(Political) A one world government.

[AxeMental]

After watching Obama selecting his cabinet positions, and listening to his backstroking, I'm starting to think things aren't going to be that different then they were under Clinton or Bush II (despite alot of promises otherwise) and I suspect McCain would have resulted in the same sort of policies. So whats going on? A multi-national Shadow government? Or is that fiction?

Think about it, Reagan (like him or not) did what he said he was going to do during his campaign (despite a Dem controlled congress). But what have we seen since (a reluctant Republican base going along with Bush I and II (only because they were seen as the lesser of two evils), an increase in the federal government rather then a reduction, force fed opinion of "whats normal" by the 24 news cycle.... I tell you doesn't smell right. Its as if our presidents are doing just enough to prevent an all out revolt from their parties, but aren't otherwise listening (except during election time).

[Stormcrow]

Could we have a separate forum for politics? Or mark political talk with [Politics] or something? I'd like to know how to avoid reading these.

[Terrex]

Axe, there was one and only one major party candidate in the 2008 election that would have brought significant change to the US federal government: Ron Paul.

Paul would've ended our insanely interventionist foreign policy, vetoed every single bill that violated the Constitution, and restored the course of the country to the one envisioned by our founders. If Americans actually wanted to change, he would have been our man.

But, alas, Americans no longer wish to be free. The old paternalism of birthright and deference to a landed oligarchy has been replaced by a new paternalism where many look on gov't as our caretaker. It is ashame and, frankly, embarrassing.

Still, over 1 million people cast a vote in the primaries for a candidate with a consistent philosophy (and voting record) that adheres to the principles of the founders: life, liberty, and property rights. In that fact alone, did I take a single moment of solace during the entire (seemingly endless) campaign cycle.

[AxeMental]

Well, I figured the title was self-evident. Fixed (unless the mods want me to remove or move it).

So, I guess your not much of a conspiracy theorist Stormcrow? Certainly a multi-national government has been tried before (I think Einstine was in favor of a world government in the late 40s, but I'm sure out in the open and probably not as left leaning).

Terrex, I think your correct about Ron Paul, problem was he was made out to be a loon by the press and was otherwise seen as extreme. Its a matter of marketing (getting the masses to understand you), how do you get your message out and paint yourself (rather then letting your oposition do that for you). That was actually one of Reagan's abilities (he'd shrug it off, smile and move on).

Oh, I don't agree that most Americans have given up on their ideas of freedom. I think people still know right from wrong, there just to busy with their everyday lives to keep up or care. And who's going to walk around with a sign on the street corner demanding change, certainly not me.

[T. Foster]

When you're being well-served by the status quo, there's a lot of resistance to changing it. When you're not being well-served by the status quo, you're likely not in much of a position to be able to change it...

[Ska]

Axe---the country will soon learn that Obama is a leftist (to the extreme). He will run through socialist policies and try to use the guise of the economic downturn to do so.'


He wants absolute government control of your money, your ability to defend yourself, your ability to speak out as a free person, your ability to choose your own medical care----he just wants you to rely on the government for everything.

I gave money to Saxby Chambliss and will continue to assist those who oppose (at least to some extent) the far left future as envisioned by such leftist as Obama.

[francisca]

Axe, there was one and only one major party candidate in the 2008 election that would have brought significant change to the US federal government: Ron Paul.

Paul would've ended our insanely interventionist foreign policy, vetoed every single bill that violated the Constitution, and restored the course of the country to the one envisioned by our founders. If Americans actually wanted to change, he would have been our man.

But, alas, Americans no longer wish to be free. The old paternalism of birthright and deference to a landed oligarchy has been replaced by a new paternalism where many look on gov't as our caretaker. It is ashame and, frankly, embarrassing.

Still, over 1 million people cast a vote in the primaries for a candidate with a consistent philosophy (and voting record) that adheres to the principles of the founders: life, liberty, and property rights. In that fact alone, did I take a single moment of solace during the entire (seemingly endless) campaign cycle.

Keep tilting at those windmills.

[AxeMental]

When you're being well-served by the status quo, there's a lot of resistance to changing it. When you're not being well-served by the status quo, you're likely not in much of a position to be able to change it...

But the election is over, whats stopping Obama from repealing Bush's Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Whats stopping him from getting the troops out in months rather then years (as he said he would to his liberal base)? It seems that if what your saying is true, the time to keep the "status quo" was pre-election, not post. Or am I missing something?

[Marriat the Ranger]

I'm all for one world government ....

as long as I'm the dictator running it all

[Terrex]

Supporting constitutional government is not "tilting at windmills".

[JCBoney]

Supporting constitutional government is not "tilting at windmills".

Oh it is... haven't you heard? Supporting a sensible person like Ron Paul automatically marks you as a nutcase or tinfoil-head.

It was amazing... Paul said exactly what the average American was thinking, but couldn't make the primary or even get decent air time on TV. I know why that was, but I don't dare use the magic word in fear of getting banned.

That being said, if there is a push for a OWG, then who would you say is behind it?

[AxeMental]

SKA I hope your wrong. I think what you spelt out sounds alot like some of the more socialist leaning countries in Europe (and thats the general direction we are all heading...and I think the direction the supposed one world government (aka shadow govt.) is aiming for as well...assuming it exists at all) but it would probably be too fast and cause an all out rebellion (unite the Reagan Republicans with the Reagan Dems). If were going to stop that train, it better happen PDQ, or we'll have forgotten who we are (as I think many of the British have). Really its arleady happening. I can remember when people would have scoffed at the idea of a nationalized car industry, not so anymore. Where is the outrage? Is socialism now the answer?

[T. Foster]

When you're being well-served by the status quo, there's a lot of resistance to changing it. When you're not being well-served by the status quo, you're likely not in much of a position to be able to change it...

But the election is over, whats stopping Obama from repealing Bush's Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Whats stopping him from getting the troops out in months rather then years (as he said he would to his liberal base)? It seems that if what your saying is true, the time to keep the "status quo" was pre-election, not post. Or am I missing something?

Genuine desire? Political expediency? The "culture of Washington" (which Obama ran promising to change but now seems to be increasingly conforming to)? There are a lot of people who wield a lot of power and influence with a strong vested interest in making sure nothing much changes, and they're busy getting their claws into the Obama administration-to-be. This isn't really surprising to me, but I was hoping it might not happen quite so obviously or quickly

[AxeMental]

When you're being well-served by the status quo, there's a lot of resistance to changing it. When you're not being well-served by the status quo, you're likely not in much of a position to be able to change it...

But the election is over, whats stopping Obama from repealing Bush's Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Whats stopping him from getting the troops out in months rather then years (as he said he would to his liberal base)? It seems that if what your saying is true, the time to keep the "status quo" was pre-election, not post. Or am I missing something?

Genuine desire? Political expediency? The "culture of Washington" (which Obama ran promising to change but now seems to be increasingly conforming to)? There are a lot of people who wield a lot of power and influence with a strong vested interest in making sure nothing much changes, and they're busy getting their claws into the Obama administration-to-be. This isn't really surprising to me, but I was hoping it might not happen quite so obviously or quickly

And thats my point. Who are those telling Obama what to do, and why does he care so much (like I said, he's already there). Personally I think he'd rather load up with libs and push hard left. Thats his voting record. Its clear someone is holding him back. Who (or what)? Are they even pro-American (or just multi-national). Do voters even matter any more (after the election).

[Algolei]

Have you people been watching Zeitgeist videos on Youtube again??