There will be a new world order

[Guest guest]

You And Me Against The Brave New World

With almost complete unanimity, the two major parties are walking in lock-step

in their support for President Bush's efforts to merge the United States into a

trilateral hemispheric government with Mexico and Canada. In addition, for the

most part, the major media (including Fox News) remains virtually silent on the

subject. Furthermore.....

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin310.htm

by Pastor Chuck Baldwin

 

 

 

" Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest

of life by the power of the spirit. " - Aurobindo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta.

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is the agenda of both political parties. You must have noticed

that Gatt and Nafta were passed very quickly. Members of Congress

said they had not a chance to read it - if they ever could have.

They tried to, or did, pass it in the dead of night. This was under

Clinton.

 

Both parties are pushing us in that direction. THe only ones who ran

who were on the 'side' of our citizens were Ralph Nadar and Pat

Buchannan. Although one of these men is a Conservative and one a

Libral, they each care for this country, which is more than you can

say for the hypocrites in charge now.

 

 

 

, Jagannath

Chatterjee <jagchat01 wrote:

>

> You And Me Against The Brave New World

> With almost complete unanimity, the two major parties are walking

in lock-step in their support for President Bush's efforts to merge

the United States into a trilateral hemispheric government with

Mexico and Canada. In addition, for the most part, the major media

(including Fox News) remains virtually silent on the subject.

Furthermore.....

> http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin310.htm

> by Pastor Chuck Baldwin

>

>

>

> " Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but

the conquest of life by the power of the spirit. " - Aurobindo.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta.

>

>

[Guest guest]

You are right. We have to now find an alternative to democracy, the

hypocrites have mastered the system too well and have learnt how to

bend it to suit their objectives. Long back someone had raised the

question, " Democracy is majority rule, but what if the majority are

corrupt? " . Well, it may not have exactly happened that way but

democracy has fallen far short of its objectives. The plan of putting

power in the hands of the people has simply not fructified.

 

In India we have a multiparty system and since the last few elections

we are seeing a fractured mandate where coalition amongst parties

have become necessary. However this system too has its own drawbacks

as the parties are dividing the people in various categories to have

a niche for themselves.

 

We have to somehow devise a system whereby we can have a general vote

as well as votes on important issues. This may slow down

administration a bit but will not leave us at the mercy of

politicians for a full term after they are elected.

 

We can no longer leave politics to the politicians. We have to fight

for the right to kick their _ _ _ as and when required. Those people

should realise that they are the elected representatives, the

servants of the people and not Gods descended from heaven to rule a

devoted and submissive population.

 

Regards,

Jag.

 

, " patram81 "

<patram81 wrote:

>

> This is the agenda of both political parties. You must have

noticed

> that Gatt and Nafta were passed very quickly. Members of Congress

> said they had not a chance to read it - if they ever could have.

> They tried to, or did, pass it in the dead of night. This was

under

> Clinton.

>

> Both parties are pushing us in that direction. THe only ones who

ran

> who were on the 'side' of our citizens were Ralph Nadar and Pat

> Buchannan. Although one of these men is a Conservative and one a

> Libral, they each care for this country, which is more than you can

> say for the hypocrites in charge now.

[Guest guest]

Once more, and for the millionth time, we hear the same nonsense. A single

issue " trade agreements, " or, another favorite, " welfare reform, " is trotted

out; Clinton is always mentioned (and blamed), and based on this cherry picking

view of the two parties, based on these narrow focuses, we're supposed to

conclude that the two parties are " the same. " Where have I heard this before?

It's complete bullshit.

 

The two political parties in this country, confront literally and substantvely.

" thousands " of issues of the greatest importance and complexity, from matters of

war and peace, to a " woman's right to choose, " and when these differences are

viewed in their entirety, the two major political parties are vastly different.

The worst result of this kind of thinking, is that it produces despair. If the

two major parties are " the same, " there's no hope, no possiblity of change.

This is precisely the feeling republicans want you to have. They're not going

to change their ways, so that the only job they have to do, is persuade you that

there's no difference between the two parties.

 

Even when seen from a narrow perspective, views about " the way " a policy is

implemented, can make a huge difference. Clinton is a conservative democrat, so

his views in a few areas where he's in agreement with republicans shouldn't

surprise anyone. In fact, there are hundreds of important issues where Clinton

was in sharp disagreement, in " liberal " disagreement, with the Repubicans, and

fought tooth and nail for those policies. But the " new world order, " isn't the

same world-order for everyone. Each individual politician understands something

slightly different by it. One politician implements a New World Order in such a

way that it enhances individual and group freedoms; another politician

understand the New World Order in a way that diminishes individual and group

freedoms.

 

jp

 

-

patram81

Friday, July 14, 2006 10:32 PM

Re: " There will be a new world order "

 

 

This is the agenda of both political parties. You must have noticed

that Gatt and Nafta were passed very quickly. Members of Congress

said they had not a chance to read it - if they ever could have.

They tried to, or did, pass it in the dead of night. This was under

Clinton.

 

Both parties are pushing us in that direction.

New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved

message search.

 

 

 

Share feedback on the new changes to Groups

 

Recent Activity

a.. 23New Members

b.. 2New Links

Visit Your Group

[Guest guest]

I agree, and would like a referendum of all the people on many

issues. The problem in the US, though, is that we now have

legislation allowing the consolidation of media into only a few

hands. Whomever controls the media will control the thoughts of the

people.

 

The thing is, 'they' have changed many safeguards that were

originally placed in order to protect the people.

 

The main reason that politicians kneel to business interests to the

neglect and sometimes harm of the population is that they require so

much money to become re-elected. They don't want to lose their jobs.

 

The airwaves are 'public' airwaves, meaning they are owned by us.

For the priveledge of a license to broadcast, a company should be

forces to give so much free time for unbiased election campaigning.

 

Restricting the amount an individual can contribute to a politician's

campaign is not working as well as it should. Perhaps they should

each get an equal share in a pot of tax monies, and that would be all

they had.

 

Also, the equal time amendment should be re-instituted. 'They' said

it was too hard to enforce. Well, that's just too bad. At least it

was pointing in the right direction, fairness. It certainly is

better than the bias in media that we have now.

 

There are often more points of view than 2, Democrat and

Republican.

 

I do have a problem with the influence of business on the world,

Business should be a mechanism for bettering one's life. It seems to

do the opposite. It controls many aspects of life and dictates to

us.

 

How do you handle that little problem when a company can always pull

up stakes and move to a country with no restrictions on it - like

environmental controls, and sick days, etc, etc.

 

THe only thing that I can think of is that a company can only sell a

product in a country in proportion to how many people it employs in

that country, or something like that. So if they pull up stakes and

most of the manufacturing is in China, they would no longer sell

product in the US (or maybe we would raise their tarrifs accordingly).

 

Does any of this sound reasonable?

 

 

, " jagchat01 "

<jagchat01 wrote:

>

>

> You are right. We have to now find an alternative to democracy, the

> hypocrites have mastered the system too well and have learnt how to

> bend it to suit their objectives. Long back someone had raised the

> question, " Democracy is majority rule, but what if the majority are

> corrupt? " . Well, it may not have exactly happened that way but

> democracy has fallen far short of its objectives. The plan of

putting

> power in the hands of the people has simply not fructified.

>

> In India we have a multiparty system and since the last few

elections

> we are seeing a fractured mandate where coalition amongst parties

> have become necessary. However this system too has its own

drawbacks

> as the parties are dividing the people in various categories to

have

> a niche for themselves.

>

> We have to somehow devise a system whereby we can have a general

vote

> as well as votes on important issues. This may slow down

> administration a bit but will not leave us at the mercy of

> politicians for a full term after they are elected.

>

> We can no longer leave politics to the politicians. We have to

fight

> for the right to kick their _ _ _ as and when required. Those

people

> should realise that they are the elected representatives, the

> servants of the people and not Gods descended from heaven to rule a

> devoted and submissive population.

>

> Regards,

> Jag.

>

> , " patram81 "

> <patram81@> wrote:

> >

> > This is the agenda of both political parties. You must have

> noticed

> > that Gatt and Nafta were passed very quickly. Members of

Congress

> > said they had not a chance to read it - if they ever could have.

> > They tried to, or did, pass it in the dead of night. This was

> under

> > Clinton.

> >

> > Both parties are pushing us in that direction. THe only ones who

> ran

> > who were on the 'side' of our citizens were Ralph Nadar and Pat

> > Buchannan. Although one of these men is a Conservative and one a

> > Libral, they each care for this country, which is more than you

can

> > say for the hypocrites in charge now.

>

[Guest guest]

I am sorry if I gave the impression that both parties are the same on

every issue.

 

If we ignore Gatt and Nafta and accepting corporate money for

election financing (along with corporate control of the parties), and

ignore the consolidatin of media into a few hands, and ignore that

both parties do nothing to substantively cut outsourceing of American

jobs and both are obviously impotent at stemming the tide of illegal

immigration, and both parties gave King George the power to slaughter

innocent Iraqis, along with our sons and daughters - yes, if we

ignore these insignificant issues, there indeed may be differences.

 

Hey, I will agree on one thing - the Republicans are always

screeching for fiscal responsibility, but it took Clinton to step up

to the plate. Our nation, under Clinton, was in a place of relative

peace and prosperity. But that is relative. That one party uses a

popgun while the other uses a rifle does not mean the target is

right.

 

We used to criticize the Soviets, voting for Communist #1 or

Communist #2. We are doing the same thing; our choice: Corporate

Shill #1 or Corporate Shill #2. They may sound like different

voices, but its the same song.

 

I know how this hurts you. I have been there. I swung from one

party to the other. By stepping aside and watching what they each

do, I cannot conclude other than they are both serving the corporate

gods.

 

We might discuss how to work our way out of this, since labor is now

competing on an international scale. I might suggest that selling in

the US market be predicated on employing US citizens and upholding

international environmental standards.

 

How do we free our elections from corportate influence?

 

 

, " John Polifronio "

<counterpnt wrote:

>

> Once more, and for the millionth time, we hear the same nonsense.

A single issue " trade agreements, " or, another favorite, " welfare

reform, " is trotted out; Clinton is always mentioned (and blamed),

and based on this cherry picking view of the two parties, based on

these narrow focuses, we're supposed to conclude that the two parties

are " the same. " Where have I heard this before? It's complete

bullshit.

>

> The two political parties in this country, confront literally and

substantvely. " thousands " of issues of the greatest importance and

complexity, from matters of war and peace, to a " woman's right to

choose, " and when these differences are viewed in their entirety, the

two major political parties are vastly different. The worst result

of this kind of thinking, is that it produces despair. If the two

major parties are " the same, " there's no hope, no possiblity of

change. This is precisely the feeling republicans want you to have.

They're not going to change their ways, so that the only job they

have to do, is persuade you that there's no difference between the

two parties.

>

> Even when seen from a narrow perspective, views about " the way " a

policy is implemented, can make a huge difference. Clinton is a

conservative democrat, so his views in a few areas where he's in

agreement with republicans shouldn't surprise anyone. In fact, there

are hundreds of important issues where Clinton was in sharp

disagreement, in " liberal " disagreement, with the Repubicans, and

fought tooth and nail for those policies. But the " new world order, "

isn't the same world-order for everyone. Each individual politician

understands something slightly different by it. One politician

implements a New World Order in such a way that it enhances

individual and group freedoms; another politician understand the New

World Order in a way that diminishes individual and group freedoms.

>

> jp

>

> -

> patram81

>

> Friday, July 14, 2006 10:32 PM

> Re: " There will be a new

world order "

>

>

> This is the agenda of both political parties. You must have

noticed

> that Gatt and Nafta were passed very quickly. Members of Congress

> said they had not a chance to read it - if they ever could have.

> They tried to, or did, pass it in the dead of night. This was

under

> Clinton.

>

> Both parties are pushing us in that direction.

> New Message Search

> Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the

improved message search.

>

>

>

> Share feedback on the new changes to Groups

>

> Recent Activity

> a.. 23New Members

> b.. 2New Links

> Visit Your Group

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you for analysing the situation so beautifully.

 

The safeguards have indeed been tampered with. Election funding is a

prime problem. The upkeep of politicians is a problem. Business

interests are a problem. The media is of course the largest problem.

 

The situation is ditto in India. A major problem here is that

criminals tend to get elected as they terrorise the people into

voting for them and the people know that they are safer as leaders

than roaming the streets baying for their blood.

 

That there are many parties in India is no solution as I have told

you earlier. The politicians simply switch parties to continue to be

in power. It is not only the job that politicians hanker for, it is

the tremendous power they yield that hooks them. Power in the hands

of an indiscriminate and unethical person is very dangerous.

 

We can have a system whereby a politician cannot be reelected. I have

proposed a system whereby there will be an academy for training

people for political leadership. They can then fight for the election

on government funds and get elected. After their term they are

offered a good adminstrative job and then they have to fend for

themselves. During his term the politician has to depend entirely on

his salary as he is supposed to serve the nation and not accumulate

wealth. He can take up social work if he so desires.

 

At the end of every year the elected politicians performance should

be evaluated by the highest court of the country. There should be a

provision for sacking them before their term, a provision that should

not be in the hands of other politicians. A politician who has been

sacked should be disallowed from all the facilities that may be

allowed to politicians who are able to complete their full term.

 

This will be much like a drafting into the army where you serve a

finite term and then return to the society.

 

If the politicians can be reigned in and the consciousness of the

society is roused then the media and business can also be controlled

as they survive on the wants of the people.

 

My two cents.

 

Regards,

Jagannath.

 

 

, " patram81 "

<patram81 wrote:

>

> I agree, and would like a referendum of all the people on many

> issues. The problem in the US, though, is that we now have

> legislation allowing the consolidation of media into only a few

> hands. Whomever controls the media will control the thoughts of

the

> people.

>

> The thing is, 'they' have changed many safeguards that were

> originally placed in order to protect the people.

>

> The main reason that politicians kneel to business interests to the

> neglect and sometimes harm of the population is that they require

so

> much money to become re-elected. They don't want to lose their

jobs.

>

> The airwaves are 'public' airwaves, meaning they are owned by us.

> For the priveledge of a license to broadcast, a company should be

> forces to give so much free time for unbiased election

campaigning.

>

> Restricting the amount an individual can contribute to a

politician's

> campaign is not working as well as it should. Perhaps they should

> each get an equal share in a pot of tax monies, and that would be

all

> they had.

>

> Also, the equal time amendment should be re-instituted. 'They'

said

> it was too hard to enforce. Well, that's just too bad. At least it

> was pointing in the right direction, fairness. It certainly is

> better than the bias in media that we have now.

>

> There are often more points of view than 2, Democrat and

> Republican.

>

> I do have a problem with the influence of business on the world,

> Business should be a mechanism for bettering one's life. It seems

to

> do the opposite. It controls many aspects of life and dictates to

> us.

>

> How do you handle that little problem when a company can always

pull

> up stakes and move to a country with no restrictions on it - like

> environmental controls, and sick days, etc, etc.

>

> THe only thing that I can think of is that a company can only sell

a

> product in a country in proportion to how many people it employs in

> that country, or something like that. So if they pull up stakes

and

> most of the manufacturing is in China, they would no longer sell

> product in the US (or maybe we would raise their tarrifs

accordingly).

>

> Does any of this sound reasonable?

>

[Guest guest]

I expect governments everywhere, to not be particularly concerned about

benefitting ordianry people, but rather to give powerful corporations, powerful

special interests, etc., what they demand. What are powerful corporate and

other interests if they can't compel governments to do their bidding? It

follows that I'm more likely to praise the good governments do, and take as

unavoidable most of the harm they do. I see that Clinton did much that was good

for this country, along with the bad, you dwell on. Bush, on the other hand,

has done nothing but evil against this country, and done it enthusiastically.

 

You take immensely complex issues, and reduce them to single simple-mindeed

pharses, that cast the democratic party and its leaders in the worst light.

Nearly all the issues you mentioned were viewed and handled very different by

the two parties, though both voted " yes; " yes can mean very different things to

different people.

 

You manipulate information with an eye to making the two parties seem alike, but

I'm reminded of something that happened during the Clinton administration that

gives the lie to your efforts. During the most intense period of Starr's

vicious and cowardly attacks on Clinton, polls were taken (by all the usual

media giants, that fundamentally despised Clinton), showing that upwards of 80%

of the American people wanted Starr to keep his hands off the president.

Clearly, a substantial number, though not quite a majority, of republicans

responded with support for Clinton in these polls.

 

It is this admiration and enduring support for Clinton, and this in the face of

a despicable and scandalously biased media assault, that has followed him to

this day, that tells us much more about the way Americans feel about their

former president, than do your efforts to besmirch him. Clinton can walk in the

steets of any part, of any country, anywhere in the world, except perhaps, the

deepest South of the U.S., without an army to protect him, and receive a

red-carpet welcome, warmly cheering crowds anxious to see and hear him, and gets

10 minute standing ovations when he speaks.

 

By the sharpest contrast, Bush can expect nothing but hatred, ridicule and

disgust, anywhere he goes, anywhere in the world. According to your analysis,

there is no basis for this universe of difference in the way these two men are

viewed in their own nation, and by the world community.

jp

 

 

-

patram81

Monday, July 17, 2006 2:18 PM

Re: " There will be a new world order "

 

 

I am sorry if I gave the impression that both parties are the same on

every issue.

 

If we ignore Gatt and Nafta and accepting corporate money for

election financing (along with corporate control of the parties), and

ignore the consolidatin of media into a few hands, ...

 

(snip)

New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved

message search.

 

 

 

Share feedback on the new changes to Groups

 

Recent Activity

a.. 23New Members

b.. 2New Links

Visit Your Group