It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Obama: "USA to LEAD the WORLD in the New World Order"

page: 13
108
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by PuterMan
 


reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



I'll actually make a comparison here for you to understand.

Let us replace logic with engineering, and morality with architecture.

Roll with me, if you dare.

...

Now let us return to logic and morality. The above example is simply the facts. Through experience, history, and common sense, we as humans have come to define logically what works and what does not. A simple modern republic that allows its people to keep what they make and to only tax them within a very low standard, maybe 10% of what they make. That is all. No more, and hell yes less when needed.

...

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Gorman91]


I really enjoyed your excellent analogy in the post above, but this one paragraph, specifically the last two sentences, i did not understand. If I understand your signature correctly, this is a translation from German. If this translation is achieved via software, please PM with the package name, because it is unbelievably fantastic. But maybe it failed to render your statement properly in this one instance. The next to the last sentence in the paragraph I quoted is not well-formed; by saying "A simple modern republic that allows..." implies a missing direct object phrase. I can make assumptions about what you might mean, but would prefer to know your thoughts from your keyboard, not my imagination.

Thank you. Star for the post, in any case.




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by without_prejudice
 


The original Roman code, I think, called for a set limitation of taxes at 10% of the citizen's income. I believe this was Rome. Maybe not. But the point is that a modern republic should not require more. If they need more, they have to redesign their management. They should not have to redesign the people's lives.

When the middle class started to rise, the government sought to control them and get more money out of them. Today, the rich are taxed more and the poor are taxed less. Many people fail to realize that 10% of $1,000 is still less than 10% of $1 million. Un other words, a universal set percentage of tax still gets more from the rich and less from the poor. It is fair. It is not fair to tax 20% for the rich, and 5% for the poor. Because that is an extreme and leads to bad things, such as desire to make less money. Because at the border between ranged, you technically make more money being taxed $1 under the bracket, then $1 above it. At a set rate, all are fairly taxed and people desire sustainable incomes and good business. When you make loop holes and bureaucratic nightmares, corruption ensues

One thing I learned from architecture is modernist versus decorative. if the decorations don't do anything for the structure, there's no point to them. The bureaucracy does nothing for the republic, so get rid of them. There are some needed bureaucracy, but the current one in America is like an overdecorated house. It ruins the simplicity and beauty.

Of course the main issue in that is the fear of lots of rich people controlling the government. No, you should not have an income cap or a wealth cap. You should simply not allow people with more than 1 million dollars to be active in politics or policy. They keep their money, but they cannot use it in politics. That actually encourages the rich to use their money wisely for the common good, as opposed to buying politicians for their own good. This is because this system makes politicians buying impossible and unprofitable. It makes it more profitable to spend your excess money on your own good, and after you have everything you want, on other people's good.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Honestly I don't see the problem with a NWO.
Better to be united than divided.
After all we are all the same.
One Love, One World.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Conal
 


Well it has to be a free society, otherwise there will eventually be a violent revolution and we will be divided again.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conal
Honestly I don't see the problem with a NWO.
Better to be united than divided.
After all we are all the same.
One Love, One World.




I love this argument. It's the clearest indication of absolutely ZERO research being done. You need to learn the difference between "united" and "suppressed".

You think that because some megalithic entity deems it so, that the entire population of planet Earth is going to forget their divisions of culture, religion, class, race, wealth, nationality, and philosophy? Good luck with that. Not to mention that elections will no longer exist. Dictators will be chosen, just as international policy is created, behind closed doors by the Bilderbergers, then shoved down our throats like the Healthcontrol bill and Cap & Trade. If you think the world is screwed up now, just wait until 100% of your wages go to the government to maintain this megalithic monster, which your family's survival will depend on. And when they realize that your wages aren't enough, you'll have to work 60 or 80 hours a week to pay "back taxes". Of course the U.S. Constitution will have been long forgotten, so you'll do it and shut up or spend your life in prison.


[edit on 6/18/2010 by AntiNWO] for pathetic typing skills

[edit on 6/18/2010 by AntiNWO]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AntiNWO
 


I don't agree with any of your statements and am curious why spread disinfo. Are you a paid agent? Why do you speak such great lies. You truly need to wake up.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AntiNWO

I love this argument. It's the clearest indication of absolutely ZERO research being done. You need to learn the difference between "united" and "suppressed".


How about "organized and controlled"?

When there was room to grow - to expand - to be free - - - it was a different world.

Now you have people living on top of people - - and we're still pumping out more - - for no good reason other then reckless breeding.

I personally find it very childish - - not to view the world as it is today. The truth is - humans can not keep living as they are.

Its easy to spout out the words "Freedom" - - - but it is not realistic. Not for the irresponsible directions humans as a species are going.

No one is going to eliminate Cultures. If anything "organized control" will preserve them and their rights. Religion is a different story - - because it crosses the line from personal belief to Political Rule. I do believe Religious control will be diminished. It has no business in government.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You have just explained perfectly why people don't want your precious "New World Order". You're obvious lie about people on top of each other is just an excuse for having a one world government, and of course, the excuse is to regulate how many children a person can have. Just to make sure your precious "New World Order" has this ability, you understand that religion needs to go, because certainly such regulations of how many children a person can have goes against many religious beliefs.

You stupidly claim in the same post that freedom is unrealistic, and then think people don't understand what you mean by that by disingenuously claiming that "rights" will be preserved. The arrogance of government sycophants know no bounds.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Annee
 


You have just explained perfectly why people don't want your precious "New World Order". You're obvious lie about people on top of each other is just an excuse for having a one world government, and of course, the excuse is to regulate how many children a person can have. Just to make sure your precious "New World Order" has this ability, you understand that religion needs to go, because certainly such regulations of how many children a person can have goes against many religious beliefs.

You stupidly claim in the same post that freedom is unrealistic, and then think people don't understand what you mean by that by disingenuously claiming that "rights" will be preserved. The arrogance of government sycophants know no bounds.



Oh Please - - these are your words - not mine: "your precious "New World Order"

Its a lie people are living on top of each other? Really? Been to New York lately?

Absolutely - I think reproduction should be regulated. Even animals in the wild are smart enough to do that.

I don't stupidly (as you put it) claim anything about Freedom of thought. However - - the "West Has Been Won". But feel free to get on your horse and explore the wide open plains.

Debating with emotions from your own back porch is always so enligtening.

Reality sucks - don't ya think?



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I have been to New York City if that is what you are referring to, because certainly Utica New York, or Hamilton County are not all that populated at all. Ever been outside of NYC? Typical of the brainwashed left who believe they're intellectuals simply because those who told them what to think had the audacity to tell them they're thinkers, you represent the moronic left, who stupidly huddle together in metropolises, and then point to the population of cities and say; "See, we're over populated!" Get a clue, leave the city once and a while, and come to know real people who not only know more than you do, but would never think to tell you how many children you can or can not have. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes, and whatever shape or size you come in, that you're an idiot should not be in doubt.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Annee
 


I have been to New York City if that is what you are referring to, because certainly Utica New York, or Hamilton County are not all that populated at all. Ever been outside of NYC? Typical of the brainwashed left who believe they're intellectuals simply because those who told them what to think had the audacity to tell them they're thinkers, you represent the moronic left, who stupidly huddle together in metropolises, and then point to the population of cities and say; "See, we're over populated!" Get a clue, leave the city once and a while, and come to know real people who not only know more than you do, but would never think to tell you how many children you can or can not have. Idiots come in all shapes and sizes, and whatever shape or size you come in, that you're an idiot should not be in doubt.



Yes actually I have been outside New York. Born and Bread in SOCA - - my dad used to take me jack rabbit hunting in Fox Hills and Torrance was agricultural and dairy farms 60 years ago.

I'm now located in the middle of the Sonora Desert. Plenty of wide open space. Hoorah! for Blue Gold! I'm sure its in endless supply.

Your penchant for name calling is really a bore.


[edit on 18-6-2010 by Annee]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



You can have a world union with sovereign nations. The US is a single nation with sovereign states. It's a great system. Let the locals manage the locals and the overall government just rule on big issues and direct research and funding.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



You can have a world union with sovereign nations. The US is a single nation with sovereign states. It's a great system. Let the locals manage the locals and the overall government just rule on big issues and direct research and funding.


Yes!

And all scientists can work together - - they can "talk shop" - - and collaborate - - without fear they've commited treason giving information to another country.

Pooled knowledge in space exploration.

Again - - if Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" doesn't wake people up to how insignificant imaginery borders are - - - and how humans need to work as ONE - - - I don't know what will.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


well . . . just confirms everything i suspected . . . Obama is a snake.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



You can have a world union with sovereign nations. The US is a single nation with sovereign states. It's a great system. Let the locals manage the locals and the overall government just rule on big issues and direct research and funding.


It is odd that you would reply to a post that is challenging the falsehood of over population and attempt to turn it in into a question of sovereignty. This is the problem with you New World Order people, you have nothing legitimate to argue so you have to deflect and create falsehoods in order to make what smells bad, palpable.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by AntiNWO

I love this argument. It's the clearest indication of absolutely ZERO research being done. You need to learn the difference between "united" and "suppressed".


How about "organized and controlled"?

When there was room to grow - to expand - to be free - - - it was a different world.

Now you have people living on top of people - - and we're still pumping out more - - for no good reason other then reckless breeding.


BUT the system FORCES people to get married and have children. Do you not see that? If you don't do this in many, many countries YOU ARE DEEMED A FAILURE, A LOSER, whatever.

Its taboo to be a homosexual, its taboo to have more than one wife, its taboo to smoke marijuana, its taboo not to go to church, its taboo to have an extra-marrital affair............

Its this retarded YOU MUST DO system, especially in third world countries where there is NO EDUCATION, NO JOBS OR POOR PAYING JOBS, NO INFRASTRUCTURE...NOTHING! The elite own the money supply and most industry therefore the people are zombies.



Originally posted by Annee
I personally find it very childish - - not to view the world as it is today. The truth is - humans can not keep living as they are.

Its easy to spout out the words "Freedom" - - - but it is not realistic. Not for the irresponsible directions humans as a species are going.

No one is going to eliminate Cultures. If anything "organized control" will preserve them and their rights. Religion is a different story - - because it crosses the line from personal belief to Political Rule. I do believe Religious control will be diminished. It has no business in government.


A "new" world order based on the OLD WORLD ORDER is a recipe for disaster. THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE! The old world order was supposedly based on family, religion and country but in reality was based on the elite controlling the money supply and bribing governments to do AS THE ELITE PLEASE!

I WOULD NOT have serious problems with A TRUE NEW WORLD ORDER, but I DO HAVE PROBLEMS with this MAKE BELIEVE "NEW" WORLD ORDER! Both socialism and communism ARE DEAD, and all this chatter about america becoming socialistic IS ABSOLUTE BS either from terribly misinformed people or they are NWO LACKEYS pushing for ELITE TYRANNY!



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Absolutely - I think reproduction should be regulated. Even animals in the wild are smart enough to do that.


I agree! Reproduction SHOULD be regulated but its NOT! Any couple having more than two children should have serious consquences. Perhaps a short jail term or extra taxes!

The real problem is not in europe or north america, its in asia and africa and that is due to what I mentioned above. The elite should help those continents and if they can't or don't want to, then leave them the hell alone so they can at least fend for themselves. Big multi-national firms have been enslaving those people for too long!



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Actually the two are extremely closely linked. Overpopulation does not exist with a one world government. Because people have the freedom to travel to other places and exchange homes for new places. Also, a one world government is far easier to manage space exploration with regards to over population.

So really, it can be said you are deflecting issues, using overpopulation as an attempt to smear the good of a one world government.


I'm just going to flat out sink to a new low here, but let me quote from a video game, which makes more logic than anyone here.




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I don't see any one world agenda model in present time promoting free market principles, and frankly, I firmly believe it will be the free market that finally gets humanity out into space and colonizing planets, not some clunky government. You may be fooling yourself, but you're not fooling me.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


A one world government WOULD be part of the free market in a system that still has sovereign states.

To date, the most progress made in space technology was made when two super powers were competing. In the video I posted, this "Alliance" was competing with the ISA, ESA, NASA, and everyone else, until it had the opportunity to overshadow them all.


I'll quote some more on it. It actually is like a competitor in the free market.




The Alliance is responsible for the government and defense of all extra-solar human colonies, and represents humanity on the galactic stage. It is a supranational government, and is based on a parliamentary system, with the Alliance Parliament based at Arcturus Station. It is unknown if the representation is based on the population of member nations on Earth and the colonies, or if all nations and colonies involved receive the same amount of parliamentary members. It can be speculated the Alliance military requires some form of oversight afforded by a Prime Minister, and the larger issue of the Alliance government would require ministers to oversee the various bureaucracies. While the Alliance is a supranational government, the member nations retain their individual sovereignty back on Earth.



Simply put, it's a company financed by Earth's richest nations with its goal being to do crap in space, so that the nations of Earth can focus more on their own affairs.

IE, the same in a World Union.



new topics




 
108
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join