Globalization is the main focus. For this to happen, the power of the United States must be weakened; in which would allow America to join the global community on equal terms (or as close as can be).
Did Obama do this? No. George Bush did. He was a Liberal, yet Republicans voted for him! I laugh at Republicans now! You are blind until it is too late to see!
I turn my back on you. I do not know you. I am glad I left your party of race-hating, misogynistic, Bible-toting, gun-worshiping nut jobs.
The agenda is quite clear...we are taking away all your guns! Get over it!
Apparently, Americans are not mature enough to own firearms anymore. It seems they just want to go around to schools and pizzerias and kill and murder innocent people.
Bye-bye guns!
Next on the list...Religion!
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
Third on the list is anyone who doesn't bow to globalism. You my friend are not on the right side of history. Once you see that it will be when the globalists have taken over and YOU don't fit their mold. Funny how people always think they are on the good side until they are at the other end of the barrel. Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, just saying.
The barrel never got pointed at Mao. He was riding high when he went to meet his maker.
'sides, globalisation is the good side of history. The alternative is the kind of regionalism and nationalism that's made the world such a combative, stagnant place throughout most of history.
Globalization is a pipe dream and won't occur in this century, without smarter people who aren't greedy and self centered getting involved. Look at the world and how divided people remain who actually live in close proximity to each other. There are good people in every corner of the planet, but without their involvement there will never be positive steps towards any form of globalization.
Personally I believe a globalized world would be a huge improvement. Imagine an electric grid that encompasses the globe sharing resources worldwide that actually makes electricity available to more people, but actually requires fewer power sources to get it done.
Unfortunately the current form of "Globalization" is dominated by business & profits and doesn't always account for the needs of the populations corporate decisions effect.
The post that started this thread (and the "agenda" as stated) reads like it's informed by paranoid facebook rants and other internet faux-factual alerts about the demise of the world as we know it.
Social media alone will prevent absolute isolationism (as mrswdk pointed out) and just might eventual provide enough understanding to allow direct dialogues to sort out differences instead of shooting first.
I bet followers of Mao were killed after he got in power. I guess what I'm saying is people always think they are the winning team, following blindly behind a leader, until their leader turn on them as they are no longer needed. We only need about 300-500 million people to run this world efficiently within 10 regions like the UN says. That doesn't look good for the rest of us.Globalism isn't for everyone.
Why would Pol Pot kill educated people. Why would a bank robber kill his accomplice? Not needed anymore. Look past your nose. DURBUDURBDUD!! Man you people look at everything one dimensional.
Lol. Y'all know globalization is just a scary buzz word for something that's been happening since time immemorial, right? Cultures meet, exchange, and utilize the people, ideas, or goods that are traded. It's pretty much how new cultures are born.
There has never been an isolated culture that spontaneously came up with their way of living.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that those cultures who are resistant to cultural exchange are those that disappeared. Why do you think those pre-agriculture societies are pretty much dead and gone? The world keeps spinning.
how are ammunition restrictions going to stop all of those 1 and 2 person killings brought up at the beginning of the video? how do u stop people from reloading used shell cases? should someone buying 100 rounds of rifle ammo because they are planning a trip to a gun range with a buddy be watched by the fbi?
mrswdk wrote:Oh yeah, that famous period in Chinese history when Mao stopped needing his followers and starting having them killed.
Um... you've heard of the Cultural Revolution? 30 million dead, most of them loyal followers. Or has that been censored out of your history books?
Predictably, among the first to die was Liu Shaoqi, one of Mao's closest friends and advisors, and among the last to die was Lin Biao, again one of Mao's closest friends and advisors.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
mrswdk wrote:Oh yeah, that famous period in Chinese history when Mao stopped needing his followers and starting having them killed.
Um... you've heard of the Cultural Revolution? 30 million dead, most of them loyal followers. Or has that been censored out of your history books?
Predictably, among the first to die was Liu Shaoqi, one of Mao's closest friends and advisors, and among the last to die was Lin Biao, again one of Mao's closest friends and advisors.
Mao had to watch his back, didn't they had the "gang of four" executed for trying to overthrow the present regime without Mao's knowledge?
how are ammunition restrictions going to stop all of those 1 and 2 person killings brought up at the beginning of the video? how do u stop people from reloading used shell cases? should someone buying 100 rounds of rifle ammo because they are planning a trip to a gun range with a buddy be watched by the fbi?
Just make it all illegal, except for the military. Problem solved. Anyone caught with a gun or ammo would be considered a criminal and harshly punished (executed as a terrorist to the state as far as I am concerned).
And yes, if you have to buy 100 rounds of ammo for anything...you are a terrorist...and yes, the FBI should be watching your ass very closely.
Of course, I am a Liberal extremist; but that is my opinion.
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
mrswdk wrote:Oh yeah, that famous period in Chinese history when Mao stopped needing his followers and starting having them killed.
Um... you've heard of the Cultural Revolution? 30 million dead, most of them loyal followers. Or has that been censored out of your history books?
Predictably, among the first to die was Liu Shaoqi, one of Mao's closest friends and advisors, and among the last to die was Lin Biao, again one of Mao's closest friends and advisors.
The 30 million people died in the Great Leap Forward, due to a policy screw up that led to so much food being drained out the countryside to feed the urban workers that people started starving. Once Mao found out what has happening he put an end to it.
The high-ranking names you mention were people who Mao thought were trying to usurp him. Lin Biao, for example, died en route to Russia, to where people believe he was fleeing following a failed attempt at a coup. I wouldn't call someone like that a 'follower'.
mrswdk wrote:Oh yeah, that famous period in Chinese history when Mao stopped needing his followers and starting having them killed.
Um... you've heard of the Cultural Revolution? 30 million dead, most of them loyal followers. Or has that been censored out of your history books?
Predictably, among the first to die was Liu Shaoqi, one of Mao's closest friends and advisors, and among the last to die was Lin Biao, again one of Mao's closest friends and advisors.
Mao had to watch his back, didn't they had the "gang of four" executed for trying to overthrow the present regime without Mao's knowledge?
The Gang of Four were the people who lost the power struggle that followed Mao's death.
oVo wrote:Mao and all the Chinese leaders who have followed him have maintained a policy of killing or imprisoning all perceived threats within their borders.
Warmonger said that there probably came a point at which Mao stopped needing his followers and started killing them. I was responding to that, saying that there was no such point at which Mao stopped needing his followers and started killing them instead.
The rest of you are just spouting irrelevant shittle tattle about a system that you clearly don't have the first clue about.
Warmonger worded it wrong, Mao didn't dispose of his "followers," it was party members he felt threatened by that were dispensed with by accusation, imprisonment or death.
Q: Who was the guy in the late 90's touting over and over and over and over and over again "bridge to the 21st century!"
Hello NAFTA!
To be honest, comparing conservative posts to liberal posts, there is only one side snarling profanity and hate with zero room for tolerance and diversity. The Liberal agenda is to eliminate Conservative values and views to the point of making them illegal. Anything that doesn't agree with them has already been branded as extreme and insane. It's their way or the highway; no dissent is legitimate when it comes to their values and viewpoints. And they never argue their opinions or their beliefs; they can only repeat how anyone who doesn't agree is hateful or bigoted or sexist or racist, and that's it for the majority of them. Sure, there are some honest one's who this doesn't apply to, but it's true in general.
The OP says he is glad he left the Republican Party here. I am positive I read just in the last few days that he said he is a Communist...or at least for communism. How do u go from voting Republican to becoming a gun hating Communist?
Phatscotty wrote:To be honest, comparing conservative posts to liberal posts, there is only one side snarling profanity and hate with zero room for tolerance and diversity. The Liberal agenda is to eliminate Conservative values and views to the point of making them illegal. Anything that doesn't agree with them has already been branded as extreme and insane. It's their way or the highway; no dissent is legitimate when it comes to their values and viewpoints. And they never argue their opinions or their beliefs; they can only repeat how anyone who doesn't agree is hateful or bigoted or sexist or racist, and that's it for the majority of them. Sure, there are some honest one's who this doesn't apply to, but it's true in general.
Poppycock! To say " The Liberal agenda is to eliminate Conservative values and views to the point of making them illegal," is ridiculous.
