- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 12,753
- Reaction score
- 2,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
YouTube - Fall of the Republic HQ full length version
This is almost like work to critique this from my personal perspective. Please don’t judge my effort here harshly.
It opens up with the globe moving away to international currency which is completely correct. The economy going global is and will push the political world to organise globally. I’m not terribly interested in turning global warming into a conspiracy theory. It is a scientific theory that is very credible. I do have a fair bit of scepticism about some of the science behind it but for the most part the evidence of global warming is pretty strong with record heat levels, the oceans are warming. Determining the cause is tricky business but for lack of a better reason the burning of fossil fuels and Co2 seems to be the way the vast majority of scientists consensus. Homeland security using the boyscouts to fight terrorism sounds like early indoctrination of some youth at an overtly early age which should not be allowed. Clearly a gap that is being left by the failure of religious sentiment. Not global warming.
Tim ball is featured in the documentary and is known to have received financial benefits from big oil. He is a particularly bias source of knowledge and has been charged with this “denier” label for good reason. Tim Ball is a discredited source and has received money from oil companies. His appearance has raised a red flag.. his theories have been discredited. The people in this documentary are overly in favour of fossil fuel and arbitrarily discredit the mass of scientific research and science in general that they are professing environmentalism to control individuals lives. However the effect would never be that terrible and it is only oil companies that would be affected by research and development of alternative energy. Tim Ball is a terrible source and is a known bias personality
“Ball was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary film produced by Martin Durkin that was first aired in March 2007. The film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. In the film, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired).[11]”
Friends of Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friends of Science with whom Ball was associated with “There has also been some funding from “big oil”. But they seldom smile on us. They appear to believe that marketing is more important than historical climate information."
The issue with the political parties having the same policies on particular issues steadfastly is something I also strongly agree with. I blame the weakening for federal powers via deregulation and strong societal ideological thinking of the American public for much of the bias towards tax cuts, privatisation etc. Anything that is collectivist is relatively Mc Arthurised* and turned into a bogyman that the extreme far right libertarian oligarchic preponderates demonise anytime someone brings it up. Case in point is socialised Medicare.
I am confused though because the root of the problem has exposed itself. Deregulation is the root cause and I see libertarianism as the trouble not the resolution. This bail out, saved foreign banks who involved themselves in libertarian unsupervised deregulatory practices and derivatives. Libertarians solution to this problem is ridiculous insisting that the banking industry fail and throwing the entire world economy to fall into depression. This would result in a set back for unregulated free market imperialism and work against libertarian philosophy in the long run. I don’t trust unregulated banks. 600 trillion in derivatives.. In actuality the derivative market has no value and is a result of deregulation of financial markets so that banks could make bookie gambles on outcomes. In this case the gamble was on the sub prime loans not failing, which was a complete fallacy, considering the home owners were sold houses they couldn’t afford, a furthering of the case for more regulatory measures. It is possible though considering the power of the banks it was a manufactured failure. It may have been extortion of the Obama administration at the outset of his ascent to the oval office, possibly.
I don’t agree that Obama is as dangerous as Bush. At least Obama is attempting to make some changes to the largely privately controlled federal parties. The right left paradigm is still legitimate I believe but societal thinking about centrist and left of center policy needs to change to have serious political effect. The money coming from the private sector and lobbying has to be ended. It is completely irresponsible how America allows it’s political parties to be bought. Look at the republicans.. slobbering all over BP and apologising and the Tea party basically doing the same thing. The democrats tried to have the derivative market regulated but the libertarian republican party denied it.
The taxation and all government is illegitimate theme is completely overblown and exaggerated. Civil rights are collectivist ironically it is the government that is supposed to protect the rights of individuals. Weakening of the left right paradigm weakens the political process. In the US as well as other countries the move has gone right for to long and the end result has been economic collapse, unparalleled ecological disasters, cuts in taxation that created even greater debt. Now that the economy has collapsed, ironically because of deregulation the libertarians are expecting society to eat the whole enchilada. After having Bush spend the family fortune hand over fist and collapsing the economy the libertarians are now expecting the population suck it up and pay for it all. Even Bush was not so stupid as to dump on main street for something that had nothing to do with them. It was libertarians deregulatory ideological affinity that made the mess that wasn’t supposed to happen. Clearly free marketering libertarians unknowingly or knowingly support authoritarian oligarchy, social stratification and the hollowing out of the middle class.
I don’t fall for the claim that the markets were to fail intentionally although it wasn’t nearly the surprise it was made out to be. It was known for a few years there was going to be big problems, eventually. I myself read articles back as far as 2005 predicting what happened in 2008. It is creepy though it happened just before democrats were elected.
I find much of what Alex Jones says about government more paranoia, real collectivist mentalities paradoxically would be far less likely to involve themselves with this sort of economic world government for the rich. The US government borrows money from the Federal Reserve, and it is private. I do realise the power of the Bilderberg group. The “money changers” are behind the “New world order” are not in favour of collectivism.
I dislike that Obama has watered down his intentions for the people but he may have his hands tied by the libertarian corporate elite. Libertarians political aims only harden this power.. Only collective democratic powers can change all this and it has to be done in solidarity. I am not arguing for communism, only a move away from extreme individualism/anarchy for the wealthy. I believe that they are over focused on Obama and demonize him far more then is necessary. Alex Jones philosophy causes apathy in the political process. The government is not taking more and more control over the lives of individuals.. that is the oligarchy controlling via government. What needs to happen is the house and senate start behaving in favour of the people and worry less about the wealthy. Do what needs to get done and stop all this dogmatic insistence that deregulation and microscopic government is the answer.
I did love hearing Henry Paulson stammering and tripping over himself when he was being questioned about conflict of interest. It was comical and very telling. Here you can see there is still power in government in opposition to the oligarchy’s henchmen. I find this is contrary to Alex’s Jones’s claim that the government is always against the people. I believe there is power to fight this mess in the system but society has to embrace it. They cannot delimit this ultimate power except to reduce the size and power of the people via small government that is limited in what they can do.
I do believe Obama inherited a real mess. I sincerely believe he would like to help the disadvantaged but he is stuck working in a framework he inherited on his first day as president. I imagine sometimes that after a new president is elected they bring the newly chosen president into a room in the pentagon. The lights go off and they show the president a video of JFKs last moments.. only it is from a different perspective then all the other video shown to the public and the camera is looking down the barrel of a gun, it goes off and JFKs head explodes end of film.
Sporting events.. and “tribalism” of that for the males is a perfect distraction from the real issues. I agree with the documentaries claims on media manipulation. Multiculturalism is a part of globalization it involves the import of extra labour to help keep labour cheap and inflation in check. At the same time it is a bi partisan effort which lends to globalization advocacy.
Anti gun regulation is featured in the documentary. I am of two minds on this subject. On one hand I think it is good for the people to have means to fight and remove an unjust political leadership. On the other all it really does is cause homicide in general otherwise. If the government so chose it wouldn’t matter much how many guns the population has to fight the government because the military is so advanced in comparison.
I find the bias against Obama particularly overblown. The message has not really addressed the republican mess that he has inherited. The documentary presents the democrats in a negative light. I find it is bias in favour of libertarianism but I believe this documentary is sloppy in its fault finding. To say libertarians and republicans are the protectors of liberty for the people is completely intellectually dishonest. The people need to recapture the centers of power in the US but what will come of that if the implantation of globalization (free markets and libertarian) defeats democratic empowerment of the state because there is no higher authority then a collectives elected government.(unless your talking about the federal reserve) Globally however they now have other places to prop up and use the same methods via the privatized banking industry to take advantage of the poor and underprivileged. True government of the people for the people has been completely undermined by globalization and the ultra wealthy.
EDIT : Original from thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...7-g20-good-round-up-youll-see-anywhere-3.html
This is almost like work to critique this from my personal perspective. Please don’t judge my effort here harshly.
It opens up with the globe moving away to international currency which is completely correct. The economy going global is and will push the political world to organise globally. I’m not terribly interested in turning global warming into a conspiracy theory. It is a scientific theory that is very credible. I do have a fair bit of scepticism about some of the science behind it but for the most part the evidence of global warming is pretty strong with record heat levels, the oceans are warming. Determining the cause is tricky business but for lack of a better reason the burning of fossil fuels and Co2 seems to be the way the vast majority of scientists consensus. Homeland security using the boyscouts to fight terrorism sounds like early indoctrination of some youth at an overtly early age which should not be allowed. Clearly a gap that is being left by the failure of religious sentiment. Not global warming.
Tim ball is featured in the documentary and is known to have received financial benefits from big oil. He is a particularly bias source of knowledge and has been charged with this “denier” label for good reason. Tim Ball is a discredited source and has received money from oil companies. His appearance has raised a red flag.. his theories have been discredited. The people in this documentary are overly in favour of fossil fuel and arbitrarily discredit the mass of scientific research and science in general that they are professing environmentalism to control individuals lives. However the effect would never be that terrible and it is only oil companies that would be affected by research and development of alternative energy. Tim Ball is a terrible source and is a known bias personality
“Ball was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary film produced by Martin Durkin that was first aired in March 2007. The film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. In the film, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired).[11]”
Friends of Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friends of Science with whom Ball was associated with “There has also been some funding from “big oil”. But they seldom smile on us. They appear to believe that marketing is more important than historical climate information."
The issue with the political parties having the same policies on particular issues steadfastly is something I also strongly agree with. I blame the weakening for federal powers via deregulation and strong societal ideological thinking of the American public for much of the bias towards tax cuts, privatisation etc. Anything that is collectivist is relatively Mc Arthurised* and turned into a bogyman that the extreme far right libertarian oligarchic preponderates demonise anytime someone brings it up. Case in point is socialised Medicare.
I am confused though because the root of the problem has exposed itself. Deregulation is the root cause and I see libertarianism as the trouble not the resolution. This bail out, saved foreign banks who involved themselves in libertarian unsupervised deregulatory practices and derivatives. Libertarians solution to this problem is ridiculous insisting that the banking industry fail and throwing the entire world economy to fall into depression. This would result in a set back for unregulated free market imperialism and work against libertarian philosophy in the long run. I don’t trust unregulated banks. 600 trillion in derivatives.. In actuality the derivative market has no value and is a result of deregulation of financial markets so that banks could make bookie gambles on outcomes. In this case the gamble was on the sub prime loans not failing, which was a complete fallacy, considering the home owners were sold houses they couldn’t afford, a furthering of the case for more regulatory measures. It is possible though considering the power of the banks it was a manufactured failure. It may have been extortion of the Obama administration at the outset of his ascent to the oval office, possibly.
I don’t agree that Obama is as dangerous as Bush. At least Obama is attempting to make some changes to the largely privately controlled federal parties. The right left paradigm is still legitimate I believe but societal thinking about centrist and left of center policy needs to change to have serious political effect. The money coming from the private sector and lobbying has to be ended. It is completely irresponsible how America allows it’s political parties to be bought. Look at the republicans.. slobbering all over BP and apologising and the Tea party basically doing the same thing. The democrats tried to have the derivative market regulated but the libertarian republican party denied it.
The taxation and all government is illegitimate theme is completely overblown and exaggerated. Civil rights are collectivist ironically it is the government that is supposed to protect the rights of individuals. Weakening of the left right paradigm weakens the political process. In the US as well as other countries the move has gone right for to long and the end result has been economic collapse, unparalleled ecological disasters, cuts in taxation that created even greater debt. Now that the economy has collapsed, ironically because of deregulation the libertarians are expecting society to eat the whole enchilada. After having Bush spend the family fortune hand over fist and collapsing the economy the libertarians are now expecting the population suck it up and pay for it all. Even Bush was not so stupid as to dump on main street for something that had nothing to do with them. It was libertarians deregulatory ideological affinity that made the mess that wasn’t supposed to happen. Clearly free marketering libertarians unknowingly or knowingly support authoritarian oligarchy, social stratification and the hollowing out of the middle class.
I don’t fall for the claim that the markets were to fail intentionally although it wasn’t nearly the surprise it was made out to be. It was known for a few years there was going to be big problems, eventually. I myself read articles back as far as 2005 predicting what happened in 2008. It is creepy though it happened just before democrats were elected.
I find much of what Alex Jones says about government more paranoia, real collectivist mentalities paradoxically would be far less likely to involve themselves with this sort of economic world government for the rich. The US government borrows money from the Federal Reserve, and it is private. I do realise the power of the Bilderberg group. The “money changers” are behind the “New world order” are not in favour of collectivism.
I dislike that Obama has watered down his intentions for the people but he may have his hands tied by the libertarian corporate elite. Libertarians political aims only harden this power.. Only collective democratic powers can change all this and it has to be done in solidarity. I am not arguing for communism, only a move away from extreme individualism/anarchy for the wealthy. I believe that they are over focused on Obama and demonize him far more then is necessary. Alex Jones philosophy causes apathy in the political process. The government is not taking more and more control over the lives of individuals.. that is the oligarchy controlling via government. What needs to happen is the house and senate start behaving in favour of the people and worry less about the wealthy. Do what needs to get done and stop all this dogmatic insistence that deregulation and microscopic government is the answer.
I did love hearing Henry Paulson stammering and tripping over himself when he was being questioned about conflict of interest. It was comical and very telling. Here you can see there is still power in government in opposition to the oligarchy’s henchmen. I find this is contrary to Alex’s Jones’s claim that the government is always against the people. I believe there is power to fight this mess in the system but society has to embrace it. They cannot delimit this ultimate power except to reduce the size and power of the people via small government that is limited in what they can do.
I do believe Obama inherited a real mess. I sincerely believe he would like to help the disadvantaged but he is stuck working in a framework he inherited on his first day as president. I imagine sometimes that after a new president is elected they bring the newly chosen president into a room in the pentagon. The lights go off and they show the president a video of JFKs last moments.. only it is from a different perspective then all the other video shown to the public and the camera is looking down the barrel of a gun, it goes off and JFKs head explodes end of film.
Sporting events.. and “tribalism” of that for the males is a perfect distraction from the real issues. I agree with the documentaries claims on media manipulation. Multiculturalism is a part of globalization it involves the import of extra labour to help keep labour cheap and inflation in check. At the same time it is a bi partisan effort which lends to globalization advocacy.
Anti gun regulation is featured in the documentary. I am of two minds on this subject. On one hand I think it is good for the people to have means to fight and remove an unjust political leadership. On the other all it really does is cause homicide in general otherwise. If the government so chose it wouldn’t matter much how many guns the population has to fight the government because the military is so advanced in comparison.
I find the bias against Obama particularly overblown. The message has not really addressed the republican mess that he has inherited. The documentary presents the democrats in a negative light. I find it is bias in favour of libertarianism but I believe this documentary is sloppy in its fault finding. To say libertarians and republicans are the protectors of liberty for the people is completely intellectually dishonest. The people need to recapture the centers of power in the US but what will come of that if the implantation of globalization (free markets and libertarian) defeats democratic empowerment of the state because there is no higher authority then a collectives elected government.(unless your talking about the federal reserve) Globally however they now have other places to prop up and use the same methods via the privatized banking industry to take advantage of the poor and underprivileged. True government of the people for the people has been completely undermined by globalization and the ultra wealthy.
EDIT : Original from thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...7-g20-good-round-up-youll-see-anywhere-3.html
