posted 04-20- 08:47 PM            

There is a big summit on right now with delegations from every country in the Americas except Cuba (hmm, guess who said they couldn't come ) to set up a NAFTA-light from Tierra del Fuego to the Northern reaches of Nunavut, basically all of the Americas. Because of the hell that broke loose at similar summits in Seattle and Prague, they have brought in legions of police and established a berlin wall like barrier to keep protestors away from the location of the summit. The wall is stirring up a lot of controversy, at least in Canada right now. It's an interesting dichotomy, free trade talks behind police-state like security. To be honest I'm not sure how I feel about it (does that make me a... fence sitter? ) because I see both sides of the issue. There wouldn't have been a fence except that the protesters proved themselves dangerous in Seattle and Prague.

Werner

posted 04-21- 04:22 PM            

Pictures on the front page of the daily paper here looked like a third world country today, or at least one torn by civil war. What's happening in QC you ask? Proof that Canada, like other Western nations it seems, is only a democracy skin-deep. I don't agree with everything the protesters have to say, particularly the more radical ones, but boy does it get my goat when our State Radio and Television service abandons its independence and becomes the government's megaphone as blatantly as they are now. In my family we jokingly refer to the CBC as "Radio Moscow". Well joke no more..

I wonder if Vojislav Kostunica can spare us some peacekeeping troops until we can dump this oppressive regime and its media cronies.

Werner

posted 04-21- 05:51 PM            

They want it this way. Corporations in rich
nations with skilled workers want to do
business under the same standards as third
world countries who have no polution laws
and no protection for workers.

I think the protesters, for the most part,
are very brave people who are standing up
against the forces who would like to enslave
the world.

posted 04-21- 09:47 PM               

There have been signs - since WWII anyway - of a move to unite the world as much as possible under one corporate government. Most regard it as just another 'conspiracy' theory. The foundations have been laid for that to happen...it is all a little frightening, even to us 'older' generation. It would behoove many of you to at least question such 'Summits'. Careful how you question, though, as your future could be in the balance.

I think you put it very well, Smokey. We all need to be aware of what is going on; these groups are at least aware, and need to remain aware, that the time is not right yet for them to just push ahead with total subjugation. Resistance is difficult, but still possible, and that scares some of them. Thus the need to 'guarantee' popular media support.

------------------
nealg=FC=

posted 04-21- 10:52 PM            

What to do though, demonstrate peacefully and you are given lip service by the gvts, demonstrate violently and you get riot police and negative media coverage.

Werner

posted 04-22- 02:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smokey:
Werner, you forgot to add if your a rich man
you lobby a politician and your voice is
heard nation wide.

Mirth, you are right, I ran across a list of
the 1999 Bilderberg Group attendees. From
the United States both republicans and demos
are well represented. Makes you feel like
for all the arguing and debating we do here
over republican and democrat stuff we are
really pawns in a larger scheme.

---

Isn't that the point Nader was trying to make in your last election? He got almost no coverage up here so if you were into it you had to dig.

Werner

posted 04-22- 03:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smokey:
He got almost no coverage here either. I
didn't pay much attention to him because I
knew he was a loser from the start. What he
did do is help Bush get elected.

---

That's only true if you agree with the assumption that Nader stole Gore votes. The (largely left wing) newsanchors sure were quick to jump to that conclusion, but then again they called Florida about a month or more before it was official too. Frankly I think Nader brought out his own votes, people who aren't left or right, rep or dem, but people who are fed up with the whole mess and wanted to protest by voting for him. Gore supporters knew how tight the race was going into it, (imho) they didn't squander their ballots on Nader. I think blaming the result on Nader is poor sportsmanship from the dem. camp.

Werner

posted 04-22- 04:42 PM            

Werner

posted 04-22- 07:05 PM            

Here's how it looks to me. The republicans
and democtats together manage to cater to
the majority of American voters. Elections
usually run 40 or so percent for one
candidate and around 50 or so percent for the
winner. This shows that around 90% of the
voters chose either republican or democrat.

These odds are pretty hard to beat. The two
parties are not really interested in changing
that much because they figure they got 90%
of the voters the way it is.

Then you have the factor of confidence in the
candidates ability to win the election. I
could have easily voted for Nader. In fact,
what little I paid attention to him, I liked
what he said, but there was no way he was
going to win the election because he just
didn't have the backing (read money). There
was no way I was going to waste my vote on
him.

The whole thing ends up being a self-
perpetuating deal. Repubs and demos controll
about 90% of voters and few want to switch
to another party because they don't want to
waste their vote.

Just look on this board when we argue a
political issue. You don't hear anyone arguing
for Nader or Buchanan.

I think you are right. A certain amount is
ingrained in the American people, but a
certain amount is just the way it is. People
are influenced too much by campaign ads. I
have to be honest, I don't understand this.
I don't believe the ads influence me, and I
don't believe the ads influence the people
on this board that argue political issues.
It seems, though, that they do influence the
majority of American voters. People must hear
an add that they like and say "That's it, I'm
going to vote for that guy.". Pretty dumb way
to vote, in my opinion, but appearantly most
people must do it that way. This is where the
money comes in. In the end it's usually the
party with the most money that wins the
election.

On the electorial college. I don't agree with
getting rid of it for two reasons. Our
founding fathers were conserned with power
being centralized. Checks and balances were
introduced in our constitution to prevent this
and I think the electorial college is part of
those checks and balances. The other reason
is, as I understand it, if the constitution
is opened up to changing something like the
electorial college then everything in the
constitution is subject to change. The last
thing I want is todays politicans mucking
around in our constitution.

posted 04-24- 12:18 AM            

You are missing ALOT Jerry.