Let us be fair for the sake of being fair!

Quote :

They are global elites. "A new world order", anyone?

I also believe in globalism and a new world order.. to hell with this nationalism crap..

Republicans that were once Democrats...
https://www.ranker.com/list/most-influential-republicans-who-were-once-democrats/jennifer-lee

brokentulsa wrote:

Quote :

They are global elites. "A new world order", anyone?

I also believe in globalism and a new world order.. to hell with this nationalism crap..

Have you been chipped yet? Freedom is overrated. 24/7 surveillance is much better! Thanks for your enthusiastic cooperation.

brokentulsa wrote:

I also believe in globalism and a new world order.. to hell with this nationalism crap..

Why do you believe this way?

James B. wrote:

brokentulsa wrote:

I also believe in globalism and a new world order.. to hell with this nationalism crap..

Why do you believe this way?

Maybe he’s a luciferian. They see death, depopulation and government control as a good thing. I can’t understand that kind of hatred.

You like your sarcasm, Troublezone - too bad you don't have much to offer in terms of substantive rebuttals.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

You like your sarcasm, Troublezone - too bad you don't have much to offer in terms of substantive rebuttals.

Yes I was sarcastic. But I wasn’t speaking to you, was I? I’ve had plenty of discussions with you already in the past. Go back and read them. You’re just mad no one wants to respond to you because you are a chatterbox that doesn’t know when to stfu.

James and I were responding to brokentulsa’s surprising announcement. No one benefits from a new world order except elites and billionaires that are not subject to the rules and policing of the common man.

Now back to the question...

Why does brokentulsa believe in globalism and a new world order?

I didn't start this thread. I'm sorry if my contributions are a little more elaborate than just shallow postulations and talking points. I don't really care either way, in fact, it's quite telling to me that I am somehow made out to be "that guy", even though I never initiate anything. If you feel free and confident in spouting off whatever's on your mind, I should feel free to do the same - just because you don't agree with me and may find me annoying to discuss with (for whatever reason, I have my own theories about that) doesn't make my viewpoint have any less value. I struggle to see how I'm somehow the one "baiting" you guys, in a thread that was started by someone else, with a very flawed point.

I've read our discussions - several times. You can accuse me all you want of the opposite. I guess I find it taxing to get through to a man who actually seems to think private gun ownership can keep the most powerful government/military on the planet in check.

Facts are inconvenient, I know. That's my take on many of my points in this thread being ignored.

You can post/link whatever you want and that's completely fine, but I have to "stfu"? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Sorry if I came off rude... but you came at me for a comment that was directed at someone else. Of coarse your thoughts and contributions matter (everyone‘s does). But why do you think your long drawn out rebuttals make any better impact than a shorter “cut to the chase” no BS comment?

I’m surprised you said you have gone back to analyze the old discussions. Why? There are no winners. This isn’t a court of law. You don’t need to change anyone’s mind. We are a free society (thank God). We can make our points and move on...

Btw, I don’t own guns. But I support the responsible owners that do. It’s their right under our constitution. Only a small percentage of people commit violent atrocities. A society that is unarmed is at the mercy of the police and a government that may not care for your well being. Look at China and Russia... they can kill their citizens with no accountability.

To expand on a comment...

I don’t necessarily think private gun ownership can keep a powerful military in check... but it sure doesn’t hurt either. When you have millions of gun owners, there will be significant pushback. Never underestimate desperate people. In the Middle East, they will throw sticks and stones and whatever they get their hands on. You can kill a bull, but you might get the horns first. Never go down without a fight.

A New World order or one world government is needed. Sadly if it ever happens, it would be a dictatorship and end up enslaving us. We're so close to spreading out into the solar system, we can't have nations fighting over rocks in space, and shit like we do here on earth. Fighting over borders and shit is outdated and needs to change. One race, one world, one government.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

in a thread that was started by someone else, with a very flawed point.

Honest question, how is it flawed?

Democrats did all the things stated in the original post, truth is truth and saying it is flawed is kinda/sorta text book disingenuous.

Your initial response was saying the parties had/have switched? I asked for quantitative evidence and you have not replied. Maybe you missed it, maybe you don't care to reply, or maybe there is nothing to say cause there isn't any proof aside from talking heads on TV telling people how to think?

Like everyone has heard me rant for years, career politicians are the problem with our Republic...party affiliation is irrelevant.

Laterz

Wrecked Neck wrote:

A New World order or one world government is needed. Sadly if it ever happens, it would be a dictatorship and end up enslaving us. We're so close to spreading out into the solar system, we can't have nations fighting over rocks in space, and shit like we do here on earth. Fighting over borders and shit is outdated and needs to change. One race, one world, one government.

From a “progressive” secular perspective, that might sound okay...
But I see the biblical warning in Revelation. I do not want tracking devices under my skin, police state surveillance and loss of individual freedom.

Wrecked Neck wrote:

A New World order or one world government is needed. Sadly if it ever happens, it would be a dictatorship and end up enslaving us. We're so close to spreading out into the solar system, we can't have nations fighting over rocks in space, and shit like we do here on earth. Fighting over borders and shit is outdated and needs to change. One race, one world, one government.

To see how a NWO would operate/function today, look no further than the U.N. ; W.H.O. ; & the E.U.

(IMHDO) the biggest obstacle is religion. Then to make it actually work from a practical application, you need a sustainable distribution of wealth/resources and incentive for research into technologies without power and/or profit being motivation.

I know both of your points are valid and true. When I say we need a one world government, I know it will end in tyranny and chaos. I know it's a pipe dream that we could ever have one with peace, and freedom, but it's the only way we can ever evolve and end the madness that is planet earth.

Wrecked Neck wrote:

I know both of your points are valid and true. When I say we need a one world government, I know it will end in tyranny and chaos. I know it's a pipe dream that we could ever have one with peace, and freedom, but it's the only way we can ever evolve and end the madness that is planet earth.

What you describe is like a modern “Tower of Babel” type of deal.

Wrecked Neck wrote:

I I know it's a pipe dream that we could ever have one with peace, and freedom, but it's the only way we can ever evolve and end the madness that is planet earth.

A lot of humans would call what you describe the Millennial Reign of Christ, there is also similar text in the Hindu, Budha, and Muslim beliefs.

James B. wrote:

Wrecked Neck wrote:

I  I know it's a pipe dream that we could ever have one with peace, and freedom, but it's the only way we can ever evolve and end the madness that is planet earth.

A lot of humans would call what you describe the Millennial Reign of Christ, there is also similar text in the Hindu, Budha, and Muslim beliefs.

Problem with that is, it's religion that causes most of our problems to begin with. Hell if Christ did come back like the bible says he's going to do, the world governments would probably nuke him soon as he showed himself.

Wrecked Neck wrote:

James B. wrote:

Wrecked Neck wrote:

I  I know it's a pipe dream that we could ever have one with peace, and freedom, but it's the only way we can ever evolve and end the madness that is planet earth.

A lot of humans would call what you describe the Millennial Reign of Christ, there is also similar text in the Hindu, Budha, and Muslim beliefs.

Problem with that is, it's religion that causes most of our problems to begin with. Hell if Christ did come back like the bible says he's going to do, the world governments would probably nuke him soon as he showed himself.

Do you see the irony of that? It will be secular humans trying to nuke something supernatural? I think all nonbelievers will be freaked out and mortified when they witness Christ return. Most religion is used as a tool to control or a pissing contest of beliefs. People don’t need religion to interact with God. Humans have distorted the message of Christ by adding unnecessary man made rules and trying to force it on people against their will with fear (and violence during the dark ages). It’s supposed to be a freewill opportunity for everyone to accept (or not). Fear is the opposite of love.

When we witness Christ return? Yeah, I ain't holding my breath.  

If you believe in the story of Jesus Christ, then surely you need religion. Deism is a whole different animal.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

When we witness Christ return? Yeah, I ain't holding my breath.  

If you believe in the story of Jesus Christ, then surely you need religion. Deism is a whole different animal.

It’s my belief (and millions of others). I’m fine if you hold your breath.

As far as Deism, I have no problem using that as a starting point to acknowledge a higher power. Nature can attest to that... but the problem with denying scriptural revelations is that the proof is there. There’s too many to list, but one major event was the re-establishment of the Jewish state of Israel (against all odds).

Wow, a lot has been said here...sorry, I have been away from the computer for awhile. So let me start by giving you guys some definitions so you know what I am talking about and then I will respond to your question...

Nationalism:  Nationalism involves “national identity” A feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects with a sentiment of superiority and possible aggression toward other countries. Nationalism puts ones country above all others in trade, politics and world rule.

Patriotism:  Patriotism pertains to the love for a nation, with more emphasis on values and beliefs. The sentiments are more inclined towards the idea of coexistence, with equal respect & regard for other countries. In patriotism, people all over the world are considered equal. A patriotic person tends to tolerate criticism and tries to learn something new from it. Patriots tend to believe in friendly relations with other countries and is passive by nature.

Globalism: is an elimination of barriers to trade, communication, and cultural exchange. The theory behind globalization is that worldwide openness will promote the inherent wealth and health of all nations.
…...............
Let me start by saying that I am a Patriotic person and I have state (Texas) pride as well as US pride. That being said I do no think America is the greatest country in the world nor do I think we are better than anyone else. We are a global society and therefor we need a global plan for politics, Trade, health and the general welfare of the entire human race. I believe all people in all country's should exist with equal respect and regard for each other.. I think everything we do at the city, county, state, national and global levels should benefit all the people and not just a few. I think the UN and the Allies are important. I do think we should have borders and that all country's should have their own government but no country should have a government that is aggressive toward anyone else. Any aggressive Government should be dealt with by the entire planet.  An Example of what I am saying could be the Covid Pandemic. It is a global emergency and I think all the drs and scientist around the world should work together to solve the situation. No country should have an upper arm in any part of that. If a vaccine or cure is found all country's should work together to get it to the entire human race no matter who creates it. All medical and healthcare should work this way. As for trade I think trade agreements should not favor one country over another but should be designed to benefit all the country's involved in the deal. I think the entire world should work together to solve the climate dangers. As for the NWO idea I agree with George Bush that it is the ideological notion of world governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. I believe that all humans in all country's should be allowed without penalty or ridicule to worship who/what/how they choose provided it does not injure another person. I believe that all people should be able to love &/or marry whoever they choose regardless of sex or race or religious views. I think multiple people marriages should be legal if that is the wish of those involved. As you can see Im not picking just on America but a lot of country's. I think all country's should have their own traditions such as dress, lifestyle, cuisine, architecture, art, music, etc and that no other country or person should tell another how to live or dress, etc. … As for pay I think all country's should work together to help all people in the world to be educated and  successful and well paid so that all people can support their families and have a good life.
Since it was brought up I will address troublezones religious comment. I am a Christian who believes in free grace theology. I also think the gnostics have some knowledge as well.  I do not buy into fundamentalist Christian views or Evangelicalism. I do however believe that they have a right to their views just as I have a right to mine and I believe all people should have a right to their religious views or no religious views without condemnation or ridicule or debate...and that all have a right to their interpretation of whatever scriptures they choose to believe in also without condemnation, ridicule or debate.. I do understand your view troublezone because I was raised with the same view and my family still believes it. I however do not believe as they/you do anymore. Let me also point out that a new world government as mentioned in scripture is different from what I am proposing as it will be ruled over by one person (a dictator referred to as the antichrist). Christian Scripture warns us it WILL happen..not that it could or might happen.

Thanks for clarifying