War in Ukraine

[Sam2000]

First you said:

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Bush is just another tool for the Military Industrial Complex/ Globalists, NWO) just like Clinton, Reagan, and Obama


Then you said:

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
these elites are ALL in agreement about
globalism, whether it is Bush, Clinton, Kissenger, Obama, ect.


So I'm confused because on the one hand you say Bush et al don't matter and then you say they are the elites who are in agreement and that agreement presumably means something.

Lastly, I need some advice. How do I make a conspiracy video using your two conspiracy quotes that will point out that there is a conspiracy amongst all conspiracy theorists because their conspiracies contradict one another?

 

[fdcg27]

This is a broad-brush generalization.
Most leaders and most economists agree that free trade is desirable for all and improves the living standards of all.
Ever hear of comparative advantage?
Does this mean that they're promoting an evil agenda?
Most leaders believe that multi-lateral organizations are a desirable way of resolving disputes between nations and promoting cooperation among them.
Is this also an evil agenda?
What you call globalism is more correctly called interconnectedness.
Nations that have strong economic, social and diplomatic ties are less inclined to make war upon one another than are those that don't.
Nations that maintain communications are less likely to attack their neighbors than those that don't.
Or are you advocating a set of very independent nation states that settle their differences the old fashioned way, with weapons?
That seems to be your view in some of your earlier posts in this thread, where you applauded Russia's millitary actions involving another sovereign state.
Now, let's get things back on the track of the thread.
Just as political unrest in Mexico wouldn't be a reasonable premise for a US intervention, unrest in Ukraine doesn't justify a Russian intervention, particularly when it appears that Russia has done everything it can to foment and exacerbate that unrest.
I believe that it was Lenin who coined the term "useful idiots".
Ironic how well it fits those in the West eager to defend Russia's actions under Putin and equally eager to denigrate the very government that allows them this freedom of expression without threat of any legal or extra-legal sanction.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Well this thread has been thoroughly derailed.


More like:

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This is a broad-brush generalization.
Most leaders and most economists agree that free trade is desirable for all and improves the living standards of all.


Bottom line is that the US middle class and lower classes incomes and standards are going DOWN, not up, and the benefits for the poorest nations, like China is miniscule at best for the masses.

Again I believe that my nation's leaders should do what is best (without aggressive actions against other nations. Oh, if you haven't noticed the US globalist leaders are making war against other nations at a breakneck pace over the past 50 years.

The US has committed aggressive force against.....

countries bombed by the USA in the last 60 years

The bombing list
Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-1961

Guatemala 1960

Congo 1964

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Grenada 1983

Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1980s

Nicaragua 1980s

Iran 1987

Panama 1989

Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1993

Bosnia 1994, 1995

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia 1999

Yemen 2002

Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)

Iraq 2003-05

Afghanistan 2001-05

And that doesn't include the covert attacks against nations like
Argentina CIA coup
Iran CIA Coup.
ect...

Quote:

Does this mean that they're promoting an evil agenda?



It depends on who you are doesn't it?
I consider US incomes, and living standards being lowered an attack.

Quote:

What you call globalism is more correctly called interconnectedness.



I call it elitism.
Quote:

Nations that have strong economic, social and diplomatic ties are less inclined to make war upon one another than are those that don't.


As long as those nations do it a certain way dictated by a few powerful elite. If they refuse, even when they pose no threat to other nations they are and have been attacked viciously.

Quote:

Or are you advocating a set of very independent nation states that settle their differences the old fashioned way, with weapons?


Of course not and you you know it.
Patronizing me won't help your case.

Quote:

That seems to be your view in some of your earlier posts in this thread, where you applauded Russia's millitary actions involving another sovereign state.


Really see my response of countries the US has bombed. Those nations posed no imminent threat to US borders.


Again a divided elite, in a multi polar world is the best and most effective method to prevent a small minority enslaving the majority of citizens. Divide and conquer is beneficial to ordinary citizens when it comes to the elite.

 

[andrewg]

^Why don't you just immigrate to a nation less active in world affairs and beyond any sort of reproach in your mind? Choose a perfectly peaceful, benevolent nation that has no need to spend money on the military in order to protect it's interests. Perhaps one that chooses not to participate in the global marketplace nor have any interest in capitalism. Also, be sure that in such a nation it has no questionable history of injustices against any peoples or cultures.
Let us know when you find one.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
^Why don't you just immigrate to a nation less active in world affairs and beyond any sort of reproach in your mind? Choose a perfectly peaceful, benevolent nation that has no need to spend money on the military in order to protect it's interests. Perhaps one that chooses not to participate in the global marketplace nor have any interest in capitalism. Also, be sure that in such a nation it has no questionable history of injustices against any peoples or cultures.
Let us know when you find one.


Because none of those nations would allow him to blow away people who trespass on his property, which he seems to advocate in the other thread.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: andrewg
^Why don't you just immigrate to a nation less active in world affairs and beyond any sort of reproach in your mind? Choose a perfectly peaceful, benevolent nation that has no need to spend money on the military in order to protect it's interests. Perhaps one that chooses not to participate in the global marketplace nor have any interest in capitalism. Also, be sure that in such a nation it has no questionable history of injustices against any peoples or cultures.
Let us know when you find one.


Because none of those nations would allow him to blow away people who trespass on his property, which he seems to advocate in the other thread.


Did he really? Geez....

 

[Sam2000]

But his list of countries bombed is sobering isn't it?

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
^Why don't you just immigrate to a nation less active in world affairs and beyond any sort of reproach in your mind? Choose a perfectly peaceful, benevolent nation that has no need to spend money on the military in order to protect it's interests. Perhaps one that chooses not to participate in the global marketplace nor have any interest in capitalism.


No, I'd rather press for the illegal and unconstitutional actions of US leaders and officials in high offices to be removed from office and prosecuted.

Fact is that no matter what some elite believe to be best, they are violating the US Constitution, (eg global trade agreements that allow enforcement to occur outside of Congress's jurisdiction)


While I'm no fan of Russia elites either, yes, that bombing list IS quite something...not to be proud of.


And to think most of that bombing was done by the same leaders that are pro globalist in their beliefs.


LOL.

"Accept our offer of 'freedom' and 'democracy' or we will destroy you."

 

[fdcg27]

US family income growth has been slow due to a major recession which began in 2008, in case you hadn't noticed.
We are still digging ourselves out of the crater created by the financial clever boys.
Still, are you better off financially than you were ten years ago?
We are as are most of those we know personally.
For those on the outside looking in, the economy looks lousy, but for those who've secured and maintained decent employment, things are pretty okay and as the economy reaches full employment over the next couple of years, the gloomy outlook will be gone for all but those who are chronically unemployed for reasons having nothing to do with the state of the greater economy.
Once a Mexico started making things like cement and steel, then anyone would recognize that the existence of these industries in first world countries at first world wages would be seriously constrained, at least at the commodity level.
You cite a number of actions undertaken by our country against others over many decades.
Some of what you portray is simply wrong, while most of the rest were intended either to neutralize direct threats to our country, to support Isreal or other allies when under attack by neighbors or were parts of proxy wars engaged in by China, Russia or their client states. Many actions you haven't listed were undertaken by all sides in the lengthly cold war.
The USSR (IOW Russia), for example, loved to use its client state Cuba to supply what amounted to mercenaries to fight proxy wars in Africa.
Finally, the elites remain ununited, since they all seek money and power.
It's very unlikley that they've arrived at either an active or tacit agreement to share the two.
They are competitors, not allies.

 

[antiqueshell]

marketwatch most new jobs are low wage-- study finds

Fact is that most newly created jobs today are low wage jobs without much promise for advancement, and the prognosis is for this to stay much the same for the near term future.

To be a viable nation it must have a diversity of industry and employment, which includes manufacturing.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

marketwatch most new jobs are low wage-- study finds

Fact is that most newly created jobs today are low wage jobs without much promise for advancement, and the prognosis is for this to stay much the same for the near term future.

To be a viable nation it must have a diversity of industry and employment, which includes manufacturing.


This is a pesistant urban myth.
There are many good jobs that go begging due to a lack of qualified applicants.
There are many smaller firms that could expand if only they could find qualified people to hire.
Those taking low wage jobs do so because they have low skills.
As an example, do you know what the unemployment rate was among college graduates with work history in the recessionary depths of 2010?
About 2%!
We do need to find a way to enhance the skill set of those entrants to the job market without college degrees or technical training.
We also need to enforce both standards of behavior and academic standards in our high schools to ensure that those diplomas actually mean something.
Young people also should be made aware of the possibility of relocating to a more robust economy.
In Texas, there was no recession and good jobs are plentiful, even for low-skilled applicants, while almost anyone could go to North Dakota and expect to make a pile. Other states, like Florida, lag, while some, like Michigan remain an anchor on the national economy.
Which leads to another point. A rising tide lifts all boats and as the economy reaches full employment over the next couple of years, labor shortages will drive up wages even for the unskilled.
Remember the roaring 'nineties? At that time, nominal wages for low skilled workers were higher than they are now. Combine the demand for labor with the ever-increasing number of workers retiring and we'll see a robust recovery in real personal incomes.
What I'm trying to convey is that skills matter and low skilled applicants with no work history should not expect a high wage in the current environment, although they might by 2017.
Manufacturing?
Once a Mexico or a China or a Vietnam becomes proficient in an industry, first world countries cannot expect to be able to compete in commodity production, although they can in specialized product.
None of these countries can make the more advanced industrial products made here.
Manufacturing is hardly dead in America and has actually lead the recovery.
On another level, agricultural products have always been a or the leading export of our country.
We are blessed with far more arable land than we can use the production of, to the extent that we even do silly things like making fuel out of corn.
You could look it up.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: andrewg
^Why don't you just immigrate to a nation less active in world affairs and beyond any sort of reproach in your mind? Choose a perfectly peaceful, benevolent nation that has no need to spend money on the military in order to protect it's interests. Perhaps one that chooses not to participate in the global marketplace nor have any interest in capitalism. Also, be sure that in such a nation it has no questionable history of injustices against any peoples or cultures.
Let us know when you find one.


Because none of those nations would allow him to blow away people who trespass on his property, which he seems to advocate in the other thread.


Did he really? Geez....


Him and a few others.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27

marketwatch most new jobs are low wage-- study finds

Fact is that most newly created jobs today are low wage jobs without much promise for advancement, and the prognosis is for this to stay much the same for the near term future.

To be a viable nation it must have a diversity of industry and employment, which includes manufacturing.

Quote:

This is a persistant urban myth.
There are many good jobs that go begging due to a lack of qualified applicants.

No, it is not.The reality is that only low wage sectors are having strong growth.

Another issue is that those small firms or heck any firm today want to have top notch employees and not pay them GOOD wages. Skilled or not. I've been a personal witness to this trend. That is why the lobbyists keep pushing for HB-1 visas for
poverty stricken people from India and other developing nations to take US jobs.
Quote:


As

an example, do you know what the unemployment rate was among college graduates with work history in the recessionary depths of 2010?
About 2%!
.


LOL....was that a U2 number or the more accurate U6 figure?

Also even if their unemployment rates were just 2% many of those well educated and skilled folks were taking jobs as fast food workers. Bahahaaaa!

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
You are welcome to your OPINION, when you watch the videos you know they are pretty straight forward and it is impossible to take the information out of context.

No, it's essentially always possible to take a statement out of context. It happens all the time.

Originally Posted By: sam2000
Lastly, I need some advice. How do I make a conspiracy video using your two conspiracy quotes that will point out that there is a conspiracy amongst all conspiracy theorists because their conspiracies contradict one another?

A named "elite" is only elite and powerful when it suits the statement at hand. The instant they need to become a pawn, they magically become one.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
You are welcome to your OPINION, when you watch the videos you know they are pretty straight forward and it is impossible to take the information out of context.

No, it's essentially always possible to take a statement out of context. It happens all the time.


Sure it is "possible" but in the case of these videos I posted it is clear cut and simple, these high officials are in support of globalism, the new world odor, ect.

Since any number of aspects of globalism including remotely administrated trade agreements for one, they are in violation of certain US Constitutional requirements.

That may not be the case with Canadian laws.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Sure it is "possible" but in the case of these videos I posted it is clear cut and simple, these high officials are in support of globalism, the new world odor, ect.

Staying out of the politics of it, plenty of people are in favour of globalism, and the issue is the definition of that term. Being able to readily trade with, visit, receive visits from, help, and receive help from our international neighbours is not even remotely the same thing as UN troopers grabbing our guns and making us all drive hybrids.

I said it once before, and I'll say it again. The elites love this stuff - people worrying about imaginary problems is a great distraction from the real problems in the world. This thread is a perfect example. Instead of focusing on the real issue of unrest in the Ukraine, it has derailed to talk of imaginary nonsense like fiat money and the New World Order.

That's why Putin never has to worry about what he's doing, aside from dealing with the issue locally. Any foreign threat to his plans is derailed by imaginary issues.

After all, Putin really isn't trying to take pieces of the Ukraine. It's much bigger than that. We have to decide whether he's one of the reptilians, whether this is some attempt to hedge against fiat currency, or whether this was a plot concocted by him along with Bush Sr. and B. Clinton before even diplomatic action can be taken. Right?

 

[Sam2000]

antiqueshell - please give us a synopsis of the claims in your videos you posted, what are the facts that prove those claims and how those claims and facts are linked.

Should be easy: Claim 1 is ...... This is proven by the following facts ...... We know these are linked because .....

I don't think people are seeing it so perhaps you need to spell out an example or two from the videos you suggested we watch.

 

[fdcg27]

You may not have a good grasp of the labor market and how it determines wage levels.
As unemployment shrinks, even low skilled or unskilled jobs will see wage growth.
This is simple supply and demand.
As the supply of entry level job seekers shrinks, employers must offer higher wages if they want to be able to compete with other employers to fill positions that add marginal revenue.
Skilled workers do command a wage premium.
Once again, it isn't employers who determine the wage levels, rather it's the supply of workers versus the number of positions available in the market.
If an employer wants to fill a skilled position, they'll have to offer competitive wages. Workers are only added when their marginal productivity exceeds their marginal cost to a firm.
A firm that can profitably expand if it adds skilled positions must compete with every other firm in the same position.
For both the skilled and the unskilled job seeker, it isn't employers who determine wage levels, rather it's the supply of available applicants.
As the labor market tightens over the next couple of years, we'll see growth in real personal incomes which may be quite rapid.
Finally, I know of very few college graduates with decent resumes who remained unemployed for very long even in the depths of the recession.
I don't know of a single one who took a job in fast food or anything else that involved minimum wage entry level work.
I also don't know of any who lost their standard of living, except for a couple of people who were burried deeply in personal debt.

 

[Shannow]

And when unemployment starts to shrink below the critical level that DOES start to force wages upwards, the various Reserve Banks will increase interest rates to increase the cost of money, and reduce the number of available positions.

TPTB consider that there is an "optimum" unemployment level which keeps the unemployed hungry, and the employed fearful, and control the cost of money to keep it that way.