Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 12-07-2018, 10:50 AM   #31
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker View Post
I must have missed that part. All I have seen is an unfounded assertion that anyone that ever says "new world order" really means "one world government".

I read some and gave up. It was mostly political rhetoric without content. And of course the speakers don't think they are speaking cliches, they all think that they are profound and brilliant leaders.

Bush defined the NWO as joint efforts of allies to protect weak countries against aggressive powerful countries. A joint effort is not a one world government. A better, more effective United Nations is not a one world government.
Bush didn't "define" anything per se.

And I don't see anything about joint efforts of nations or the protection of weak nations in his quote.

“We have before us the opportunity to forge, for ourselves and for future generations, a New World Order. A world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, rules all nations. When we are successful–and we will be–we have a real chance at this New World Order. An order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping forces to fulfill the promise and vision of its founders.”
—George H.W. Bush, March 21, 1991


And Bush knew exactly who the founders of the U.N. were because he was a card-carrying member of that evil organization before he resigned to run for president. Ever hear of the CFR?

But again, more on this later. I'm reading a fascinating piece about the UN, the CFR, Bush and others. When I'm done, I'll beam up the link -- which you probably won't read anyway because it's lengthy. But be assured of this: The founders' vision for the U.N. (of which Bush was fully aware) was far broader than global police work, more extensive than nations peacekeeping and beyond providing security worldwide. They had at least six major goals in order to control the entire world.

Even the recent article about how the U.N. has its far reaching tentacles around global migration proves this point. The U.N. is into all the nations' business. Kinda like a very nosy next store neighbor...if you get my drift.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2018, 11:14 AM   #32
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Here's one tiny morsel from the article I'm reading, Mr. Clocker:

Bush was on the Council Board of Directors in the years 1977-1979 and a member long before that. He stepped down from the boards of the Council, Yale, and the Trilateral Commission to shed his “establishment” image prior to his run for the Republican presidential nomination.

The "Council" to which the writer is referring is the Council on Foreign Relations.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2018, 01:51 PM   #33
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
When I'm done, I'll beam up the link -- which you probably won't read anyway because it's lengthy.
Falling back on personal jibes is always a good sign of someone with a weak argument and lack of facts. To repeat myself, Bush said nothing to even hint at a world government. That is a negative proposition, which by definition is impossible to prove.

It can be disproved by showing one instance to the contrary. But you can't disprove it, and assert without proof that when he said NWO, he meant world government.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2018, 02:09 PM   #34
ReplayRandall
Buckle Up
 
ReplayRandall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker View Post
It can be disproved by showing one instance to the contrary. But you can't disprove it, and assert without proof that when he said NWO, he meant world government.
You better go to Wikipedia and give your version, as their version is obviously biased against Bush.

New World Order (conspiracy theory), a conspiracy theory referring to the emergence of a totalitarian one world government. New World Order - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wo...spiracy_theory)
ReplayRandall is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2018, 03:23 PM   #35
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall View Post
You better go to Wikipedia and give your version, as their version is obviously biased against Bush.

New World Order (conspiracy theory), a conspiracy theory referring to the emergence of a totalitarian one world government. New World Order - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wo...spiracy_theory)
There are two entries in Wiki for NWO, the one you cite, and this one that I cited (see below). It seems clear to me that Bush was using the term in the sense described here:

Quote:
New world order (politics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search This article is about the use of the term "new world order" in international politics. For its use in conspiracy theory, see New World Order (conspiracy theory). For other uses, see New World Order (disambiguation).

The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_wo...der_(politics)
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2018, 08:03 PM   #36
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker View Post
Falling back on personal jibes is always a good sign of someone with a weak argument and lack of facts. To repeat myself, Bush said nothing to even hint at a world government. That is a negative proposition, which by definition is impossible to prove.

It can be disproved by showing one instance to the contrary. But you can't disprove it, and assert without proof that when he said NWO, he meant world government.
I'm attaching the link to analysis of Bush's speech and his use of the phrase "new world order". As the author rightly surmises:

It seems like everyone in the business of New World Order is singing from the same sheet of music.

It's sad that you can't (or won't) think through the profound implications to Bush's words. The irrefutable fact is, however, that you cannot have global "law and order" executed and enforced on a global scale by a global entity apart from the nations losing a great deal of their sovereignty. The writer of the long research paper does a great job of explaining why this is so. You might want to pay special attention to the "Law and Order" and "Peacekeeping" sections of the paper.

I also said the other day that it's very unlikely that Bush's understanding of the "new world order" would differ radically from other major proponents who had preceded him or were even contemporary with him. And the fact that Bush sat on the Board of Directors for the CFR very strongly lends credence to this opinion; for this organization was no friend to any isolationist or nationalistic political ideology. Their singular goal, ultimately, was to put an end to the nation state form of governance because powerful people in this world believe this form doesn't lend itself to world peace, among other important things. A global policeman with a global court system, under which everyone in the world would be legally bound to obey and answer to is the only solution.

Also, Jim Baker (Bush's Secretary of State) made some very revealing remarks about this new world order. Baker was another avowed globalist.

There is also a big section in the paper that talks about Regionalism, and I will add some thoughts to this from biblical perspective, as I find time.

Meanwhile, enjoy living in denial. If it's any consolation to you, you have plenty of company. Personally, though, I'd prefer dealing with historical facts.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/s...opol_nwo72.htm
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2018, 08:07 PM   #37
sammy the sage
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: central fla.
Posts: 4,874
this thread seems to me....like a dog chasing it's tail....I've gotten dizzy...
__________________
got handed a lemon...make lemonade....add sugar or brown sugar or stevia or my personal favorite....miracle fruit....google it...thank me later...
sammy the sage is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2018, 08:39 PM   #38
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy the sage View Post
this thread seems to me....like a dog chasing it's tail....I've gotten dizzy...
If you just read a little history with the intent of understanding, it would become clear to you. If you cannot see by now the direction in which the world is heading, I'd say you have quite a bit of catching up to do.

The Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, the Trilateral Commission, etc, etc. actually exist and have a history and were created for specific reasons.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2018, 09:02 PM   #39
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
I'm attaching the link to analysis of Bush's speech and his use of the phrase "new world order". As the author rightly surmises:

It seems like everyone in the business of New World Order is singing from the same sheet of music.
The "analysis" is a paper apparently written by an Air Force Major in some military class. I'm sure he got at least a Pulitzer Prize for it. I don't care what some random guy thinks about it, I care what Bush said about it. And he said absolutely zero that could be construed as advocating a one world government. And you have not shown any such words from Bush.

Mikhail Gorbachev was also advocating a "new world order" at the same time. You want to show me where Bush and Gorbachev were singing from the same sheet of music? Or is that a shite of music?

Quote:
It's sad that you can't (or won't) think through the profound implications to Bush's words.
Implications mean interpretation. I don't presume to interpret Bush's words as anything other than what he said and did. Unlike some presidents I could name, I take the man at his word that he means what he says.

Quote:
Meanwhile, enjoy living in denial. If it's any consolation to you, you have plenty of company. Personally, though, I'd prefer dealing with historical facts.
The historic fact is that there exists no record of Bush advocating a one world government. Amen.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2018, 09:08 PM   #40
Greyfox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker View Post
You want to show me where Bush and Gorbachev were singing from the same sheet of music? Or is that a shite of music?
.
Not that I know, but my guess would be they were both attendees at the exclusive and secretive Bilderberg Meetings.
Whatever the new world order is, it's ideas have to involve Power and Wealth. In effect, greed.

https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/
Greyfox is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-08-2018, 11:12 AM   #41
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker View Post
The "analysis" is a paper apparently written by an Air Force Major in some military class. I'm sure he got at least a Pulitzer Prize for it. I don't care what some random guy thinks about it, I care what Bush said about it. And he said absolutely zero that could be construed as advocating a one world government. And you have not shown any such words from Bush.

Mikhail Gorbachev was also advocating a "new world order" at the same time. You want to show me where Bush and Gorbachev were singing from the same sheet of music? Or is that a shite of music?

Implications mean interpretation. I don't presume to interpret Bush's words as anything other than what he said and did. Unlike some presidents I could name, I take the man at his word that he means what he says.

The historic fact is that there exists no record of Bush advocating a one world government. Amen.
As I figured you didn't read the paper. Nor do you have any answer for how Bush could have possibly sat on the board of directors of the CFR without signing on to their global agenda and doctrine. You have no answer for that. Neither do you have any answer to Baker's comments.

Implications form interpretation. Again read the section under "Law and Order" and "Peacekeeping". If you understood the implications to Bush's comments you would understand that he was indeed a full-fledged, CFR-approved globalist. (I can't say Bush, during his presidency, was a member because he resigned so that he could remake his public image when running for the presidency. But the fact that he nominated Baker for Secretary of State proves he was still fully on board with the CFR globalist agenda.)

Anyhow...I can explain this to you until the cows come home, and offer even more evidence, but many fools rejoice in their folly, not wanting to see the truth.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-08-2018, 12:07 PM   #42
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyfox View Post
Not that I know, but my guess would be they were both attendees at the exclusive and secretive Bilderberg Meetings.
Whatever the new world order is, it's ideas have to involve Power and Wealth. In effect, greed.

https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/
You nailed it perfectly. David Rockefeller, JP Morgan and a host of other very wealthy individuals, institutions and bankers started CFR. The central, core idea behind globalism is to make all nations financially interdependent.
After all, it's money that makes the world turns. The writer of that paper points this out, as well.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-08-2018, 04:09 PM   #43
Buckeye
Smarty Pants
 
Buckeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Every Vote Counts
Posts: 3,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy the sage View Post
There's Tom's world....

then Hcap's world...

and Boxcar's world...

finally the rest of us mis-fits...un-fits....etc...
Congratulations you have admitted it.

I salute your honesty.

A one world government would be just fine with me so long as we are in control.

Bush had no idea what he was talking about any more than his kinder gentler America comment.
Buckeye is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-08-2018, 07:18 PM   #44
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
Congratulations you have admitted it.

I salute your honesty.

A one world government would be just fine with me so long as we are in control.

Bush had no idea what he was talking about any more than his kinder gentler America comment.
Like most progressives, Bush thought that mankind was basically good; and therefore, mankind can eventually fix itself.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-08-2018, 08:05 PM   #45
Buckeye
Smarty Pants
 
Buckeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Every Vote Counts
Posts: 3,160
Absolutely the opposite!

Thanks for pointing that out Boxcar!

Mankind is a sorry excuse for anything Good.

We try but we need help.
Buckeye is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.