Obama Calls For One World Government

[Moonglow]

No. He again is ignoring the will of the nation and exercising his own beliefs...whether they are a true path to securing jobs for everyone and bringing jobs back to the USA is of course not on his radar.

Obama has created more jobs for refugees and recent immigrants than any president in our history.
The problem is, the US citizens have lost more jobs then we have since the depression.

You wouldn't have a link for that would you?

Of course you don't

Come on a military post. All the whites are just about gone. Now blacks and foreigners have replaced 70% of the PX employees. Walt Disney is using their employees to train foreigners to replace them. This is going on all over the United States.

Wake the fuck up.

It started during Reagan.. The chow hall went from soldiers to Korean cooks..

In the 70s blacks and Filipinos were prevalent in the Navy chowhalls......but that was because it was the only jobs they were allowed. That and supply.

These were Korean civilians, and they cooked a lot better than the enlisted...

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama has created more jobs for refugees and recent immigrants than any president in our history.
The problem is, the US citizens have lost more jobs then we have since the depression.

You wouldn't have a link for that would you?

Of course you don't

Come on a military post. All the whites are just about gone. Now blacks and foreigners have replaced 70% of the PX employees. Walt Disney is using their employees to train foreigners to replace them. This is going on all over the United States.

Wake the fuck up.

It started during Reagan.. The chow hall went from soldiers to Korean cooks..

In the 70s blacks and Filipinos were prevalent in the Navy chowhalls......but that was because it was the only jobs they were allowed. That and supply.

These were Korean civilians, and they cooked a lot better than the enlisted...

Must have been the Army. Very few Koreans in the Navy. Mostly Filipinos.

 

[Moonglow]

You wouldn't have a link for that would you?

Of course you don't

Come on a military post. All the whites are just about gone. Now blacks and foreigners have replaced 70% of the PX employees. Walt Disney is using their employees to train foreigners to replace them. This is going on all over the United States.

Wake the fuck up.

It started during Reagan.. The chow hall went from soldiers to Korean cooks..

In the 70s blacks and Filipinos were prevalent in the Navy chowhalls......but that was because it was the only jobs they were allowed. That and supply.

These were Korean civilians, and they cooked a lot better than the enlisted...

Must have been the Army. Very few Koreans in the Navy. Mostly Filipinos.

Yep, I was at Redstone Arsenal Missiles and Munitions in Huntsville, Alabama...

 

[rightwinger]

I work on a military post every day. Haven't seen a major change in 20 years. They hire locals and military spouses
Your anecdotal evidence of " Obama has created more jobs for refugees and recent immigrants than any President in history" is pretty weak

Either you're lying or you aren't paying attention.

It is very noticeable here. Here in the South East, almost every government position, the Post Office, the PX, the Commissary, MWR, management of the barracks, all are being filled with non-whites. I know the post office folks here in Clarksville by sight. They have all been replaced with young blacks. The banks. All young blacks. The IRS agents that audited me.....blacks. All of the whites are retiring and are being replaced with blacks.

Damn if I didn't know better, I would think you are a fucking racist

And I knew you would say that.

What am is observant.

Half my relatives are black....the rest are Native-Merkin.

I have worked on military bases since 1978. The workforce has always been comprised of Civil Servants covered by civil service laws and NAF employees drawn from the local communities. NAF employees receive preference if they are Vets or spouses of active duty personnel.
The Post Office is covered under the same personnel rules it has been for decades

The fact that you are noticing more "negroes" and foreigners can only reflect your own biases

I have either worked on them or served on them since 1974.....and you just made my case for me. Who decides what the personnel rules are, dipshit? Who is in charge of the Department of Defense and the Postmaster General? Who has been pushing "Diversity in hiring" since he took office in 2009?

Btw, back in the 90s it was well known that under Clinton, if you were black, getting hired by the US Postal Service was almost a sure thing. Whites, not so much. So Obama isn't the only one. Clinton did it too, but on a lessor scale.

Since 2009? Obama hasn't done anything affecting on base hiring other than raising minimum wage to $10.10 an hour

Want real affirmative action, go back to the days of Reagan in the 80s. Every hiring action was reviewed by AA, every promotion was questioned, strict quotas in government procurements, 8A set asides

Obama is a lightweight

 

[mudwhistle]

Either you're lying or you aren't paying attention.

It is very noticeable here. Here in the South East, almost every government position, the Post Office, the PX, the Commissary, MWR, management of the barracks, all are being filled with non-whites. I know the post office folks here in Clarksville by sight. They have all been replaced with young blacks. The banks. All young blacks. The IRS agents that audited me.....blacks. All of the whites are retiring and are being replaced with blacks.

Damn if I didn't know better, I would think you are a fucking racist

And I knew you would say that.

What am is observant.

Half my relatives are black....the rest are Native-Merkin.

I have worked on military bases since 1978. The workforce has always been comprised of Civil Servants covered by civil service laws and NAF employees drawn from the local communities. NAF employees receive preference if they are Vets or spouses of active duty personnel.
The Post Office is covered under the same personnel rules it has been for decades

The fact that you are noticing more "negroes" and foreigners can only reflect your own biases

I have either worked on them or served on them since 1974.....and you just made my case for me. Who decides what the personnel rules are, dipshit? Who is in charge of the Department of Defense and the Postmaster General? Who has been pushing "Diversity in hiring" since he took office in 2009?

Btw, back in the 90s it was well known that under Clinton, if you were black, getting hired by the US Postal Service was almost a sure thing. Whites, not so much. So Obama isn't the only one. Clinton did it too, but on a lessor scale.

Since 2009? Obama hasn't done anything affecting on base hiring other than raising minimum wage to $10.10 an hour

Want real affirmative action, go back to the days of Reagan in the 80s. Every hiring action was reviewed by AA, every promotion was questioned, strict quotas in government procurements, 8A set asides

Obama is a lightweight

Thanks for admitting you haven't a damned clue what's been going on.

Fucking dumbass....

Diversity & Inclusion

"In November 2011, as specified in Executive Order 13583, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget-in coordination with the President's Management Council and the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-developed and published a Government-wide diversity and inclusion strategic plan, which all Federal agencies will implement. Within 120 days after the Government-wide diversity and inclusion strategic plan was issued, by March 16, 2012, Federal agencies are also required to develop their own diversity and inclusion strategic plans, consistent with the Government-wide plan. "​

 

[washamericom]

Here's a question that the RWnuts will find too complicated to cope with...

When the Founders talked about 'unalienable rights' and when they talked about governments being created to secure those rights,

weren't they really talking about a one world government?

If they had been talking about ONE world government they would not have talked about governments. The s after the word government indicates more than one government. I hope that wasn't too complicated for you.

They were talking about rights given by God.

What nationality is God?

she's transparent.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As expected.

Obama Praises Globalism While Acknowledging Its Faults

If you really want to discuss globalization and it's good and bad points, as well as the connection to the "one world government" theory, you might want to read this very well written and balanced essay. I suspect, sadly, that you do not really want to learn anything, but rather you are content to take something like Obama's speech and use it to take a shot at him, when you really have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay
Published: 23, March 2015

Globalization refers to the fact that we are increasingly living in "one world". It is the increasing integration of the world economy. In previous times, the global economy was primarily based in agriculture or industry. Nowadays, it is being more and more dominated by "weightless" activities, known as the weightless economy. A weightless economy (or a knowledge economy) is an economy whose production are based in information, such as internet-based services, computer software, electronic mail etc. (3:54).

Globalization is produced by the coming together of political, economic, cultural and social factors. (3:52)

I suggest that you pay special attention to this passage towards the end:

Hyperglobalizers believe that globalization is a real and powerful phenomenon that threatens to erode the role of national governments altogether. They see globalization as a new epoch of human history characterized by significant changes in trade, finance and governance. (Grant et al, 2004 p. 379). They argue that as goods, capital and, labour markets become more open, there is increased competition. Theorists see the transnational corporation becoming rootless, and as such able to move freely around the world in order to maximise profits, thus eclipsing the nation state. Economic pressure caused by the globalization of industry forces national governments to place the priorities of the economy above those of other policies intended to protect citizens.

Sceptics are less convinced of the novelty of globalization. They argue that the idea of globalization is exaggerated and is a contemporary myth, with too much debate about something that's not a new phenomenon. They propose that globalization conceals the reality of an international order divided into three blocs (the so-called triad of the United States, Europe and Japan), and who hold that national governments remain the most powerful actors on the world stage. The sceptical standpoint is seen as understating the transformations involved; changes of great magnitude are evident but the trajectories of those changes are uncertain. (Grant et al, 2004)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Good speech. Take it you don't agree? No much of an argument, there, Billy.

Obama has a hard on for national sovereignty. Especially ours. He resents it.

You're another one who needs to get an education and read more........allow me to refer you to post 147

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

As expected.

Obama Praises Globalism While Acknowledging Its Faults

If you really want to discuss globalization and it's good and bad points, as well as the connection to the "one world government" theory, you might want to read this very well written and balanced essay. I suspect, sadly, that you do not really want to learn anything, but rather you are content to take something like Obama's speech and use it to take a shot at him, when you really have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay
Published: 23, March 2015

Globalization refers to the fact that we are increasingly living in "one world". It is the increasing integration of the world economy. In previous times, the global economy was primarily based in agriculture or industry. Nowadays, it is being more and more dominated by "weightless" activities, known as the weightless economy. A weightless economy (or a knowledge economy) is an economy whose production are based in information, such as internet-based services, computer software, electronic mail etc. (3:54).

Globalization is produced by the coming together of political, economic, cultural and social factors. (3:52)

I suggest that you pay special attention to this passage towards the end:

Hyperglobalizers believe that globalization is a real and powerful phenomenon that threatens to erode the role of national governments altogether. They see globalization as a new epoch of human history characterized by significant changes in trade, finance and governance. (Grant et al, 2004 p. 379). They argue that as goods, capital and, labour markets become more open, there is increased competition. Theorists see the transnational corporation becoming rootless, and as such able to move freely around the world in order to maximise profits, thus eclipsing the nation state. Economic pressure caused by the globalization of industry forces national governments to place the priorities of the economy above those of other policies intended to protect citizens.

Sceptics are less convinced of the novelty of globalization. They argue that the idea of globalization is exaggerated and is a contemporary myth, with too much debate about something that's not a new phenomenon. They propose that globalization conceals the reality of an international order divided into three blocs (the so-called triad of the United States, Europe and Japan), and who hold that national governments remain the most powerful actors on the world stage. The sceptical standpoint is seen as understating the transformations involved; changes of great magnitude are evident but the trajectories of those changes are uncertain. (Grant et al, 2004)

"Secure Connection Failed"

Who wrote the essay?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As expected.

Obama Praises Globalism While Acknowledging Its Faults

If you really want to discuss globalization and it's good and bad points, as well as the connection to the "one world government" theory, you might want to read this very well written and balanced essay. I suspect, sadly, that you do not really want to learn anything, but rather you are content to take something like Obama's speech and use it to take a shot at him, when you really have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay
Published: 23, March 2015

Globalization refers to the fact that we are increasingly living in "one world". It is the increasing integration of the world economy. In previous times, the global economy was primarily based in agriculture or industry. Nowadays, it is being more and more dominated by "weightless" activities, known as the weightless economy. A weightless economy (or a knowledge economy) is an economy whose production are based in information, such as internet-based services, computer software, electronic mail etc. (3:54).

Globalization is produced by the coming together of political, economic, cultural and social factors. (3:52)

I suggest that you pay special attention to this passage towards the end:

Hyperglobalizers believe that globalization is a real and powerful phenomenon that threatens to erode the role of national governments altogether. They see globalization as a new epoch of human history characterized by significant changes in trade, finance and governance. (Grant et al, 2004 p. 379). They argue that as goods, capital and, labour markets become more open, there is increased competition. Theorists see the transnational corporation becoming rootless, and as such able to move freely around the world in order to maximise profits, thus eclipsing the nation state. Economic pressure caused by the globalization of industry forces national governments to place the priorities of the economy above those of other policies intended to protect citizens.

Sceptics are less convinced of the novelty of globalization. They argue that the idea of globalization is exaggerated and is a contemporary myth, with too much debate about something that's not a new phenomenon. They propose that globalization conceals the reality of an international order divided into three blocs (the so-called triad of the United States, Europe and Japan), and who hold that national governments remain the most powerful actors on the world stage. The sceptical standpoint is seen as understating the transformations involved; changes of great magnitude are evident but the trajectories of those changes are uncertain. (Grant et al, 2004)

"Secure Connection Failed"

Who wrote the essay?

I don't have to tell you who wrote it. So what is your point? Your response is nothing more than a red herring intended to avoid having to actually address the issues raised. You're demonstrating a Trumpienesk level of anti-intellectualism where facts and details are just inconvenient annoyances to be ignored in favor of lies and sound bites like "Obama supports one world government"

Is there something, anything, in that essay that you can refute who care to make an intelligent comment on- that is, if you can.

 

[namvet]

actually its Soro's who wants this one world shit. Osama is just his puppet

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

actually its Soro's who wants this one world shit. Osama is just his puppet

Did it ever occur to you that if you post some documentation to support your inflammatory and controversial remarks it might actually afford you some level of credibility?

Otherwise, you are just dragging down the quality of this forum and making it into a pissing match for stupid people . You're not a "stupid people" are you??

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

As expected.

Obama Praises Globalism While Acknowledging Its Faults

If you really want to discuss globalization and it's good and bad points, as well as the connection to the "one world government" theory, you might want to read this very well written and balanced essay. I suspect, sadly, that you do not really want to learn anything, but rather you are content to take something like Obama's speech and use it to take a shot at him, when you really have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay
Published: 23, March 2015

Globalization refers to the fact that we are increasingly living in "one world". It is the increasing integration of the world economy. In previous times, the global economy was primarily based in agriculture or industry. Nowadays, it is being more and more dominated by "weightless" activities, known as the weightless economy. A weightless economy (or a knowledge economy) is an economy whose production are based in information, such as internet-based services, computer software, electronic mail etc. (3:54).

Globalization is produced by the coming together of political, economic, cultural and social factors. (3:52)

I suggest that you pay special attention to this passage towards the end:

Hyperglobalizers believe that globalization is a real and powerful phenomenon that threatens to erode the role of national governments altogether. They see globalization as a new epoch of human history characterized by significant changes in trade, finance and governance. (Grant et al, 2004 p. 379). They argue that as goods, capital and, labour markets become more open, there is increased competition. Theorists see the transnational corporation becoming rootless, and as such able to move freely around the world in order to maximise profits, thus eclipsing the nation state. Economic pressure caused by the globalization of industry forces national governments to place the priorities of the economy above those of other policies intended to protect citizens.

Sceptics are less convinced of the novelty of globalization. They argue that the idea of globalization is exaggerated and is a contemporary myth, with too much debate about something that's not a new phenomenon. They propose that globalization conceals the reality of an international order divided into three blocs (the so-called triad of the United States, Europe and Japan), and who hold that national governments remain the most powerful actors on the world stage. The sceptical standpoint is seen as understating the transformations involved; changes of great magnitude are evident but the trajectories of those changes are uncertain. (Grant et al, 2004)

"Secure Connection Failed"

Who wrote the essay?

I don't have to tell you who wrote it.

Then I have no reason to read it.

Is there something, anything, in that essay that you can refute who care to make an intelligent comment on- that is, if you can.

"Secure Connection Failed"

I cannot read it. I cannot get to that site. Had you told me the author's name, perhaps I could find it. I suspect the author is a nobody - perhaps a Brit by the spelling of skeptic - and that is why you are reluctant to tell me.

 

[namvet]

actually its Soro's who wants this one world shit. Osama is just his puppet

Did it ever occur to you that if you post some documentation to support your inflammatory and controversial remarks it might actually afford you some level of credibility?

Otherwise, you are just dragging down the quality of this forum and making it into a pissing match for stupid people . You're not a "stupid people" are you??

there's ton's of documentation. I could post it to people but a butt licker like you no way.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

actually its Soro's who wants this one world shit. Osama is just his puppet

Did it ever occur to you that if you post some documentation to support your inflammatory and controversial remarks it might actually afford you some level of credibility?

Otherwise, you are just dragging down the quality of this forum and making it into a pissing match for stupid people . You're not a "stupid people" are you??

there's ton's of documentation. I could post it to people but a butt licker like you no way.

Thank you for confirming exactly what I suspected all along about your level of intellect and emotion development. We're done here. Go waist someone else's time.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As expected.

Obama Praises Globalism While Acknowledging Its Faults

If you really want to discuss globalization and it's good and bad points, as well as the connection to the "one world government" theory, you might want to read this very well written and balanced essay. I suspect, sadly, that you do not really want to learn anything, but rather you are content to take something like Obama's speech and use it to take a shot at him, when you really have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay
Published: 23, March 2015

Globalization refers to the fact that we are increasingly living in "one world". It is the increasing integration of the world economy. In previous times, the global economy was primarily based in agriculture or industry. Nowadays, it is being more and more dominated by "weightless" activities, known as the weightless economy. A weightless economy (or a knowledge economy) is an economy whose production are based in information, such as internet-based services, computer software, electronic mail etc. (3:54).

Globalization is produced by the coming together of political, economic, cultural and social factors. (3:52)

I suggest that you pay special attention to this passage towards the end:

Hyperglobalizers believe that globalization is a real and powerful phenomenon that threatens to erode the role of national governments altogether. They see globalization as a new epoch of human history characterized by significant changes in trade, finance and governance. (Grant et al, 2004 p. 379). They argue that as goods, capital and, labour markets become more open, there is increased competition. Theorists see the transnational corporation becoming rootless, and as such able to move freely around the world in order to maximise profits, thus eclipsing the nation state. Economic pressure caused by the globalization of industry forces national governments to place the priorities of the economy above those of other policies intended to protect citizens.

Sceptics are less convinced of the novelty of globalization. They argue that the idea of globalization is exaggerated and is a contemporary myth, with too much debate about something that's not a new phenomenon. They propose that globalization conceals the reality of an international order divided into three blocs (the so-called triad of the United States, Europe and Japan), and who hold that national governments remain the most powerful actors on the world stage. The sceptical standpoint is seen as understating the transformations involved; changes of great magnitude are evident but the trajectories of those changes are uncertain. (Grant et al, 2004)

"Secure Connection Failed"

Who wrote the essay?

I don't have to tell you who wrote it.

Then I have no reason to read it.

Is there something, anything, in that essay that you can refute who care to make an intelligent comment on- that is, if you can.

"Secure Connection Failed"

I cannot read it. I cannot get to that site. Had you told me the author's name, perhaps I could find it. I suspect the author is a nobody - perhaps a Brit by the spelling of skeptic - and that is why you are reluctant to tell me.

I don't know why. It works for me. Here it is again: Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

As expected.

Obama Praises Globalism While Acknowledging Its Faults

If you really want to discuss globalization and it's good and bad points, as well as the connection to the "one world government" theory, you might want to read this very well written and balanced essay. I suspect, sadly, that you do not really want to learn anything, but rather you are content to take something like Obama's speech and use it to take a shot at him, when you really have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay
Published: 23, March 2015

Globalization refers to the fact that we are increasingly living in "one world". It is the increasing integration of the world economy. In previous times, the global economy was primarily based in agriculture or industry. Nowadays, it is being more and more dominated by "weightless" activities, known as the weightless economy. A weightless economy (or a knowledge economy) is an economy whose production are based in information, such as internet-based services, computer software, electronic mail etc. (3:54).

Globalization is produced by the coming together of political, economic, cultural and social factors. (3:52)

I suggest that you pay special attention to this passage towards the end:

Hyperglobalizers believe that globalization is a real and powerful phenomenon that threatens to erode the role of national governments altogether. They see globalization as a new epoch of human history characterized by significant changes in trade, finance and governance. (Grant et al, 2004 p. 379). They argue that as goods, capital and, labour markets become more open, there is increased competition. Theorists see the transnational corporation becoming rootless, and as such able to move freely around the world in order to maximise profits, thus eclipsing the nation state. Economic pressure caused by the globalization of industry forces national governments to place the priorities of the economy above those of other policies intended to protect citizens.

Sceptics are less convinced of the novelty of globalization. They argue that the idea of globalization is exaggerated and is a contemporary myth, with too much debate about something that's not a new phenomenon. They propose that globalization conceals the reality of an international order divided into three blocs (the so-called triad of the United States, Europe and Japan), and who hold that national governments remain the most powerful actors on the world stage. The sceptical standpoint is seen as understating the transformations involved; changes of great magnitude are evident but the trajectories of those changes are uncertain. (Grant et al, 2004)

"Secure Connection Failed"

Who wrote the essay?

I don't have to tell you who wrote it.

Then I have no reason to read it.

Is there something, anything, in that essay that you can refute who care to make an intelligent comment on- that is, if you can.

"Secure Connection Failed"

I cannot read it. I cannot get to that site. Had you told me the author's name, perhaps I could find it. I suspect the author is a nobody - perhaps a Brit by the spelling of skeptic - and that is why you are reluctant to tell me.

I don't know why. It works for me. Here it is again: Globalizations Reference To One World Government Politics Essay

"Secure Connection Failed" again. This time, I also got "Malicious Website Blocked".

 

[Grizz]

Unfettered nationalism leads to wars. Obama doesn't like wars. He did not promote "One World Government." He promotes a heightened awareness that we are ALL sharing one planet with some basic common humanitarian goals and what, may I ask, is wrong with encouraging us to work as a team?

(choke) Then why are we in Libya, Syria and Yemen? EVERY Prez since Reagan has spoken of the "New World Order". Those aren't just words, you also have the Pope pushing World Gov and World Religion. You folks need to pay attention.

 

[Grizz]

The fact that conservatives are rallying against Obamas speech hike the rest of the world praises it shows that he was right on the mark

The rest of the world looks upon the US with emotions raging from envy to base hatred.
Those in socialist and pseudo-socialist nations, which includes most of Europe despise us for our freedom, choices and abilities.
And they envy our wealth. And are drooling to have unfettered access to our vast array of natural resources.
Why do you think the UN has been pushing these globalist treaties which essentially end sovereignty? Why do you think the UN has tried so many times to get the US to enter these treaties such as the failed Kyoto Accords? The answer is simple. The UN wants to be able to control what we do and how we conduct business. And of course, like any other political organization, wants to make sure they get their cut.

You're delusional. No one in the first world envies you for your freedom or your choices. Your freedom is an illusion. Global freedom rankings show you well down the list and sinking. Your health care is so expensive no one can afford to get sick, mass shootings weekly, your political parties seem hell bent on destroying the country, and your citizens are so politicized that they hate people just because of the party they choose.

You're squandering your nations wealth on military interventions and many of your seem disappointed you're not at war at the moment.

Globalism is not going away. We are one planet and it is in all of our best interests to deal with issues of global warming and pollution. Denial of climate change and the problems it's causing will no longer be an option. Smart people are embracing these changes and seeking to profit from them. Great Britain is now in a world of hurt that is only going to get worse, as they proceed to leave the EU.

"You're squandering your nations wealth on military interventions and many of your seem disappointed you're not at war at the moment."

Dumbass. We are fighting in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and have boots on the ground in Somalia. We are fucking fighting everywhere.

 

[Patricia Cross]

He's always cool. His usual gestures and facial expressions betray a self-confident person. No matter how external sources influence him, he will always stick to his position!