Originally posted by generalissimo
"work hard and get what you want" sounds like a good philosophy to me.

That's one of the things I like about America.

Masses of people work hard, hold down two or three jobs, and yet are still poor, insecure, paralyzed by the ever possible one-missing-pay-packet-away family calamity. The "work hard and get what you want" mantra is one of the most immaculately internalized pieces of domestic inequity-sustaining propaganda ever seen.

Originally posted by FMF
Masses of people work hard, hold down two or three jobs, and yet are still poor, insecure, paralyzed by the ever possible one-missing-pay-packet-away family calamity. The "work hard and get what you want" mantra is one of the most immaculately internalized pieces of domestic inequity-sustaining propaganda ever seen.

The people trying to get by with two or three jobs in my home town were hard hit by the influx of foreign labor. Fast foods, grocery stores, construction, and even a manufacturing company brought in legal foreign labor. There were plenty of people willing to do the work, but the government paid a huge percent of the wages and all kinds of incentives for companies to hire foreigners. I don't blame foreign people as they have to do what they can for them and their families. I just find it disgusting that so many loyal employees were crapped on to make a quick buck. Remember Bush Jr. said that foreigners are willing to do the work americans wont do? He left out the part, americans wont do for a dollar an hour.

Originally posted by generalissimo
"work hard and get what you want" sounds like a good philosophy to me.

That's one of the things I like about America.

You support the EFCA, then?

Originally posted by whodey
How can you say that when GWB created the largest entitlement program of our time? Also, he doubled spending for education. Perhaps you have not been reading my posts.

Yes, I agree that GWB was an inconsistent fiscal conservative on domestic spending as well. Which program are you referring to when you mention the largest entitlement program of our time?

Originally posted by joe beyser
In this country we have the freedom to be rich.

And the very concept of a world government denies people that "freedom"?

(Went back and read the original post.) Of course! You're thinking about the move towards
"collectivism" as being stupid. If the "world order" would be in favour of a so called "free market".
Would it still be stupid?

Originally posted by karnachz
Yes, I agree that GWB was an inconsistent fiscal conservative on domestic spending as well. Which program are you referring to when you mention the largest entitlement program of our time?

It was the Medicare drug entitlement program that is projected to cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade.

Originally posted by Jigtie
And the very concept of a world government denies people that "freedom"?

(Went back and read the original post.) Of course! You're thinking about the move towards
"collectivism" as being stupid. If the "world order" would be in favour of a so called "free market".
Would it still be stupid?

So tell us, do you take no issue with a one world government?


There are good aspects to various kinds of government as well as bad aspects. For example, the most efficient form of government is a dictatorship. Their is no middle men for checks and balances or to question what needs done. One person or persons give an order and you simply follow it, or else! There is no need to plead for Congressional support. There is not pandering to lobbyiest, interest groups, and voters. However, I'm sure you can see the down side to this form of government. History is ripe with its down falls. And so it goes with a one world government.

Woodrow Wilson, one of the fathers of progressivism in the US, was quoted as saying he detested the inefficiency of the three branches of government. I suppose he preferred the ruthless efficiency on no checks and balances. It is sad people such as himself have no wisdom in regards to human nature and the needs for checks in balances in everyones life, yours included. However, the Founding Fathers certainly did.

Originally posted by joe beyser
In this country we have the freedom to be rich.

If you happen to be born in a rich family.

Originally posted by karnachz
[b]Yes, I agree that GWB was an inconsistent fiscal conservative on domestic spending as well.

I just wonder if GWB was as reckless with spending his own money as he was spending ours. The same question goes to Obama. My guess is a resounding NO!!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you happen to be born in a rich family.

The US has historically been known as the land of oppurtunity. Of course, this becomes less and less evident as road blocks and regulations and taxes are thrown in our faces by the powers that be. In fact, I forsee a time in the US, on its current path, that the only way to have upward mobility is to seek being elected to a higher office. They will be the ruling class in soceity.

Originally posted by Jigtie
And the very concept of a world government denies people that "freedom"?

(Went back and read the original post.) Of course! You're thinking about the move towards
"collectivism" as being stupid. If the "world order" would be in favour of a so called "free market".
Would it still be stupid?

The way it is being set up and the people behind this have no regard for humanity. The puppets of course feel they are doing this with the best of intentions, but they are dupes. Centralizing world power will lead to the biggest loss of freedom the world has ever seen. There will be no one that will have the ability to oppose it. To achieve this power, lie after lie and self inflicted catastrophic events to mass murder, have all been used. Isn't it stupid to trust these people?

Originally posted by FMF
Masses of people work hard, hold down two or three jobs, and yet are still poor, insecure, paralyzed by the ever possible one-missing-pay-packet-away family calamity. The "work hard and get what you want" mantra is one of the most immaculately internalized pieces of domestic inequity-sustaining propaganda ever seen.

oh yes, thats why its wise to depend solely on a welfare state.

Originally posted by whodey
So tell us, do you take no issue with a one world government?


There are good aspects to various kinds of government as well as bad aspects. For example, the most efficient form of government is a dictatorship.

Depends on what you mean by efficient. In my view, an efficient government is good at finding
compromises that satisfies the needs of the majority of working citizens (if not all). It's not
necessarily a government that is fast and furious. There are certainly benefits to a world
government, such as no money being wasted on military and wars. Have you considered that?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Centralizing world power will lead to the biggest loss of freedom the world has ever seen. There will be no one that will have the ability to oppose it.

By your definition, having a government at all is a loss of freedom. Ever heard of civil war?

Oh, and you didn't answer my question. Would it still be considered a stupid concept (in your view) if
the world government were to support a "free market".

Originally posted by generalissimo
oh yes, thats why its wise to depend solely on a welfare state.

?