Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[LIVERWURST*]

http://www.unu.edu/news/wto/bretton.htm

“The process of globalization has given rise to new problems and governance needs.” - creating governing legislation through false flag occurrences.

 

And while I disagree with you, I won't attack the root of your position because the Ron Paul thread is not the UN thread, but don't use sources to infer a conclusion that is so completely your own bias but with a link attached. This news release is basically asking that the veto powers of the G8 be reviewed (and the other ways the major powers dominate the UN) because their influence feeds the overall misdirection of the UN and undermines the power of the other hundred+ countries involved. Like it or leave it, the article itself is not some radical idea, it's relatively logical within the frame work of the UN.

 

"The U.N. suffers from a “democratic deficit” that was “an integral part of the original design” but needs to be remedied now, the study says, adding that the U.N.’s moral authority is “seriously undermined because its laws or principles are enforced selectively when it suits the interests of the rich and the powerful. Circumventing the veto granted more than 50 years ago to the five permanent Security Council members and enlarging the membership of that body are “imperative" for the U.N.’s continued credibility."

 

 

Did I miss something in the article that perhaps is more devious?

[thinksmall]

Calculate for me the number Americans that have trouble with maintaining energy, throw in inflation and recession.. then work the numbers in with the climate tax.

 

I don't understand you. Ron Paul wants to take America significantly out of the hands of the U.N. No other candidate, really, has good understanding of the need to complete this. Most candidates actually support the global right-wing domination of the U.N.

 

“The process of globalization has given rise to new problems and governance needs.” - See Al Gore and climate change. The right want a bureaucratic global system of governance, to accomplish this they will create false occurrence to make YOU want it also. The need to implement a climate tax is just that. Its the liberals who are ratifying it.

 

See the connection?

[LIVERWURST*]

We influence the UN far more than the UN influences us which is exactly what your posted article is about. I do not believe their is a conspiracy (and I haven't seen any credible proof)nor a problem in theory with the existence of a world platform for negotiations of finance, war, aid, and environment. As to the climate change issue, again you're right if all taxes are applied as if every person need pay the same. However, the math is done to illustrate the price on a more familiar level to the reader and is not meant to explain literally that the tax would be applied in this fashion...at least that's how I understood it, if I'm wrong on that, show me.

 

You guys seem to have similar views held by the neo-cons on many of these issues, all you do is paint it a different color by calling it a conspiracy. Start a UN thread.

[thinksmall]

No, there is no conspiracy. But you must remember how its only been around 200 years since the boom of the socialist movement.

 

The US does have great influence on the UN. Remember President Wilson. But what is happening between the US, UN, and the world is the UNNATURAL evolution of bureaucratic government. (Communism is theorized to be the natural evolution, Karl Marx implies this about the American system of governance.)

 

The unnatural evolution happens the same way any evolution happens. A 'need' is presented, a 'change' is given. The need is organization (which goes back to the creation of government) and some believe that the answer is bureaucracy. This evolution is unnatural because its going against nature, that free humans will govern themselves... and because the 'need' is artificially created.

 

- Read about Roosevelt and international governments after WW2. Some leaders believed that humans do not deserve choice, because they realized what happens when humans are completely free. Roosevelt disagreed, he implied a system of organization (government) where people can be free.

 

The natural evolution happens patiently, it just flows. The original American Republic would have evolved into the American Commune. A sustained Capitalist society will become Communist, because there is no way around it. BUT if you change the route by creating unnatural bureaucracy, the natural evolution wont happen. The unnatural evolution that many institutions like the CFR, NPR, UN, CEIP, ESU.. I should write a list, but would that be too absolutist?

 

Also remember, the constitution is a set of rules of how organization can be achieved without the limit or removal of natural choice.

[the.crooked]

the problem with a climate tax is that it is a punishment.

 

 

it is not structured as though it is to help the people. it is to tax them for something they necessarily need. extortion really.

 

 

 

things like the carbon trading system for corporations. that is a much more effective and brilliant structure than imposing a tax on people.

[thinksmall]

Then is there any form of tax that is not structured to do such? Now we're getting somewhere.

[the.crooked]

I mean, yes. thus the issue most people have with them in general.

 

 

But so long as government's work through money, we will need them.

 

 

I just think this specific tax is not the best thought out.

[thinksmall]

Okay. Small steps is cool too. Can we rule out the logic in voting for Obama and Hillary then?

 

For the disbelievers, the new world order is happening. Accept it or fight it, cool? Cool.

 

|

|

V

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/102-9661827-4691337?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=new+world+order&x=0&y=0

[lord_casek]

Okay. Small steps is cool too. Can we rule out the logic in voting for Obama and Hillary then?

 

For the disbelievers, the new world order is happening. Accept it or fight it, cool? Cool.

 

|

|

V

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/102-9661827-4691337?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=new+world+order&x=0&y=0

 

 

 

 

to be fair, the elite don't call it "the new world order" i think they call it global governance...but yeah, same thing.

[the.crooked]

i will say again, i think global governance is not a bad thing.

 

 

 

but whatevs.

 

 

i know we are not going to go anywhere with that dicsussion.

[lord_casek]

i will say again, i think global governance is not a bad thing.

 

 

 

but whatevs.

 

 

i know we are not going to go anywhere with that dicsussion.

 

nah, we won't. it's a big debate. but we all know that that kind of power is a very dangerous thing.

[the.crooked]

i think it is just foolish to believe we will ever go in the opposite direction as the population increases in every country.

[lord_casek]

they can try. the people will decide. our guns will carry the message.

[thinksmall]

I dont think global governance is a bad thing either. Even Marx believed that it would happen in the means of communism. BUT what is currently happening is not of the sorts, its a global BUREAUCRACY - its the evolution where Victorian Elites take the world, not the people.

[grim540]

i will say again, i think global governance is not a bad thing.

 

 

 

but whatevs.

 

 

I know we are not going to go anywhere with that discussion.

 

No global gonvernece is not nessicarly a bad thing, but that all depends on how a global governemt comes into power. If it's through lies, us of force, or something like that then its going to be a very bad thing.

[the.crooked]

see, i think we will be led the way to it through market corrections and the internet.

[angelofdeath]

you see i guess we have different priorities. i got no problem with ptsd or ssri people not having guns. violation of the constitution? yes, but ptsd didn't exist when the constitution was written, so you have to do your best. and for people who don't have all their marbles, that sucks you can't have a gat, but i dont care because im in favor of strict ass gun control. too many people in my neighborhoods have gotten killed by guns that serve no purpose except to kill humans. hunting is one thing, i dont care what montana does. but i dont think guns belong in cities.

 

thats like saying... 'back in 1787 people didnt know that people in 2008 would be saying viscious racist things, so therefore in 08 we must revoke free speech. or that the right to habeus corpus was ok back THEN, but in 08, those damn enemy combatants... we cant take the chance. its all retarded if you ask me. gun control is nothing but a huge victim disarmament scheme. in america, if you disarm the law abiding population, you will have an armed criminal population. so then the law abiding citizens will have no means to defend themselves. dial 911? sure. dial 911 and die. if you support gun control, then support a constitutional amendment. atleast you acknowledge that you hate the constitution and everything it stands for.

 

i m not saying that the newsletter is the reason why i wouldn't vote for ron paul, because i wouldn't for a whole host of reasons. i think isolationism on the part of superpowers is flawed at times (for humanitarian reasons), and that if practiced correctly (not the way bush had it), an active foreign policy is very good for the us and many other countries. we're going disagree on this point. furthermore, much the same way that people talked about pnac and bushs associates, i think its fair to say that paul's associates are the authors of that newsletter.

 

for humanitarian reasons... hmmm. wishing for a government that can only do great deeds is like wishing for a lion that only purrs and cuddles or a rattle snake that only provides percussive accompaniment to mariachi music. it cant be.

 

 

 

"libertarianism is a political theory/ideology. i'm not following your examples (maybe if there were social programs in cain and abel's time cain wouldn't have gotten jealous over abel's favor with god ie material possessions (meat), and killed him. instead, there would have been some system of wealth redistribution). its sort of like when realists say that machiavelli is one of them. "

 

libertarianism can be summed up in one belief. its not ONLY a political theory, its a way to live your life. dont initiate force against someone unless in self defense. that means keep your mitts to yourself unless you are attacked. and that applies to everyone, including governments.

[angelofdeath]

global governance is a really really bad thing. all one has to do is look at the the nazi death camps, soviet gulags and mao's china. that is what global government will be like. it will be one huge centralized bureaucratic totalitarian dictatorship with endless wars into every country that dissents from the elites party line. any last vestige of freedom will be gone in the world. count on that. if the UN every comes to these united States of America, refer to casek's post

[the.crooked]

you aren't saying why this has to be the way it works.

 

quit acting like a sensationalist and say something real.

[lord_casek]

NAACP AUSTIN PRESIDENT ON RON PAUL

http://infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_naacp_president_rp_not_racist.htm

[thinksmall]

^ lol. If the NAACP president says that Ron Paul is not a racist... I'm sure we'll all agree.

 

the.crooked, read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg if you ever want to dwel deeper into local or global socialist governments; what they mean and such.

[angelofdeath]

"you aren't saying why this has to be the way it works.

 

quit acting like a sensationalist and say something real."

 

i did say something real. ALL governments grow. all governments move toward totalitarianism. like i said, it is like wishing for a lion that only purrs and cuddles. it is against their nature to only do good things. it is totally 100% impossible for the whole world to be ruled by one centralized government and liberty be preserved. i think my county government is too centralized.

[thinksmall]

crooked,

It is true that all governments move toward totalitarianism as AOD says.. but there are many systems of totalitarianisms, including Communism. Marx believed that Capitalism would not last, it would evolve into Communism; theres no way around it. It's evolution not revolution that would take Capitalism there though. It would be natural occurrence. In a future Marxism, liberty can be preserved - with none of the flaws that American Democracy has.

 

Though, we are obviously not moving towards Communism as much as we are moving towards Liberal Fascism nowadays. This is because of unnatural occurrences that have been implemented into the natural free market, which is now unnatural (remember economy is the backbone of all this, not ideology). Though, it is the ideology of Liberal Fascism that is why some of us human folks are worried about the certain global governance taking place.

 

Most societal forms of organization want to take over the world, because they have a certain set of beliefs on how the world should be. They try very hard to achieve it. Some fall. Some rise. They are mostly totalitarian.

 

Sorry if me and my terms are making me look like a douche. I try sufficiently.

[Dawood]

22 pages of arguing about man made laws just to find out Gods law is going to rule the lands in the long run.

[WORDISM45]

22 pages of arguing about man made laws just to find out Gods law is going to rule the lands in the long run.

 

yeah god's law as created by some arab dudeZ :D

[lord_casek]

yeah god's law as created by some arab dudeZ :D

 

if it had been an australian, we'd all be drunk on sunday morning

[lord_casek]

michigan

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-011508.html

[Theo Huxtable.]

that was fucked up how fox news shunned ron paul from the republican debates.

 

they're afraid of the truth?

[lord_casek]

[vanfullofretards]

Less than 1% reporting homie...