Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kid Rock who wrote (21020)	4/28/1998 9:18:00 AM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Tom, <<Not in its current form. I think the US is a good start as a model. Constitution, democracy, freedom of speech etc..>> Unfortunately the constitution is not the model chosen by the "globalists", it is the UN charter they wrote. The UN Charter says everyone has rights but they refuse to outline in advance what those rights are. That leaves them able to define at their whim and re-define what the rights are according to situations. Have you heard of "situational ethics"? What is moral in one situation is not in another. No absolute moral system exists according to them. Murder in one situation would be justifiable homicide in another. The UN has defined human beings as being pollution on this planet. They want to remove this pollution. That is justifiable homicide. Some suffer for the greater good. They teach this in school. An exercise called lifeboat is presented to children. There is one too many people in the boat for all to survive. A pregnant woman, a man, an old person and so on. The purpose is that the child must choose who to throw overboard to save the rest. It is never suggested that it is murder to throw anyone overboard. The teacher forces the student to make an immoral choice "for the greater good". The planet is the lifeboat and many of us have to be thrown overboard for the greater good. Why does the UN always wait until it's too late to save people who are being butchered or are starving? Do you think it's not intentional? They always get there after the tragedy and "clean up" and "restore order". It's just happened again and what did Clinton say to the African people? "We should have acted sooner". Ha, they are always "too late". Bob

To: Kid Rock who wrote (21020)	4/28/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

Tom, I have no idea how to solve the problems in Rwanda. I am no expert on Africa, for sure. While it sounds really good to send Rwandan teenagers here to see democracy in action, America is a very racist nation. I am not sure what the Rwandan teenagers would conclude when they visited our inner cities, for example, and see how few services are offered for the black people who have been left behind. It is really almost impossible for a poor black child whose father has left, and whose mother is a crack addict, to escape this kind of poverty and degradation unless there is a concerted effort by educators and social workers to give these kids a good chance, and that would have to start with full funding of HeadStart, and starting it at two, when children are more capable of rapid development. I think that one thing that comes up continually with any kind of world government is that there will need to be some kind of redistribution of resources on a global level so that very poor people stop clearing the rain forests to grow food, and so that they have some sort of stake in the future. Most wars are either disputes over distribution of resources, or religious or tribal wars. Wasn't the dispute in Rwanda between two tribes? I have seen very little growth in the human spirit in the sense of making peace. If you study ancient wars and modern ones, they are always about the same few issues. I do think the idea of an EFFECTIVE world court, and a large, armed international conflict resolution force that could step in and stop massacres would be really good. All the international peace keeping efforts we have had seem very problematic, however. Why haven't they worked better? I also think that Americans value white lives more than black ones. We have an enormous capacity to overlook slaughters of black people in Africa, or Moslems in Algeria and Bosnia. I have zero answers for these problems. I do agree what we have is not working very well. Whatever will work will probably have to be quite radical, in fact, and I am not sure there is any international consensus that would cause that to happen.