.

Globalism is the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.

Globalization can lead to imperialism as the USA seems to be the one country that is imposing its corporate/banking structures around the world. (reserve currency, etc.) A net negative activity.

I am all for Globalism and quite against Globalization. We need to keep all the worlds people networked together. We need to think about our actions as they effect the rest of the world, while focusing on local communities and networking those together in cooperation. Decisions need to be made by the local people that will be effected by those decisions. Washington (or any centralized power) should not be able to impose a mega-pipeline on local communities, for example.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

Thanks for making that distinction, since I didn't catch it when I made my response below. In light of this clarification, my position in the post below this rather best reflects my feelings about globalization, not globalism.

In agreeing that there are interests which all humanity has a stake in and should trump other lesser interests, I agree with the attitude of Globalism (I can't say as to the policy, I can see ways in which policies to codify it could be pragmatic and fair, completely toothless and ineffective, or ranging anywhere from unfairly implemented to opening the doors to consolidation of power and tyranny as much as Globalization has).

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Yes, as always the words are just words,. it is the implementations that really matter,. socialism for instance is a dirty word in america, however things like the post office, parks, schools, etc. are socialist institutions, and generally for the public good. I do not understand these people that oppose words or ideas without getting (or clarifying) an accurate definition.

I see the best social organisation we can devise as; Local General Assemblies, networked Regionally and then Globally. We should set standards for human rights, social justice, and protection of ecosystems, at each of these levels. So global standards are more generalized and regionally less so, with locally more specific, based on the situations and needs at each of these levels. I think of this in a globalist and an anti-corporate way, people based. It is the opposite to the proponents of top down corporate globalization. The power rises from the local people and the larger organisational levels are dependent on support of local groups of people.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 6 years ago

The same principals that led our founding fathers to the concept of separation of powers applies to globalism. "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.". Lord Acton.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

This is why I am not for it, One world government, whether overt, or the covert one the financiers are accused of trying to arrange, is just too much power in too few hands. We can't seem to keep tyranny at bay for too long (a few centuries at most), no matter what size the country... and until we've proven we can (in maybe 500 years) I am for many individual governments and treaties/ regional bodies to regulate between them, and will not support the idea of world governance, nor watch it happen without doing my part to fight it.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 6 years ago

Well stated.

[-] 1 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 6 years ago

The consolidation of power is not a good thing for humanity. It kills freedom of choice and promotes apathy and despair. Furthermore, it also creates a "theres nothing you can do about it! Just embrace it" class of "people" that drag down our collective standards socially and politically speaking. For examples of this, just look at the WWE and the raidio/music industry.Look at what the consolidation of their industries has done to the product and the lowered standards that people are accepting because

A. The "cool" alternative is unknown(for example CZW and XPW),thus gets no exposure.Therefore killing any new talent or any new concepts that may come from there.

B. The consolidated products value declines as a result of "lack of motivation to put forth an excellent product" and resentment from the "fan base"(not necessarily fans of pro wrestling,thats just a catch-all example that I am trying to use to better explain my position in a succinct way).

C. They choke out up and coming competition,thus silencing freedom of speech and a whole host of other rights as well. Its just inhumane. That and the fact that if we allow everything to be consolidated,what happens when one huge important piece comes crashing down? For an example,look at the euro and the EU.


[-] 1 points by zorno (386) 6 years ago

Globalism is another name for imperialism, and is based on the economic philosophy of free trade. It seeks to invest the lowest amount of money and get the greatest amount of return.

Globalism is what was responsible for bringing African slaves to the United States, as well as today making the Chinese slaves in their own country, working in sweatshops.

Globalists conducted the drug trade during the opium wars with China, getting about 10% of that nation hooked on the most harmful of drugs, and continue today using global banks to launder hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars in illicit money from international drug deals.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

globalism results in a country that cannot fend for itself america is too poor to launch a defense if a war does occur as a result of allowing globalization. is it worth that for the corporations to be allowed to decimate the u.s. economy

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

I understand the US did well with over seas trade since WW2

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

that was until the 70s when they started shipping jobs away. now we can see what actually happens with globilization. the country begins to decline in worth and strength.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

yes, it just sinking to towards global standards

is there a way ti raise global standards ?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

no it us or them you have to choose . and you choose you on a daily basis.. you are not trying to raise the standards of the of any of your immediate neighbors and you have to use that sentiment for globalization.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

Henry Kissinger in an address to the super secret Bilderberg Organization meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 said the following as transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates: "Today American's would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." _ "You have to understand. Future wars will be fought by capitalists and anti-capitalists as society polarises. When that happens, control of information will be as important as control of territory used to be in conventional conflicts. If you can stop your enemy from destroying your information, then you have a good chance of winning the war."

[-] 1 points by OneMansOpinion (76) 6 years ago

I hope that this is not seen as crazy. The fear is that there is always cheaper labor somewhere and the investment has in the past chased cheap labor. Companies are concerned with profits not people so they will move jobs to cheap labor markets to save a buck.

Consumers want cheaper and cheaper stuff so we are all happy to buy the new cheaper goods.

More and more money and jobs move overseas as a result.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 6 years ago

Consumers wanting cheaper stuff is not what motivated big corporations, it was cheaper labor period!

[-] 1 points by onemoe (78) 6 years ago

If no one bought the stuff cheap labor would not be very useful, now would it?

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 6 years ago

Globalism removed tariffs and trade restrictions. Corporations could liquidate US factories, get money and tax cuts abroad, report the income from liquidation as huge profit and cut themselves a bonus check. They often build dirty factories in other countries. Basically some countries were allowed to sell these corporations the right to pollute their country and harm the people as they employed them. Once the CEO had pocketed all he could get in short-term gains and tax cuts, he was faced with the cost to ship the products going up with gas prices. The people's wages were further reduced to close the gap in profits. A corporation benefited, but the people who lost jobs here didn't have money to buy as much stuff. And the people there didn't see good wages from the corporation and they often can't afford to buy what they produce. Globalization is great if you are in shipping but is it really economical to waste that much gas? It left unemployed people, it created slave labor, it polluted countries and the Corporations thrived. It was bad for people and good for wealthy investors and stockholders. It stinks.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 6 years ago

I know that is a basic simple way to view it, but I didn't want to bombard you with crazy conspiracy theories, just a simple look at the process and the results for the world. Everyone got poorer but the Corporations. So people all over the world find themselves getting bad wages and getting in debt, and the wealth has become highly concentrated in the the very upper 1%. To add insult to injury, bankers are taking over countries. Globalization looks an attempt to control the world by controlling resources (even we must go to war to do it) and owning the debts created by offering wages that didn't sustain them.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 6 years ago

Everyone is getting poorer because of corporate greed but in reality how long can that last with few consumers worldwide?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserver (-37) 6 years ago

May I share this with you:

the simple answer is to place a CAP on sales profit .. something that reflects federal interest rates .. the explanation is a little more complex .. let me try : the borrowed money that recently created the boom is mostly sitting in piles in the back rooms of corporate middlemen .. which they gained through enormous profits.. and now that there is very little borrowed money pouring into the economy .. including the government stimulus plan drying up .. the economy has recessed. Had there been a CAP on sales profits .. that money in the back rooms of corporations .. would still be in circulation .. creating jobs. It's really a correction in the mechanism , but one could also look at it as a CAP on greed .. either way .. it seems to correct the problem .. If implemented tonight .. retail prices would drop .. and we would immediately see an increase in sales .. and the rest is obvious.

A transparency law may be required: All retailers will display their cost price and profit will be added at the till.

ps. when we make a purchase we know how much we pay in sales tax but we do not know how much we pay in sales profit.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 6 years ago

so true!

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

This is probably the most simple of explanations that could be imagined and really leaves me baffled. Your suggestion for transparency is simply an impossible pipe dream, not to mention the epitomy of socialism at its finest.

So I have a store, I have a piano and a couch for sale. I tell you I paid $750 for the piano and $150 for the couch (pretty close to real life) I automatically receive my profit on each as calculated by my cash register (by the way - I hand calculate and hand print all sales- but that is beside the point)( and another interesting point - now you are telling me that I have to collect sales tax on each item sold - I DO NOT - I have to PAY sales tax on each item I sell whether I collect from you the customer or pay it out of my profit is MY choice not my cash registers.. Let's say a profit of 50% on each = $375 and $75 respectively. My transportation costs are $250 on the piano and $75 on the couch.

Excuse me - I have to go order a new sign - I am now a PIANO store - no more couches.

What you are proposing is exactly what WalMart does all the time - they just don't tell you their gross profit margin per item. But it all comes down to a set figure of let's say 18%. A new furniture store on the other hand operates on a gross profit margin of around 100%. I can just see our WalMart as a really nice music store displaying 1,000 or so pianos - why bother with all that little junk any more. As a matter of fact, our whole mall area would make a great piano store and all the retailers would be raking in the cash.

I appreciate your sharing your ideas with the world. However, there is a reality in everything and tearing down the entire system to get to some unspecified goal, with no detailed plan in mind, and no understanding of how the rest of the units (manufacturers, transporters, etc) are involved just leaves us with another questionable and hollow idea.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserver (-37) 6 years ago

the transportation costs would not be included in your profit margin .. they would be included in your costs.

but your not seeing the whole objective ..

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

There is no way I can even guess what the puzzle looks like just being given one or two pieces, sorry about not seeing the whole picture.

Kinda like the older person that bought the jigsaw puzzle, took it home and tried to put it together. Not making any progress at all, called her grandson to come help. He came over to help, looked at the puzzle and said - it's OK grandma, let's just put the corn flakes back in the box.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserver (-37) 6 years ago

well you mentioned corporate greed being the problem along with lack of consumers .. than you go on to tell me you sell pianos ..?

I offered an idea to cap corporate greed .. which would increase consumer purchasing power .. thus level the playing field .. yes a very simple solution .. with a somewhat complex understanding..

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

I did not mention co r p orate greed. And I only ment i oned one p i a n o.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

Perhaps you should deal with one post at a time. Well, I did not mention corporate greed and I only made reference to my one piano and one couch as an example.

But I am a small business with less than five employees including myself and I want no part of your plan to cap corporate greed as it would apply to my situation. I simply would have to hire more people to implement this program forcing me to close my business NOT to even mention my total aversion to more govenment intervention into my business and my personal life (price fixing is another term for it).

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserver (-37) 6 years ago

you are right , it was barb mention s corporate greed

and you are also correct in saying my proposal is a very simplified version .. I had hoped it would be enough to give a basic idea of the formula , pointing out the error of the system and a quick correction.. a simple tweek and tune for capitalism. overall the economy is a huge picture .. but it runs on a simple method the circulation of money which at this point is not being circulated fast enough to produce enough jobs .. it is what is known as the trickle down effect.. all that money stashed away by corporations through sales profits,, is not coming back into society/the economy fast enough .. it's trickling back .. and as we say " trickling down"

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

And there are various reasons that you do not see this trickle down happening fast enough. Case in point - I live in an area with some rather significant reserves of oil and natural gas. This whole operation has been killed by environmentalist who think that their way to control possible damage to the earth through drilling should involve an extra $100,000 per well. So the local corporations are holding back on their reserves of cash until they can afford to implement these regulations. In the meantime, the local ecomonies in areas where this is a significant source of revenue for both large and small businesses is holding its breath (and cash too) because the cash flow-trickle down if you will-had a noose put around its neck by a small group putting enough pressure on the powers that be to not only put that noose on but to tighten it every chance they get.

Experts are one thing, people with agendas are another. Your prices for food have gone up quite a bit this past year(s) unless you grow your own with no assistance from any outside factors.. Can you tell me why and how does you CAP idea and corporate greed enter into this in any way to prevent these costs from going up even more??

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

Hey FriendlyObserver. Didn't mean to crowd in but this computer progam has its limits and there was no "reply" line left.

Anyhow, I fully agree that it does pay to be cautious - but not to the point of stupidity. I can not argue in any way that someone dropped the ball regarding the Gulf disaster and that they are paying the price today, as are we all, both economically and environmentally.

Not to change the subject but what is the difference in a large corporation sitting on a pile of cash and our country sitting on a large pile of debt?? they both got a pile.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserver (-37) 6 years ago

well than you understand how that noose feels for the 99% ,with large corporations sitting on a pile of cash .. on not spending it. I say we should not have let them take so much in profits in the first place .. they took way over their cost base plus .. and now the economy is in a slump .. and yes even the small middleman is feeling it .. like yourself .. waiting for something big to come along .. not sure how much longer you can hold out ..

I am aware of the environment argument and pipline situation .. but look at the gulf disaster last year .. it pays to be cautious right?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

It is not only being stashed away by corporations, I would propose that the majority of the businesses in this country from the Mom-Pop operations up to the largest corporations are trying to do the same and for some pretty good reasons. As a very small businessman, I have no choice but to make every effort I can to have cash on hand, due to the uncertainity we live in today (the uncertainity of Obama Care-that one alone could put me out of business overnight or cause me to reduce employees to -0-. Are my taxes going to be more next year. How much longer can I afford the transportation costs including a 25% surcharge, on the goods that I buy if I can't raise my prices to cover that cost because of a depressed economy. You throw the government into this mess, dictate my gross profit margin, etc and I am outta here.

Why does any outside source (government or otherwise) have the right to dictate that I HAVE to add that profit margin onto any item that I sell. What if I DO NOT want to make that much on that item or may choose not to charge that person that much for that item due to their circumstances. What you are really talking about is taking my total freedom to make choices that I think would be in the best interest of my business, my family and my customers AWAY and I have no reason to support that in any way. You simply take away every incentive to operate a business. Why should I search out the cheapest manufacturer for that couch to sell in my store at a fair price when I could actually make a higher profit margin by selling them a couch that I paid a lot more for. If your intent is to add a profit margin based on a % to an item as generic as a couch, I will definitely seek out the most expensive manufacturer out there, sell it for the highest price allowed by your law and smile all the way to the bank-greedy capitalist that you think I am.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserver (-37) 6 years ago

that everyeffort you are making to save some extra cash is in way tightening your noose..

The CAP would be placed on between all points of buy and sell.

and this would infact revive the economy .. loosening that rope around your neck..

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 6 years ago

Well, to save a million word rant, just ask Russian, Chinese and Indian medical doctors why they live in the USA, if they come from Globalist paradise. This should open your eyes to the bright Globalist future! [grin] Match your profession, hoped for profession or small business to their economy. How would you be living, if you did not have a US middle class to service and you depended on the Russian, Chinese or Indian middle class? What would your standard of living be like, in China, Russia or India? If you are better off, good for you, if not, then you get the problem with Globalization.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

Well, just be sure your facts are correct. I is my understanding that there is a movement of some medical personnel to return to their homelands as people become more able to afford their services and their committment to serve in their homelands override the monetary issues.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 6 years ago

Ronjj, Quite the opposite. All things being held equally so, if we liberalized immigration of medical doctors, to the USA, I would expect to see a flood of doctors leaving Russia, India and China, to take advantage of the artificially high salaries of doctors, in the USA, until such time as there was a generalized equilibrium in career outcomes, among the various Nations. In India, a techie can make more money, in a month, ($1597) than an Indian medical doctor makes in a year ($1000) and an American bus driver can make, before taxes, what ten Indian medical doctors make, before taxes. An Indian MBA would make $129,275 a year, with a few years experience, In India an MBA could afford to hire an MD to mow his lawn! [laughing on the floor] The American upper middle class and the American rich, might not be the unique snow flakes they think they are. They should be careful about what they wish for, when they support Globalism. [giggle]

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

Your argument is based on the "if we", and "I would expect to see", premise. Mine was just an understanding based on some professional articles I read somewhere.

Both have about the same validity. Worthless.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 6 years ago

You cannot speak with certainly, on a happenstance, that did not occur. You can only make an educated guess and see how your guess plays out. In my experience, doctors from India, China and Russia, in the USA do tend to express the attainment of a higher lifestyle, as their motivation for leaving their homelands. How representative are they? I would certainly not call a dozen doctors a scientific sample, I would also not depend on statistics to make an informed guess. Until Russia, India and China, pay competitive salaries and more Indian, Russian and Chinese workers have insurance, the US will tend to gain doctors, from these Nations. This is logical and more likely than not, if not certain.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

SO ------------ your point is.

  1. I cannot speak with any certainty. I agree with you. I really didn't say I could - only made reference to what may become a trend in the opposite direction. We will both have to wait on that one to play out.
  2. I fully agree with your entire statement. Very good picture of what exists today. All you have to do is to read the local paper and note the new doctors joining or opening practices in our town to see the picture as it is today - not a lot of news there.
  3. UNTIL - is the only real word that we are talking about here is it not. You have very clearly stated that UNTIL such and such happens, "the US will tend to gain doctors....." I have no reason to doubt your logic or conclusions and your pronounced certainties.
  4. I was merely pointing out that if this is actually the future as you describe it with some certainity, that considering the UNTIL matter, we may be seeing the initial (if very, very slight) reversal of this trend.

Do I think that they or this will happen overnight and that the only doctor left in town will be the homegrown one - I did not say or even indicate that. I just hope that if the trend gets to going big time that they don't convince him to go with them and leave me with no doctor. And can you even stretch you mind to think that there may become a time when doctors from the USA will be going to China or India to work because they would be paid more and have a hugh - really hugh - client base to draw from.

Had Chinese food for lunch. My fortune said "He who can't see the future will run into a big brick wall". You can, if you have the time, apply this same natural equalization of resources-manpower to China or any other like nation. There are probably a not a lot of Chinese workers that see their full life goal as one of making trinkets and figuarines for the American market for pennies an hour. At some point the resources-manpower will equalize and the Chinese will be outsourcing jobs to the USA.

If you are over 80 years old, you may not live to see this day. If you are younger, watch it happen. Doctors - trinkets - whatever - I AM CERTAIN that it will happen.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 6 years ago

There will come a time when doctors will be obsolete, due to artificial intelligence, being applied to current remote human controlled robotics. We already have the technology for doctors to apply their trade remotely, even allowing doctors to perform operations, remotely. We will be able to treat HIV,though an artificial nano drone immune system and to better adapt ourselves to other and various kinds of threats to our well being. I can envision a money-less market system, run by a Central authority and the submission of the World, including India, to that authority. The desires of consumers will be known in real time, using a supply chain management system, not unlike the one that WalMart uses, allowing for the optimal allocation of resources for billions of human beings, that is the willing human beings.

If a person is willing to submit to the socialization process of the central authority, willing to commit, before his or her loved ones and peers, to collaborate with the central authority, than this person will not have to labor, only be loyal and be an active and supportive part of the relationship networks, within the Party. The ones that reject the central authority will be rehabilitated; given a chance to make public commitments and to gain a consistency in their desire to collaborate, with the central authority. The billionaires will accept the desires of this central authority or be eliminated, as the Communists will run this World, no doubt. I AM CERTAIN that it will happen.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

You really didn't need to write that much. Simply call it slavery of the masses under the leadership of one or a few.

I AM CERTAIN that it WILL happen too. I even have a very old book on my desk that totally describes the progess in detail. Your utopia has nothing new to say, nor do you. You will find it outlined completely in the last chapter of the book. It is called Revelations.

If you think any part of your verbage presents anything new, you should read this book. I think you will find it facinating and much to your liking.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 6 years ago

Revelations! [rolling on the floor laughing] No, I have not read about the coming of MJ Morrow! [giggle] I must be the anti-Christ, then! I always imagined that the anti-Christ would be taller and better looking, than me. Oh, well, we will just have to get Brad Pitt to play me in the movie version! [wink] I fully intend to go for a D.B.A. and to create the blueprint for such a system and I intend to write about this system and to pitch it to the Nations of the World. While I would like the US to consider it, I believe that the elders of China, will better see the wisdom of a society based on socialization and harmonious relations, between Citizen and State. If you commit to be loyal to the State, goods and services will be provided freely to you and all you need to do is work in a pro- social way, work within your relationship network, up the food chain, into more senior positions within the Communist Party. This is no more slavery, than the relationship of mother and child, older brother and younger sister.

This is the natural order of humanity. There is no more oppression, under Stalin, just a wonderful reward for active collaboration and participation, in a harmonizing socialization process. The model depends on Social Psychology and not violence. The methods I advocate will generate tremendous collaboration and active participation. This is something I know through Chinese research, using the same techniques to illicit positive collaboration on the part of US POWS, during the Korean War. Well over 90% of American POWs collaborated actively with the Chinese facilitators, weaning them off of their violent thoughts and US Military indoctrination, falsely convincing these US soldiers, that they could only fight and kill Communists, rather than live along side them and work with them harmoniously.

If US soldiers would commit to collaborate with the Chinese, their sworn enemies, by socialization, what results can we achieve, when we do not start from such a position of opposition and hate, but from the point of commitment to our fellow Citizen and to our Nation? The people need not fear the State, for the process is about their committing to be full members of the State, full members of the Party. My relatives once lived in China. Harmony between State and Citizen is nothing to fear and everything to strive for. When things work properly, the elders advance the best interest of the young and the young swear fidelity to the order of the relationship network and to the senior members. Over time, the junior members become senior members and in turn must look out for the young. If only my elders in society would commiit to my best interests and I to that of their interests, but the USA need make life difficult for her people, both old and young, even with the resources of a Super Power, no less! [rolls eyes]

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

I assume I am quite your elder. I have determined that it would be in my best interest for you to help me deliver furniture each day after work at the store. You only have to work two hours a day, all the rest of the time are yours to do with as you want. Now, what can I do that would be in your best interest.

(rolls eyes - both inward)

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 6 years ago

My system involves the following:

A socialization process that offers a life, without labor and a market that satisfies desire, without money, in exchange for the Citizen engaging in a process of socialization; whereby the Citizen becomes a collaborator and active member of the State. While Citizenship wll be a right of birth, Party membership will be a voluntary process. If they want to toil for money launderers, let them be the servants and farmhands of your great oligarchs; the masters of the Universe! [giggle] The choice is theirs. Accept a life without labor or need of money or not. If they initially refuse the system, they will be offered rehabilitation or exile, that is exile from the benefit of the State system. Let them sell their bodies for sea shells, suck up to ugly men and listen to the raving of Ayn Rand types.

If they accept the life afforded by the State, they have a reciprocal obligation to enter into an active process of socialization; where they will become active collaborators and full members of the Communist Party. They owe their loyalty to their senior relationship network members and must work up the food chain. Trade sex, trade labor, trade thoughts, for sea shells, supplementing income, while moving chairs, for more sea shells or accept the benefit of a money- less market system and be able to marry the person you want to, not the person you need to, to get some sea shells...choices, choices. [grin]

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

Very well said. Very well said indeed. Haven't the foggest what you are talking about but it is fine with me - talk on. Freedom of speech etc.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 6 years ago

Ronjj- My system allows the individual to make a choice- accept a life free from toil, where we will have automated artificial intelligence provide the goods and services demanded by participating Party members, in exchange for freely entering into a socialization process, that will culminate in the Citizen becoming a full and senior member of the Party or the Citizen may elect to work for sea shells. That is, the citizen may toil, under the current Capitalist system, working for as little sea shells, as the banking sea shell launderers and executives can get them to work for.

They may be sea shell diggers and marry a mate with many sea shells, if they don't want to work for sea shells. They can sex their way into sea shells, too. Now do you see? They can sell their bodies, labor, time, intelligence, just about anything, in exchange for sea shells or whatever you want to use for money, that is, see? It is the choice of the Citizen. What do you not understand? The choice is working for sea shells or a money-less fully automated economy and a pathway to senior positions in the Communist Party.

I am creating a system based on individual preference, free will choice, technology, social relationship networking and Social Psychology. There is no wrong answer. I give the State the ability to reward collaboration, in a way that will permit Citizens to marry the mates, they want to marry, rather than the mates money necessitates they marry . If you want to marry a poet or a day dreamer, you may and there is no harm in this. If you want to opt out and toil and labor, for the ultra rich, go right ahead. If the people of the World, vote by majority will, to do away with their Governments that force Capitalist labor, inequity and money systems on them, the Communists may opt to use an automated artificially intelligent military to free the people of the World, in exchange for control of their resources; freeing the liberated from involuntarily having to labor and suffer. If they want to suffer, they can, but rich banker boy isn't going to force them too, no shock and awe, nada.

Anyone trying to kill us, for obeying the will of the people of the World will be killed, by artificially intelligent war machines. Anyone forcing labor on the World, where the people have decided that enough is enough, will face regime change. Resources will be under the control of the State and used to make the goods and services of the people, now absorbed into the expanding Nation State. Any Free Mason type twit, messing with the freewill of the people of the World, by using violence to suppress the people of the World, is going to get his or her heart ripped out of his or her psychopathic chest cavity, by an automated Communist war machine; clad in shiny red star and all. ?

The end goal is to free the World from involuntary labor and to allow the people of the World to, of their own free will, elect to participate in a State, that allows any citizen to enter into a process of socialization, whereby the Citizen can become a senior member of the Government, while enjoying the benefits of a money-less, worker-less, market system. If the Citizens insist on working for sea shells, we can accommodate such a voluntary system, but the State controls the raw resources, so the money types will not be making goods and such. Obviously the money launderer types will never attain the power and dominance they once had; when they forced inequity and misery on the World, for the benefit of smug rich types. Certainly, I-bankers and Executives will not be enforcing poverty or humility, on the people of the World, within the territories of the World, we have liberated; through freedom, democracy and Red Star clad, Martian War Horde type, tripods.

Is that bare bones concept clear enough? Do I live up to this mythical figure, this anti-Christ, you mentioned in Revelations? [grin] I cannot imagine that I would, since I would not be a most senior member of the future Party and I would be married, with a kid and trying to make my wife happy, while participating in my social relationship network. Get George Clooney to be the anti-Christ. He is tall and good looking, like I imagine the Prince of Darkness. He seems like too much of a nice guy, though. Meh, he can work on his Sith like, evil side and all, I suppose. [giggle]

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

Great fictional book. You really should consider selling it to a large production corporation and making a killing off the movie rights, you may even choose money, sea shells, or your share of the actual movie reels reproduced. Can't beat that deal, can you. Compared to todays' movie releases, I think you actually have a chance at it.

You might want to change the "free will" part of your book if you are only going to represent two options for the general workers. Just a suggestion and no charge for same.

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 6 years ago

How many general workers do you envision in a money-less automated market system? Better yet, how many people do you envision opting out of getting what they want, without having to work for money? Seriously, no fiction, this is going to be a real option for humanity, Ronjj. I can explain this system, in great detail and much of the technology to implement it, already exists, even if it is not used in this fashion. For instance, WalMart uses a supply chain management system to track consumer demand on a store by store basis, that is updated in real time.

I harness this supply chain management technology, I will explain how to improve upon it, to optimize the servicing of demand, in real time, within the money-less market system. I will write a book about it all, most assuredly. Some things do not exist, but are within reach, within a few years time, in all likelihood. I will point to existing technology and recommend what must be introduced, at a minimum, to implement this. This is going to be a how to create and operate a money-less market system book, not a Star Wars Episode. [wink] The only fiction, is the story about the sustainability of the, so called, New World Order. [giggle] People have wanted stuff for zero dollars, since I can remember. I don't remember anyone begging to be screwed over, by I-Bankers. Good to chat with you Ranjj. I will be away for a few days, but let us debate often! You can be my number one detractor! You can write a book too, titled, "Meh! MJ, his batsh-t money-less market system and the would be Communist Anti-Christ: The case for sea shells and the reign of the I-Bankers; the Series 7 master race." [giggle] [bows]

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 6 years ago

Globalization is the ultimate equalizer. In enough time, economic levels will be evened out all across the world. However, for that to happen, quality of life in the first world companies will fall as third world countries rise. Globalization itself is only bad if you're on the wrong size of the equalization.

[-] 0 points by DrGonzo71 (44) from Beijing, Beijing 6 years ago

IN THEORY! In actual practice, developing countries have been trapped into deals whereby policy was dictated by corporate mandates, often which included raping and pillaging for resources, storage of toxic waste, and and sweet labor deals which didn't turn out so sweet for the locals.

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 6 years ago

And we probably shouldn't be purchasing products produced under such conditions.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 6 years ago

We don't have much of a choice since much of food goods is being imported from other countries.

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 6 years ago

Most of our meats and fruits and vegetables are still grown here in the US. We import a lot of prepackaged junk food though. So, yes we very much so do still have choices.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

And the lot of junk food specifically is:

Please get me into the loop here. A few examples or countries of origin. I go through the grocery store and don't find this junk food you are talking about (Mexican yes, Some Chinese, yes - but even the fortune cookies are made in San Fan.

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 6 years ago

A lot of the junk ingredients to make junk food is imported. Yes, the chips ahoy cookies might be made in the US, but all the preservatives and such was most likely imported. China has a huge preservative/gluten/filler export business. They can make that stuff so much cheaper than we can.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

I see your point regarding the junk ingredients but you threw me a loop in your statement by identifying them as "prepackaged", BUT I will still have to do some research to see if I can verify your statement.

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 6 years ago

Well you wouldn't put preservatives into something that is meant to be sold fresh. The stuff with a shelf life generally comes in packaging.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

You have't eaten a cucumber lately have you??

How about that bunch of grapes??

Check for a preservative on your apple??

How about that loaf of bread in the deli?? unpackaged by the way

Ever wonder why the top of that beef roast is red and the bottom is brown??

AHHHHHHHHH the beauty of fresh food. Shipped 3,000 miles and stored for who knows how long - but still FRESH as the day it was picked, shot or made.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 6 years ago

"We don't have much of a choice since much of food goods is being imported from other countries."

That is exactly what she said. That we have no choice but to eat imported food because that's all that is available. And I'm pointing out that that is very incorrect.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

Finally I have seen the error of my ways. You were replying to barb and I was replying to you.

I do find that your comments were much more on the spot. The USA is one of the biggest food exporters in the world. You only have to make a short visit to the Gulf area to see this in action.

Also, can you imagine a country such as the USA that can out produce its' ability to even get the product to market as fast as it comes in. Visit Kansas for this information.

Man, we live in the land of plenty - God has blessed us beyond measure.

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 6 years ago

Regardless, her point was that all of our food is imported and that simply isn't the case. And yes you can find all the ingredients without the super processes additives, you just have to pay more for them.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago


I am so far out of synch on this posting business, i need to stop for a minute to get my bearings.

Great talking with you, though a cup of coffee in a mall cafe would have solved a lot of this confusion brought about by the tech marvel of the century - the computer.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

Daennera - are you sure your interpretation of "her point" is accurate. Please read what she had in her post - totally opposite of what you just said.

And yes, you do pay more to purchase foods without additives - I agree.

It is so commonplace that it has become the norm and thus cheaper. Kinda like trying to purchase a vehicle without a radio in it. You will pay a premium for that vehicle without the radio.

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 6 years ago

Well when you make your own bread it is. And apples are waxed, it's not like they're injected with preservatives.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

NO - when you grind your own wheat and salt, and pump your own water to make your own bread it MAY be.

That wax you know is probably a petroleum product for some foreign country too.

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 6 years ago

The down side to globalism as what we are seeing in europe now, when you have a large number of countries all tied to the same financial system, such as the euro or a world currency as some would like to see, is that when one country fails it can bring down the entire system as it is threatening to do right now in europe, when each country is mostly sustainable that is does not rely on too much outside money and goods then if another country fails it will not bring down your country. It is much safer to keep financial institutions separated. Also getting goods from 10,000 miles away is not the best solution for sustainability in your own country let alone the amount of fossil fuels wasted when the same items could be produced in you rhome state/county. Having one world bank fail could take down the economy of every single country if all the money in ther world was connected to only one currency produced by one global bank reserve

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 6 years ago

Every business expert I've seen (I'm a fanatic for business shows) has said the real problem in Europe is that they formed a monetary union with no fiscal union. Every one of them has said, paraphrasing, "It's time for the United States of Europe." Recent comments by Angela Merkel seem to echo this sentiment.

[-] 1 points by invient (360) 6 years ago

For me, I think the fear of globalism is a loss of a big part of your identity.

If the world is globalized, and nation-states become less relevant, what does it mean to be patriotic? Holding onto an old relation to arbitrary borders that just dont matter anymore...

Globalization leads to an inevitable course towards solidarity, wherein American exceptionalism must be denied as no greater than anyother countries exceptionalism.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 6 years ago

Globalization is evil on all counts since it does produce no loyalty to your country and could care less about the environment. Corporations that hopscotch across the globe can avoid being responsible for global destruction in the eyes of the legal system.

[-] 1 points by invient (360) 6 years ago

I do not see globalization as inherently evil. I see it as a natural progression of civilization that during the interim period, entities like corporations, governments, and people can act morally or immorally as human nature provides.

I just see the fear associated with globalization in the context of the transfer from nation-state to nation-stateless.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 6 years ago

GLoBaliSm empowers multinational corporations under the wto. What happens is that humans do not matter, only corporations and government can have complaint with standing in courts. GATT This is how it worked to create unaccountability and destroy environment in the BP leak of the Gulf.--


Now, this abuse of corporate power seriously damaging vital habitat and elements is defended tangibly by youtube of google because a video providing SOLUTION to oil dependency was blocked from being used as a response video. Here is that story and video.-----


Choke on this. The internet .com promotes globalism and truth has to struggle to be found. We need the usenet back, the "global village".-

We need an article 5 convention under the US consitution NOW!

Article V conference, Mark Meckler Lawrence Lessig at harvard 9/25/11-video comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-7ikbvu0Y8

Lessig power point on article V http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk

Lots of facts here about Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html

Article V conference, Harvard 9/25/11-video comments http://vimeo.com/31464745

[-] 0 points by stevo (314) 6 years ago

Yes..one big happy family...kum bay a.... world peace,, we honor you mother Earth.

[-] 0 points by Leynna1 (28) 6 years ago

Listen to what Aaron Russo has to say about the Globalists:


[-] 0 points by rickMoss (435) 6 years ago

I wouldn't focus on one thing because we have so many problems why bother. We should focus on a plan of attack. We don't have to dwell on the obvious.

We need a better way to fight back. Protesting is courageous! But we have to do very big things to solve our very big problems. What worked in past is not going to work now. This is different.

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )

Free people shouldn't act or live like slaves...

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 6 years ago

We have never been free.

[-] 0 points by fredastaire (203) 6 years ago

this is pure spam. at least make your own thread and bump it.

[-] 0 points by rickMoss (435) 6 years ago

Don't be in idiot your whole life. No ones dumping on you. Even you know this was a ridiculous thread. At least I stand for something that's real, besides wasting other peoples time with nonsense.


[-] 0 points by fredastaire (203) 6 years ago

an angry spammer. i like it. nobody said dumping. i said spamming. you can get your site up but not read?

[-] 0 points by rickMoss (435) 6 years ago

You are the spammer, empty head. I'm sharing new ideas, something you lack. You're wasting my time. Now run along and play with your keyboard. I have important work to do. I might even be able to save your fool life...


[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 6 years ago

Because it leads to One World Government which presages the Anti-Christ (my Mother was a 7th Day Adventist ;o).

There's PROOF at http://www.gjcn.org/2009/06/the-antichrist-one-world-government-mark-of-the-beast/

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 6 years ago

Well if do end up with one world government they better find an island so the global population can't get to them.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 6 years ago

That good advice, and it's easily done. They could all just live on Bermuda.

[-] 1 points by fredastaire (203) 6 years ago

Do you have a link? I can totally believe this but never seen it given as a reason before.

[-] 1 points by fredastaire (203) 6 years ago

ok. I am not going to laugh. I will take this into consideration for the moment.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 6 years ago

Don't laugh. Google "One World Government" and look at how many hits you get that relate it to the "end of days." Christians all over the world believe this, and it's one reason why Globalization is viewed with suspicion. Ironically, the COULD just take the path of the Zionists in England who advocated the refounding of Israel in the hope it would force the second coming per prophesy. In this regard Christians should be FOR Globalization insofar as it would accelerate rapture ;o)

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

Excuse me - if you believe in the coming of the Anti-Christ do you really think that you have the power to in any way to effect God's plan for that timed arrival.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 6 years ago

Hey ! I had a smiley-face at the end of that sentence !

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

I happen to believe what your Mother believed. Only time will tell - only time will tell.

Smiles back at you.

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 6 years ago

i think we do, don't re-elect the anti-christ next year :P

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

He will still be around - but I agree, out of our house (WhiteHouse) would be a good move.

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 6 years ago


I really don't believe he is any Anti-Christ. and I'm not all that religious.

But if I were I sure as hell would keep my eye on him.

I do believe he is an enemy of this nation, and fooled enough to get away with it.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

Thank you - I fully agree, as is our responsbility regarding all of our leaders, judges, and those elected, appointed or hired to serve the people.

[-] 0 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 6 years ago

Simply that you do not understand the World or the United States.

[-] 1 points by fredastaire (203) 6 years ago

More crazy talk. that is exactly what I am talking about. That is all I ever see offered on this topic. If you rally don't like something, it's usually for a reason. None is given.

[-] 0 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 6 years ago

I don't think you know what you are talking about. It's funny that you cannot even recognize that globalism is the cause.

Good luck getting the majority of the global population behind globalism. It's a futile cause.

[-] 1 points by fredastaire (203) 6 years ago

I didn't say I was for or against. Only asking a question at this point.

[-] 0 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 6 years ago

OK. I'll ask you. What is globalism?

[-] 1 points by fredastaire (203) 6 years ago

Well. I think we are almost there. After a deal with Iran, Russia and China today, The world will now be divided by two collective opposing powers. The unification of those powers will qualify as total globalism.

[-] 0 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 6 years ago

So you are suggesting that the World will split into two powers completely unified with each other?

That's not going to happen. You are forgetting that we are the most powerful nation on the planet. You will not see the United States in a union with any other country in your lifetime. We will not adopt a common currency and we will not adhere to International law. The UN or similar faction will not govern these "two powers" you speak of.

The problem with this fantasy is that no one ever takes human nature into account. You are forgetting that people are still highly proud of their sovereignty and will fight to defend it.

If this is what OWS is truly about, it will be squashed like a grape.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 6 years ago

The United States is losing its most powerful nation status as we speak. Our power lied in the American people who were the leading edge of technology produced by the people. The owners sold everybody out and moved it out of this country.


[-] 0 points by fredastaire (203) 6 years ago

The proponent of the topic offers spam AND crazy talk. Not helping.


[-] 0 points by fredastaire (203) 6 years ago

wow. big shot huh? good for you.