Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Are humans really responsible for climate change?


Canuck100

Recommended Posts

It appears from most if not all MSM reports that this question has already been settled.

I have written the governing party of my own province asking their policy on climate change. I suspect they don’t have one or are trying to avoid the subject. 

The problem in my oppinion is that the answer to this question was never properly answered. For years now MSM has simply said “scientists agree with each other that humans have caused climate change (global warming) or whatever. 

I could go on and on, but there are many credible scientists that have never been allowed by the MSM to have their say. It may be true that most people who only follow MSM may agree that “Humans are causing Climate Change”. That does not make it true. 

Only if enough people do their own research, will there be any hope of getting at the truth and stopping what I believe is a historically evil hoax intentionally put in place to allow for a world governing dictatorship, never seen before.

For the sake of your grandchildren you at least owe it to them to explore this issue further. Here is a good article to get you started on some alternative views:

https://www.iceagenow.info/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are responsible for pollution and other problems which we are gradually eliminating, but generally they are not responsible for earth's changing climate, nor can they do anything to stop it.   We can clean up pollution as we are but earth has cycled and come in and out of ice ages before humans had any impact at all.   Instead of hysterics and policies damaging to our economy and standard of living, we should be building and preparing the future.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really basic.  You don't need scientists. 

Are CO2 and CH4 greenhouse gases (do they hold heat in the atmosphere)? - check - no argument there.

Have they increased dramatically along with the Earth's population since the industrial revolution? - check- again, no scientists required.

Everything else is just modelling and posturing.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Briefly....."Humans cause Climate Change" is simply not true....or a lie - take your pick. The term "Climate Change is Real" spouted by the alarmist community is an ignorant remark - and those who spew it need to give themselves a big shake.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Canuck100 said:

Only if enough people do their own research, will there be any hope of getting at the truth and stopping what I believe is a historically evil hoax intentionally put in place to allow for a world governing dictatorship, never seen before.

An evil hoax, a world governing dictatorship? That sounds pretty alarming.

You did your own research into this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  The climate on this great planet of ours has been cyclical since the beginning of time and it continually heats and cools with an ice age about every 100,000 years , these are facts that they do not dispute . People have a small tiny part but for the most part the government sees it as an easy scare tactic to get more taxes from people.

 If this or any government was truly worried about the carbon footprint they would start by protecting our water sources because there is absolutely no use worrying about five hundred years from now if we have no water tomorrow. How long do humans live without water? People please think about it and use common sense .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sillywalker said:

  The climate on this great planet of ours has been cyclical since the beginning of time and it continually heats and cools with an ice age about every 100,000 years , these are facts that they do not dispute . People have a small tiny part but for the most part the government sees it as an easy scare tactic to get more taxes from people.

 If this or any government was truly worried about the carbon footprint they would start by protecting our water sources because there is absolutely no use worrying about five hundred years from now if we have no water tomorrow. How long do humans live without water? People please think about it and use common sense .

Environmentalism is wherever the big money says it is.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, sillywalker said:

  The climate on this great planet of ours has been cyclical since the beginning of time and it continually heats and cools with an ice age about every 100,000 years , these are facts that they do not dispute . People have a small tiny part but for the most part the government sees it as an easy scare tactic to get more taxes from people.

 If this or any government was truly worried about the carbon footprint they would start by protecting our water sources because there is absolutely no use worrying about five hundred years from now if we have no water tomorrow. How long do humans live without water? People please think about it and use common sense .

The would also quit flying around the world spewing out pollution. They only want your money, because they are filthy greedy scum.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The happy couple have been happily soaking up some sun in Sicily.  So, I guess climate change and lowering carbon footprints is really only for  low income pensioners in Sudbury who  need to pay more to heat their homes, but political elites like Elizabeth May can still jet set, right?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/green-party-leader-elizabeth-may-is-getting-married-1.4193493

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Canuck100 said:

It appears from most if not all MSM reports that this question has already been settled.

I have written the governing party of my own province asking their policy on climate change. I suspect they don’t have one or are trying to avoid the subject. 

The problem in my oppinion is that the answer to this question was never properly answered. For years now MSM has simply said “scientists agree with each other that humans have caused climate change (global warming) or whatever. 

I could go on and on, but there are many credible scientists that have never been allowed by the MSM to have their say. It may be true that most people who only follow MSM may agree that “Humans are causing Climate Change”. That does not make it true. 

Only if enough people do their own research, will there be any hope of getting at the truth and stopping what I believe is a historically evil hoax intentionally put in place to allow for a world governing dictatorship, never seen before.

For the sake of your grandchildren you at least owe it to them to explore this issue further. Here is a good article to get you started on some alternative views:

https://www.iceagenow.info/

What was your point? You ask a question, then answer it with a no and go further and  indicate if any one disagrees with you, you feel you have the right not only to dismiss their views but presume to patronize not just them but their grandchildren.

Your tone is arrogant, presumptuous and reflects an inability to engage in critical thinking, abstraction, deduction, logic, or differentiation between subjective assumptions you make from actual objective facts garnered from a methodology that is free of bias that has shown a direct cause and effect from certain human activities and the exasperation of negative global environmental damage. 

I would go so far as to say you are a classic example of the dumbed down generation that has never read a text or studied science and goes through life assuming its consciousness from 10 seconds of info bites it scans from  its cell phone.

No one should be surprised why people like you vote  for Trump, or Trudeau, or issue black and white dictatorial lectures assuming you are some sort of role model for a future generation.

The fact that global warming has existed before mankind began engaging in co2 emissions does not mean man made activities including co2 emissions do not create negative environmental consequences to the atmosphere.

Using your logic because people have died of lung cancer but never smoked there is no correlation between smoking and tobacco. Brilliant logic. Thanks for sharing. Who needs science when we have people like you. Thank you.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Climate Change scam is only a piece of the puzzle - albeit a major piece. It's all part of the elitist undertaking for that one-world government (AKA Globalism).....one that used to be laughed at as a conspiracy dreamed up by the "looney Right" - but now is coming into rather clear focus. The UN has morphed (been manipulated) into the major impetus for the Globalist agenda. The advent of Trump has thrown a monkey wrench into their plans - as evidenced by the shrill cries of Armageddon (AKA extreme weather). But.......in speeding up their plans, they've rather exposed themselves with their "Migrant Compact" - geared to open-borders and the destruction of nationalist pride and values. It's pernicious. must be exposed, and with the knowledge of their agenda, must be taken from the shadows, presented to the people - and let democracy take it's course. That's the problem with elitism and unelected bodies like the UN - they REALLY think that they know better than The People - that they can't TRUST The People to "understand" what's best for them. Not a conspiracy theory. It's out there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manmade greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating climate change at a rate last seen on Earth when the planet was uninhabited by mammals.  The world and its biosphere will continue to exist despite warming, but it’s human survival we’re worried about.  If combustion engines, cows and industrial emissions are significant causes of this warming, which they are, we should be concerned and try to address it.  No one wants government policies that kill the economy or make the cost of living too high, but if we don’t take reasonable measures now, we’ll likely have to take radical, painful measures later on.  What will be the cost of putting levees around major coastal cities and resettling hundreds of millions of climate refugees?  We’ve already gotten a taste with the cost of a drought-fed political refugee crisis in Syria.  How many more catastrophes will it take for the “What me worry?” deniers to accept what science tells us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Manmade greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating climate change at a rate last seen on Earth when the planet was uninhabited by mammals.  The world and its biosphere will continue to exist despite warming, but it’s human survival we’re worried about.  If combustion engines, cows and industrial emissions are significant causes of this warming, which they are, we should be concerned and try to address it.  No one wants government policies that kill the economy or make the cost of living too high, but if we don’t take reasonable measures now, we’ll likely have to take radical, painful measures later on.  What will be the cost of putting levees around major coastal cities and resettling hundreds of millions of climate refugees?  We’ve already gotten a taste with the cost of a drought-fed political refugee crisis in Syria.  How many more catastrophes will it take for the “What me worry?” deniers to accept what science tells us?

The reasonable measures were needed twenty years ago.  The radical, painful measures are needed now.  They won't be taken, so dealing with the change is our only option.  The less money we waste on stuff that isn't going to make a difference the more we'll have for the levees and the relocations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

The Climate Change scam is only a piece of the puzzle - albeit a major piece. It's all part of the elitist undertaking for that one-world government (AKA Globalism).....one that used to be laughed at as a conspiracy dreamed up by the "looney Right" - but now is coming into rather clear focus. The UN has morphed (been manipulated) into the major impetus for the Globalist agenda. The advent of Trump has thrown a monkey wrench into their plans - as evidenced by the shrill cries of Armageddon (AKA extreme weather). But.......in speeding up their plans, they've rather exposed themselves with their "Migrant Compact" - geared to open-borders and the destruction of nationalist pride and values. It's pernicious. must be exposed, and with the knowledge of their agenda, must be taken from the shadows, presented to the people - and let democracy take it's course. That's the problem with elitism and unelected bodies like the UN - they REALLY think that they know better than The People - that they can't TRUST The People to "understand" what's best for them. Not a conspiracy theory. It's out there.

I’m far more worried about this kind of paranoia than any “Globalist Agenda”.  If anything is going to rescue middle class jobs, the environment, and keep democracy safe, it’s good global and national rules.  Otherwise we succumb to the politics of fear and build walls so that the real “elites” can maintain a high level of consumption come hell or high water for everyone else.  It’s actually a recipe for more climate change, pollution, terrorism, and inequality.  We need policies that raise all boats AND protect the ways of life people value, including the American dream of success.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sorry...President Reagan is long dead....the American Dream will not protect you.

Without policies that protect people across socioeconomic classes and countries, the only protection is money, which is nice for the haves, until the have nots come knocking, fully armed.  If the environment goes to pot then money will only soften the blow so far. I think responsible people do both, work hard for financial independence and contribute to the wider society to ensure everyone has a basic standard of wellbeing.  It’s in our interests to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Without policies that protect people across socioeconomic classes and countries, the only protection is money, which is nice for the haves, until the have nots come knocking, fully armed.  If the environment goes to pot then money will only soften the blow so far. I think responsible people do both, work hard for financial independence and contribute to the wider society to ensure everyone has a basic standard of wellbeing.  It’s in our interests to do so. 

 

That's fine, but don't try and brand it as part of an "American Dream", because that's not how it works in...America.

Everyone is not going to have a basic standard and well being...just like it was long before "climate change".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m far more worried about this kind of paranoia than any “Globalist Agenda”.  If anything is going to rescue middle class jobs, the environment, and keep democracy safe, it’s good global and national rules.  Otherwise we succumb to the politics of fear and build walls so that the real “elites” can maintain a high level of consumption come hell or high water for everyone else.  It’s actually a recipe for more climate change, pollution, terrorism, and inequality.  We need policies that raise all boats AND protect the ways of life people value, including the American dream of success.  

The "politics of fear" as you say, comes mostly from the Left - the Globalists, socialists. Marxists. The bunch of them are of one thought - and if you disagree, you are an outlier - to be marginalized, shouted down or in Climate Change terms - called deniers. The Climate Change scam has nothing to do with the environment - it's a red herring. Every rational human wants clean air, clean water, sustainable forests. Climate change is a scare tactic - a proxy to allow these unelected elitists/UN to create the illusion that only THEY can save humanity from itself. Truth is, each country has to learn how to save itself with democracy - and improving their collective lives one year at a time - developing trading relations with others - building that into blocs - and then trading between and amongst blocs......incremental steps that take time to build trust. "Globalism" seeks to simply jump over these hard-earned steps and force-feed it to The People. It's not so easy. Be careful what you wish for. One government means one-size-fits-all - no matter what your argument to the contrary might be. One-size-fits-all is soul-sucking socialism - subject to the whims and desires of those wielding the power. It's not easy but if democracy has taught us anything, it's that The People know best - if they are given all the facts, the agenda and the direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's fine, but don't try and brand it as part of an "American Dream", because that's not how it works in...America.

Everyone is not going to have a basic standard and well being...just like it was long before "climate change".

 

I’ve studied the “American Dream” in a number of iterations.  It represents many things and can vary quite widely.  The US doesn’t own it and we have our own versions in Canada.  The universal idea is that one should be able to come from humble beginnings and yet achieve success with hard work.  Any society that makes it too difficult for the average person to make a decent living, have a home, healthy food, some creature comforts, and the promise of upward mobility is failing its people.  The challenge is in the details: How great are these opportunities and how many of the people get access to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

The "politics of fear" as you say, comes mostly from the Left - the Globalists, socialists. Marxists. The bunch of them are of one thought - and if you disagree, you are an outlier - to be marginalized, shouted down or in Climate Change terms - called deniers. The Climate Change scam has nothing to do with the environment - it's a red herring. Every rational human wants clean air, clean water, sustainable forests. Climate change is a scare tactic - a proxy to allow these unelected elitists/UN to create the illusion that only THEY can save humanity from itself. Truth is, each country has to learn how to save itself with democracy - and improving their collective lives one year at a time - developing trading relations with others - building that into blocs - and then trading between and amongst blocs......incremental steps that take time to build trust. "Globalism" seeks to simply jump over these hard-earned steps and force-feed it to The People. It's not so easy. Be careful what you wish for. One government means one-size-fits-all - no matter what your argument to the contrary might be. One-size-fits-all is soul-sucking socialism - subject to the whims and desires of those wielding the power. It's not easy but if democracy has taught us anything, it's that The People know best - if they are given all the facts, the agenda and the direction.

I agree we don’t ever want one size fits all for most policy, except to ensure minimum protections and standards.  Otherwise it’s the law of the jungle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Without policies that protect people across socioeconomic classes and countries, the only protection is money, which is nice for the haves, until the have nots come knocking, fully armed.  If the environment goes to pot then money will only soften the blow so far. I think responsible people do both, work hard for financial independence and contribute to the wider society to ensure everyone has a basic standard of wellbeing.  It’s in our interests to do so. 

That's what we do. That's why we pay taxes - except for those that we are trying to help. It's why we have CPP, OAS, Tax-free Savings accounts, RRSP's, Medicare, and a Charter of Rights.....much of which has historically been paid for by Canada's natural resource industry. In my opinion, we have just one thing left to do to cut off the rough edges of Capitalism........and that is put a maximum on how much any one person can "earn". After all, how much is enough?

People in North America have never been as well off as they are today. No one - literally no one - can starve or be lacking for clothes or a roof over their heads - if they so choose. Granted, it may be tough - Welfare, shelters, soup kitchens, missions.....but even the very most marginalized have somewhere to turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’ve studied the “American Dream” in a number of iterations.  It represents many things and can vary quite widely.  The US doesn’t own it and we have our own versions in Canada.  The universal idea is that one should be able to come from humble beginnings and yet achieve success with hard work.  Any society that makes it too difficult for the average person to make a decent living, have a home, healthy food, some creature comforts, and the promise of upward mobility is failing its people.  The challenge is in the details: How great are these opportunities and how many of the people get access to them?

 

Great....then brand it as a "Canadian Dream" if you insist, but don't present the actual American (dream) experience with your wishes/bias.    The "American Dream" also includes lots and lots of failure, the flip side of the same coin, and it will remain that way.

So called "climate change" will not provide sufficient motivation or opportunity to achieve more than many other economic and political conflicts have from the past.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree we don’t ever want one size fits all for most policy, except to ensure minimum protections and standards.  Otherwise it’s the law of the jungle. 

But that's why the EU is falling apart - force feeding what The People don't want to eat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

The Climate Change scam is only a piece of the puzzle - albeit a major piece. It's all part of the elitist undertaking for that one-world government (AKA Globalism).....one that used to be laughed at as a conspiracy dreamed up by the "looney Right" - but now is coming into rather clear focus. The UN has morphed (been manipulated) into the major impetus for the Globalist agenda. The advent of Trump has thrown a monkey wrench into their plans - as evidenced by the shrill cries of Armageddon (AKA extreme weather). But.......in speeding up their plans, they've rather exposed themselves with their "Migrant Compact" - geared to open-borders and the destruction of nationalist pride and values. It's pernicious. must be exposed, and with the knowledge of their agenda, must be taken from the shadows, presented to the people - and let democracy take it's course. That's the problem with elitism and unelected bodies like the UN - they REALLY think that they know better than The People - that they can't TRUST The People to "understand" what's best for them. Not a conspiracy theory. It's out there.

What silliness. Of course pollution and in particular air pollution and water pollution are global in nature. The fact that pollution occurs worldwide does not auromatically equate them as being part of a global illu inati conspiracy. In fact the interest groups that  are defending the pollution not the people challenging them are if anything the globalist powers you talk about and there is no conspiracy. The oil companies are global and exist. So are the multi national polluters like Dow Chemical, DuPont.

Get a grip. You really think David Suzuki or Greenpeace are global illuminati? Good God what are you smoking? Trudeau is no friend of the environmental movement nor is Macron.

In fact the Green movement is about decentralized government not one world government.

Also environmentally concerned persons and groups come in at and from all sides of the political spectrum. Your attempt to equate them and me as one world leftist illuminati illegal immigrant anti Trump pro Trudeau conspirators is absurd.

No I am not part of the illuminati or a leftist because I contend science has proven excess co2 emissions and other pollutants discharged have contributed to atmospheric changes including depletion of the ozone layer, warming of the oceans, changes to weather patterns, desertification, erosion.

But hey go smoke a cigarette. People die of cancer and never smoke. Use that same reasoning you do with pollution and light one up and inhale deeply. Also keep driving the Hummer, using the cell phone, live next to high wire transmitters, dump nuclear waste in your back yard. Knock yourself out with your denials and stereotypes of others who don't smoke. LOL.

Oh hell humans burning down the rain forests causing atmospheric changes? No way man. Only commies would think that.  

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Regina
      The Canadian Government is planning to waste at least $235 million for a project, The Thirty Meter Telescope, which won't even be built on Canadian soil.  The Thirty Meter Telescope most likely will employ few Canadians.  To make matters worse, the telescope will be built in Hawaii, USA on land which is both environmentally and religiously sensitive to the indigenous Hawaiians.  I hope everybody will protest against the waste of tax money and human rights abuses.  Please sign the petition to stop the injustice happening within the USA at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.  I am posting a link to an online petition against the Thirty Meter Telescope and waste of taxpayer money: https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-a-call-to-divest-canada-s-research-funding-for-the-thirty-meter-telescope-on-mauna-kea
      Please tell your friends to sign the petition too.  Thank you for your time.
    • By Canuck100
      A great source of information on the ‘Climate Model’ used by politicians to scam us! Should we be surprised how the wool was pulled over our eyes? 
       
      The scientists who believe in the carbon dioxide theory of global warming do so essentially because of the application of “basic physics” to climate, by a model that is ubiquitous and traditional in climate science. This model is rarely named, but is sometimes referred to as the “forcing-feedback framework or paradigm.” Explicitly called the “forcing-feedback model” (FFM) here, this pen-and-paper model estimates the sensitivity of the global temperature to increasing carbon dioxide.
      The FFM has serious architectural errors. Fixing the architecture, while keeping the physics, shows that future warming due to increasing carbon dioxide will be a fifth to a tenth of current official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide.
      The large computerized climate models (GCMs) are indirectly tailored to compute the same sensitivity to carbon dioxide as the FFM. Both explain 20th century warming as driven mostly by increasing carbon dioxide.
      Increasing carbon dioxide traps more heat. But that heat mainly just reroutes to space from water vapor instead. This all happens high in the atmosphere, so it has little effect on the Earth’s surface, where we live. Current climate models omit this rerouting. Rerouting cannot occur in the FFM, due to its architecture—rerouting is in its blindspot.
      http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
      http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-climate-research-back-to-the-new-old-way-of-doing-science/
    • By Scott Mayers
      For those that argue against 'taxes' as though they are a burden, I thought of this analogy when responding to something Betsy here said in her blog space here.
      Taxi services are business entities meant to get people from one place to another and its name is derived from the nature of one to be charged for a ride. However, because one cannot know how far a trip is, often many pay AFTER they reach their destination. One against taxes is often one who reverses how they pay for their 'ride': UP FRONT. Because one can afford the expense, they are confident of paying for the trip ahead of time. For the rich, instead of paying for a cab AFTER they reach the destiny, they are better off hiring their own PRIVATE cab exclusively or buy their own car if they like the control of driving. Then they CAN afford to pay for the trip prior to getting to where they want to go, right?
      So a "taxi" is to 'taxes' in that those using them both HAVE to have money prior to paying but don't pay UNTIL later...your destiny. By contrast, if you can afford to pay up front, this is fine too. But to think that the poor bastards requiring to pay AFTER the trip is having a "FREE RIDE" ignores that they pay IF and WHEN they get to their destination. The ignorance amiss is to those who simply believe that you should pay the cab driver up front as a form of assurance you have the money and then trust the driver to pay the customer back once you get there.
      Regardless, the anti-tax conservative arguers are actually like those who can afford their own cars or private limos and so demand there is no need for taxi cabs UNLESS the customer is able to default to blindly trusting those taxi cab OWNERS of putting down a deposit up front and then allow the power be transferred to the trust of the cab driver to give you back at the destiny any unused worth. This requires one trust the cab drivers, either as owners or representatives of the owners, to SERVE those taxing with priority.
      The idiocy of the anti-tax arguers misses this point. There certainly ARE customers who will rip off the cab driver. But those taxis would not exist if this behavior WAS the norm of service behavior by most. In fact, taxi owners also act deceptive in equal measure to the population of those ripping them off. However, the wealthier ones demanding NO taxes are like saying this service altogether should NOT even exist! It tells you more about HOW well off they are by contrast: they have their own cars they drive or they hire private limo services that they have complete power over.
      If NO one should require taxes nor taxis, these more privileged travellers who by default have their own means to 'freely' drive from one place to the next both have control over who gets the privilege to get to their destiny quickly AND are the ones setting the BURDEN of those disempowered by virtue of their lack of power of owning the 'taxis' (let alone their own car or limo) to requiring the FEE of whatever the demands of the wealthy want to set non-competitively!
      In essence, the wealthy do not need taxis and yet demand THEY should be empowered to tax (ie, 'burden') the masses by controlling how people travel. They control WHO gets to travel....who gets permit to pass to their own destination 'freely' while they alone have 'free' capacity to create their own destinies AND reach them!
    • By Exegesisme
      15 Citizen Community Globally, Political Philosophy for Human Future
      By Exegesisme
      1 I just reflected the possible foreign policy of US tea party, for it might take more power of US in future.
      2 basically its goals are lower debts and lower taxes.
      3 positive and effective foreign policy on these two goals could only be citizen community globally.
      4 by the phrase citizen community globally, I mean US successful private citizens would play larger role internationally, and US foreign policy would at least encourage this tendency to partially replace the function of governmental foreign relationship.
      5 the tendency of citizen community globally would be a strong force for global peace, for the private citizens do not have the power to use troop for their goals.
      6 as an example, maybe an US entrepreneur would teach entrepreneurs of other nations how to deal with the relationships with their governments, and force the change of government with more rational and prepared power.
      7 this is a good way of more peaceful, more effective, and less expensive for a good national and international order.
      8 I believe there are few US entrepreneurs having been preparing to get job done this way.
      9 if US politics develops along the way, it would be benefits both to US and the whole world.
      10 Cruz is a person prepared to play a role on the way.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...