?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Debate now...
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 7 most recent journal entries recorded in _debate_now_'s LiveJournal:

Tuesday, October 10th, 2006
10/10/ 1:19 am

[megamerican]
Bohemian Grove Update
Information about the grove is finally seeping into popular culture. Joke/Prankster rapper MC Weak has conducted a hilarious "lyrical investigation" into the bohemian grove. Check it out:

http://mcweak.com/bohemian.html
0 CommentAdd to MemoriesPermalink
Sunday, September 3rd, 2006
9/3/ 7:03 pm

[megamerican]
Elitist Secret Society: Council on Foreign Relations
After seeing Alex Jones's Bilderberg 2006 documentary last night I was inspired to find out more about the Bilderberg Group. However, my research led me down a meandering path. What I came up with were some interesting facts about another important and powerful society known for its sercecy, the CFR.
Read more...Collapse )
0 CommentAdd to MemoriesPermalink
Thursday, November 10th, 2005
11/10/ 9:19 pm

[politentia]
Food for thought from the World Bank:
The World Bank group is working to bring water to those who need it in third-world countries, or so they claim. Somehow, though, this objective often conflicts with their flagrant desire for profit. Well, of course they need profit. However, their method of getting water to those who needs it includes privatizing the water; in other words, they are making people in poverty pay for their water. The explanation for privatization (from an unofficial interview with the manager of advisory services at the IFC) is that if money is given to a third-world country's government for water, that government is, as often as not, likely to put the money into their swiss bank account soon after getting it, so the people who need the water don't get it at all. The World Bank is even attempting "public-private partnerships" in which people pay part of the money to get their water, and the government pays the other part. Forgive me for asking, but if the people who need the water can't pay the reduced price, how does that help either the World Bank Group or the third-world country?
0 CommentAdd to MemoriesPermalink
Thursday, October 20th, 2005
10/20/ 5:26 pm

[politentia]
5:20 pm The United States is violating its own policy of world democracy abroad as well as at home.
In a recent surge of effort to colonize any oil-producing (but politically corrupt) countries, the United States has made its move on the Middle East by invading both Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategically speaking, these were very good moves. Not only are the invaded countries oil-rich (Iraq produces about 2.25 million bbl/day, according to the CIA world factbook), but geographically speaking, it is very important that the United States has at least one outpost in the Middle East. China and India are the two fastest-growing economies in the world today, and with militarily powerful Russia to the north, it is not impossible to forsee a 1984-esque Eurasian alliance within the next half-century. Such an alliance would surely provoke world war if it invaded any country, and it would almost as surely win (for explanation of this statement, look at any political map of the world) due merely to its geographical position. If such superpowers as China, India, and Russia were to war amongst each other, the conflict(s) would result in the deaths of millions of people, with or without world war.
But strategy is never the whole picture. Over 15,000 Iraqi civilians and over 2,000 American soldiers have died for the aforementioned "strategy" since the US-led invasion. Even without Saddam Hussein in power, civil strife has continued in great measure, with suicide bombings terrorizing civilians almost daily. In many cases, living standards have gone down rather than up since the invasion. It is now dangerous for children to walk to school in many areas for fear of the suicide bombers, and any person seen associating with US troops, even to obtain food, is often in danger. In such an environment, it is difficult for liberty to survive, let alone thrive.
So how can the United States fix what it has done? To back out of Iraq now would mean leaving the country in the hands of rebels. How can a brand-new constitution survive in a lawless society? But the longer the United States stays in Iraq, more of the rebels are antagonized, and violence escalates on an almost-daily basis.
Iraq will take a while to recover from the injuries it has been dealt, both by the United States and extremists from within Iraq itself. As soon as stable government and military are established, the United States must withdraw from Iraq, regardless of strategy.
4 CommentReadAdd to MemoriesPermalink
Saturday, October 15th, 2005
10/15/ 10:57 am

[politentia]
I have read the rules but feel it unnecessary to make a cut.

The United States is violating its own policy of world democracy.
In the Declaration of Independence, it is quite clearly stated that all men are entiteled to basic human rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This has changed over the years to include women, too. However, many Americans now seem to be under the impression that all people are entitled to equal rights except for a certain group of people who are different in some way from the majority of the population. Considered in an impartial manner, this is the definition of bigotry. It is also incorrect from a grammatical standpoint. The phrase "all people" includes every person. If it does not, then it should be restated as "most people".
Take, for example, the current issue of gay marriage. A large percentage of Americans believe that those persons born as homosexuals should not be able to marry anybody of the same sex. They have gone as far as to state that homosexuality is unnatural. However, it seems difficult to believe that a trait is unnatural when a person is born with it; and as far as a person's right to marry who they love, that falls directly under the pursuit of happiness.
One thought that may not have occured to many Americans who are against gay rights is the importance of the law interfering with people's private lives. It is plausible that, were the government interfering with the sex lives of the people against gay marriage, those people would be highly dissatisfied. If the government can interfere in the bedroom, then what else can it have control over? This is a question worthy of consideration by any person, no matter what their political prejudices.
0 CommentAdd to MemoriesPermalink
Thursday, July 28th, 2005
7/28/ 9:35 pm

[chiaroscuroman]
0 CommentAdd to MemoriesPermalink
Saturday, April 9th, 2005
4/9/ 4:35 am

[katherine8504]
3 CommentReadAdd to MemoriesPermalink
About LiveJournal.com