US Gov't Attempting to Circumvent 2nd Amendment

You actually want a one world government? Jesus.

I bet you were jizzing in your pants watching CNN report about the North American Union.

Why is that bad? Just wondering. And maybe not one world. But a American/euro government?

In the event of an armed revolution, the populace will be at a severe disadvantage if they do not have access to assault rifles.

well according to Texas, Thomas Jefferson never existed, so there

ITT: people who assume governments are good

First of all I was talking about economic globalization, not political. But since you asked I do think there should be some international framework for enforcing international laws to prevent rouge states from commuting crimes like torture, genocide, wars of aggression etc.

You can't be sovereign. Big businesses can exploit people in poor countries who are just thankful to have work. As an example, many people think that Canadian business should provide work for Canadians as opposed to offshoring those jobs to people who will do the same amount of production for only 2 bits.

You are Keynesian?

That's not relevant. Globalization exists either way.

Not without globalists.

Jesus fuck you're stupid. How would not supporting government stimulus through monetary and fiscal policy during recessions/depressions prevent economic globalization? By your definition, "globalists" are anyone who buys from or does business in other countries.

american/euro government? fuck that. we arent europe, and we never should be, what made america so great was that we werent like the rest of the world. the US used to be the shit. now we are pretty much becoming like europe and look what its doing to us, we are fucked.

No lol. I mean any person who supports globalization. Buying things from other places is not the same as offshoring jobs there. If you think that offshoring work from your own country to other countries is good.......well you are stupid or just uneducated. 

Um, yes it is. If you're against jobs going to other countries then why are you more than happy to buy the fruits of that labour? What's your idea to solve it? Institute high tariffs?

Dafuq? Definitely not the same. When did I say I was more than happy to buy fruits of that labour? I said buying is not the same as offshoring employment(which is true). How do you know that I don't support buying local fruits lol? Fruits do not represent business well enough since some fruits only grow in certain places lol. These companies offshore because they can make the same product in a different part of the world and for a cheaper price.  

Just look at all middle class jobs in North America........these companies would prefer to have operations in places where employees don't live as luxuriously as we do. Cheap as fuck, major profits. Good for poverty, bad for us. I apologize if I am not as socialist as you.

John Lennon, so far today you have cited:

- Infowars.
- A bullshit article from the website that thinks the Colorado shooting is a hoax.
- Fox news.



  

You must be drunk as fuck.

1. That was not me who posted that infowars link lol.

2. That was not me who posted that article about the shooting being a hoax.

3. The fox news reference was a sarcastic joke, dumb bitch.

many good points in this thread

Stupidity level just went to over 9,000. I didn't literally mean fruit, "fruits of labor" are the result of labor.

LOL, I'm the one arguing that (mostly) free trade among nations is a good thing on the whole and somehow I'm the socialist. You still haven't proposed a solution to how you would bring those jobs back to America. I have a few ideas but I'm curious what yours are.

Assault rifles make armed uprisings by right wing militias, dumb southerners, PETArds, extremists, and terrorists more likely. In the event of a true revolution, assault rifles will not be hard to find. There are plenty of foreign (and probably domestic) arms dealers willing to step in (see: Syria).

Oh, sorry, you really threw me off with this, "I do think there should be some international framework for enforcing international laws" Maybe I jumped to conclusions.

I never claimed to have a solution though(ya,pretty useless lol). If jobs are already outsourced, you won't be able to bring them back(the $ is too attractive for companies). My point being that offshoring them in the first place is wrong. But if you need an idea from me, I would start by getting rid of the Fed or atleast have them audited, and like you, would have government interfere less with the market. Again, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions.

+1

Are you sure you are aware of how much citizens outnumber law enforcement? If you are American I think it is safe to say that you wouldn't have minded being British and obeying the Queen.  

I think it's pretty safe to say that you're the most moronic poster in this thread, possibly on NS. Let's see, you start off claiming Agenda 21 is a secret conspiracy, then you source Fox news, then you assume economic globalization = political globalization, then you claim economic globalization and the offshoring of jobs are socialism, then to top it all off you think that the term 'Fruits of Labor' refers to ACTUAL FUCKING FRUIT. Jesus Christ you must have an IQ of 70.

BAHAHAHAHAHA! I never ever claimed Agenda 21 is a secret conspiracy..... It is a public document which can be read on the UN website, fuckface. I sourced Fox as a joke, fuckface. I didn't assume it was political globalization, I thought he was talking about political globalization since he didn't say economic until after, and I did apologize. Why are you making this about how people can be smarter than other people lol? Keep spreading lies and keep dragging your knuckles on the ground. By the way, I don't think you know what socialism is. Cheers.

You know how I KNOW you don't know what socialism is?

Wanna know how Durrrr?

You seem like you live in a fantasy world where companies want to offshore work to North America to make less $.

"Armed revolt is not going to happen in America"

How would that bring jobs back to the US?

I didn't say that would bring anything back.

"If jobs are already outsourced, you won't be able to bring them back(the $ is too attractive for companies)."

So then what would you do to prevent them from leaving?

Not sure lol, you should ask an economist. Possibly use financial aid to assure these companies that they can still be a competitive company without outsourcing jobs/changing markets. Possibly using gold instead of fiat currencies.

It is a tough question from the point of view of a business. Why stay somewhere expensive when you could be in a place that allows you to run the same work operation(especially low-skill) at a fraction of the cost. You could ask the same to all new entrepreneurs who have just their capital in mind. Start your business in a place where you can comfortably afford the operation or start it in a place where it costs significantly more? Different parts of the world have different markets but the same question applies. To actually answer your question, I can only answer with a question. Why would they not leave lol?

Do you actually have any idea what that would do or is it just a talking point for you? You're aware that China does not have a gold standard right?

Geneva?

Please, just stop. You are officially too stupid to post in this thread, and just got owned by everyone in here. I hope you are trolling everyone seriously otherwise I just feel sorry for how big of a dumbass you are.

NO THAT'S SCARY GLOBALISM!!

^lol

Bill, read the first sentence from my last comment. Really all I was talking about in the first place was how I believe that one government determining what every country in the world does is not right. We can agree to disagree. 

So then should *some* countries be able to torture, commit genocide, start wars of aggression etc?

Are you just bored or concerned about political correrctness lol? Ask Amurica.

I'm just trying to find out if you're trolling or genuinely stupid, but I suppose it doesn't matter.

You're right, well said. Bill, is it ok for people to murder other people?

No, it is not.

http://www.aljazeera.com//news/europe/2012/07/2012722145418435676.html

We will all be dead by the time the US reaches the goals you have outlined. The only way for the US to regain it's manufacturing base is to gradually and progressively shift corporate tax rates for companies that rely on imports and foreign made goods (yes, socialistic). These taxes/policy would gradually and forcibly present US businesses with an option to take advantage of affordable and profitable domestic manufacturing, strengthening the US's primary and secondary industries, helping them regain their economic sovereignty, thus fulfilling your stupid question.

But unfortunately for the US this is completely and absolutely impossible, at least in our lifetime (and that's an optimistic outlook) Here's why:

1. Consider the current state of US democracy, which evidently, despite your superior age and my alleged "indoctrination", you know nothing about. Everything from SuperPACs, Grover Norquist, to Congress. Laws and regulations left over from Bush and Reagan allow multinational and transnational corporations, small businesses, and basically anyone with enough dough to lobby extensively, which slows and even completely denies the implementation of important bills, regulations, and monetary and fiscal policy made by the president's office that are meant to fix problems such as "outsourcing". For example, after Roosevelt there was a policy instituted that denied a president the right to be elected more than twice, meaning he has only 10 years (Not to mention the need to spend time, energy, and money campaigning). That's a pathetically minimal amount of time to even make a dent in America's monumental set of social, cultural, and economic problems. Businesses and corporations, whose sole purpose is to make a profit, outsource because it is cheaper and it makes them more money, in most cases they don't realize and they don't care that it hurts the lower working class (99% of Americans). (I guess if you are K-rob and don't believe in moral values, then screwing over the entire country would be totally cool with you). They will do everything in their power to stop laws and regulations that impede their absurd profits and growth levels by basically throwing money at the politician that wants to lower taxes and cut regulations to allow them to continue to operate, thus the formation of SuperPACs. These pools of virtually infinite money allow candidates that primarily support the interests of businesses (Romeny, at the moment) to advertise and finance any kind of publicity activity they can dream of. Grover Norquist is a man that holds a great deal of power in US politics. There is a pledge called the "grover nourquist pledge" that basically says, "you will not raise taxes" if you sign it. Every republican candidate has signed it (except for jon huntsman, the only GOP candidate that spoke FLUENT FUCKING MANDARIN. But not surprisingly, he disappeared quickly, partly because of his affiliation with the obama administration.) Congress, along with the electoral college is basically the worst and most obvious impediment of government. All of the above factors, and the reams of other information that I don't care or have the energy to list are contributing to the fact that Obama, and any other potential presidential candidate has little to no power in the quest for curing "outsourcing".

2. Think about the state of the world economy right now, and it's direction (Along with all of the above factors). People cannot afford the necessary rise in costs if there were any kind of movement to solve outsourcing in 10 years. I.E.: If these taxes were implemented, things at walmart (and other businesses that rely on china for 99% percent of their businesses activity) would begin to get very expensive. There is a huge portion of the population that relies on these dead low prices that are only justifiable through the use of overseas labor and production would no longer be able to afford their basic life necessities. Nearly a quarter of America would drop below the poverty line, and half of America would enter the working poor. Basically, income equity would enter depression era levels. ecause based on the current trajectory of aggregate demand in most nations (through the fucking floor), the working poor would no longer be able to afford their basic life necessities. Government borrowing to finance a booming demand in social welfare programs, education, and stimulus would send the deficit into space, etc, you can play it out in your head. Even by optimistic estimates, there would still be a need for austerity, and boy, to people hate that shit, which brings me to the next issue

3. Stigma and general novelties that demonize large government and higher taxes. Taxes and regulations are all very sticky issues, especially during election campaigns, which makes it hard for anyone in the white house to do anything productive during those times. I mean, most republicans want to tax less, but spend more. That's just plainly illogical on every level. It means borrowing, more debt, more generational theft, more fiat money, more disparity, and a harder economic crash. Most people are opposed to taxes because they view the concept selfishly, as simply "the government taking my money", and can't understand the fact that it's an investment in how you want your country to . Well, if you are a simple person, I guess that would be a rational deduction. But no, the government IS YOU. You are giving your money to the rest of America, and it is being used for whatever you want it to be used for. If you want to fix unemployment and stop outsourcing, you have that power, it's called a vote.

Sounds like socialism to me. Also, Brock, you're fuckin killing it man nice job.