I bet
-
The US leaves the UN as the UN moves closer to a one world government. My opinion is goofi's plan[^] is step one to that one world government. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
The US leaves the UN as the UN moves closer to a one world government. My opinion is goofi's plan[^] is step one to that one world government. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Chris Losinger wrote: how does this stuff move the world closer to "one world government" ? "What is needed is a comprehensive system of collective security, one that tackles both old and new threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states -- rich and poor, weak and strong," Annan said in an introduction to the report. He said the proposals, which must be approved by member nations, set out "a broad framework for collective security and indeed gives a broader meaning to that concept appropriate for the new millennium." The next 2 paragraphs are what does it for me, i.e., sets the baseline. "Collective Security" says "our" security isn't the concern, it is "OUR" security that is important In setting out a blueprint for collective security decisions, the report also takes implicit aim at the United States over the Iraqi war, which was strongly opposed by Annan and many Security Council member states. "There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower," the panel said. To summarize what I believe is being said, the UN is saying that if (for example) we (the US) are threatened or attacked we can't retaliate if the rest of the world agrees that in doing so we jeporadize the well being of the rest of the world. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Chris Losinger wrote: how does this stuff move the world closer to "one world government" ? "What is needed is a comprehensive system of collective security, one that tackles both old and new threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states -- rich and poor, weak and strong," Annan said in an introduction to the report. He said the proposals, which must be approved by member nations, set out "a broad framework for collective security and indeed gives a broader meaning to that concept appropriate for the new millennium." The next 2 paragraphs are what does it for me, i.e., sets the baseline. "Collective Security" says "our" security isn't the concern, it is "OUR" security that is important In setting out a blueprint for collective security decisions, the report also takes implicit aim at the United States over the Iraqi war, which was strongly opposed by Annan and many Security Council member states. "There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower," the panel said. To summarize what I believe is being said, the UN is saying that if (for example) we (the US) are threatened or attacked we can't retaliate if the rest of the world agrees that in doing so we jeporadize the well being of the rest of the world. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: To summarize what I believe is being said, the UN is saying that if (for example) we (the US) are threatened or attacked we can't retaliate if the rest of the world agrees that in doing so we jeporadize the well being of the rest of the world. What part of that doesn't make complete sense? Analogies can be dumb, but bear with me.. imagine the world as a small town and each country as one citizen in that town. Does the fact that one one citizen has the most guns give him the right to make all the rules? No, because he makes decisions based on his own self-interest. The best way is for the town to elect a sherrif to enforce the rules that the town collectively decides on.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: To summarize what I believe is being said, the UN is saying that if (for example) we (the US) are threatened or attacked we can't retaliate if the rest of the world agrees that in doing so we jeporadize the well being of the rest of the world. What part of that doesn't make complete sense? Analogies can be dumb, but bear with me.. imagine the world as a small town and each country as one citizen in that town. Does the fact that one one citizen has the most guns give him the right to make all the rules? No, because he makes decisions based on his own self-interest. The best way is for the town to elect a sherrif to enforce the rules that the town collectively decides on.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does the fact that one one citizen has the most guns give him the right to make all the rules In this small town, does everybody pay equal taxes or does one pay a lot more than anyone else? "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Chris Losinger wrote: how does this stuff move the world closer to "one world government" ? "What is needed is a comprehensive system of collective security, one that tackles both old and new threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states -- rich and poor, weak and strong," Annan said in an introduction to the report. He said the proposals, which must be approved by member nations, set out "a broad framework for collective security and indeed gives a broader meaning to that concept appropriate for the new millennium." The next 2 paragraphs are what does it for me, i.e., sets the baseline. "Collective Security" says "our" security isn't the concern, it is "OUR" security that is important In setting out a blueprint for collective security decisions, the report also takes implicit aim at the United States over the Iraqi war, which was strongly opposed by Annan and many Security Council member states. "There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower," the panel said. To summarize what I believe is being said, the UN is saying that if (for example) we (the US) are threatened or attacked we can't retaliate if the rest of the world agrees that in doing so we jeporadize the well being of the rest of the world. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: To summarize what I believe is being said, the UN is saying that if (for example) we (the US) are threatened or attacked we can't retaliate if the rest of the world agrees that in doing so we jeporadize the well being of the rest of the world. Had the UN already enacted these new ideas, we might have never gone into Iraq, and instead used more stringent sanctions, which inevitably would have lead to finding about the oil for food scandal. With 200 billion more dollars and an "ununsed army", we might be better equip to deal with Iran. We all live on the same rock, shouldn't we try to move in a more unified direction? I mean is there not enough moeny and oportunity to go around? And honestly GWB wouldnt listen to them if his life depended on it, not that they deserve to be heard, but usually a US president would atleast pretend. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does the fact that one one citizen has the most guns give him the right to make all the rules In this small town, does everybody pay equal taxes or does one pay a lot more than anyone else? "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: In this small town, does everybody pay equal taxes or does one pay a lot more than anyone else? Either way, you only get one vote for the sherrif. :)
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does the fact that one one citizen has the most guns give him the right to make all the rules In this small town, does everybody pay equal taxes or does one pay a lot more than anyone else? "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Can you eat money, does it protect you, pave your streets, teach your children? Money plays a big part in things these days, but so many are willing to forget the "little people" whose crappy jobs make our lives a little simpler. The rich guy may pay more taxes, but only cause he has more money to pay with, only fair. I mean he does get to buy more, live better, and always has more influence. But then thats the thing with greed, its never enough. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
-
The US leaves the UN as the UN moves closer to a one world government. My opinion is goofi's plan[^] is step one to that one world government. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
I see more of a solidification of economic spheres of influence, divisions with centers around the EU, then the US, then the Asian block. The UN is kind of a repository for hopeful thinking more than anything else.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: To summarize what I believe is being said, the UN is saying that if (for example) we (the US) are threatened or attacked we can't retaliate if the rest of the world agrees that in doing so we jeporadize the well being of the rest of the world. What part of that doesn't make complete sense? Analogies can be dumb, but bear with me.. imagine the world as a small town and each country as one citizen in that town. Does the fact that one one citizen has the most guns give him the right to make all the rules? No, because he makes decisions based on his own self-interest. The best way is for the town to elect a sherrif to enforce the rules that the town collectively decides on.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Analogies can be dumb, but bear with me Certainly Daniel Ferguson wrote: imagine the world as a small town and each country as one citizen in that town. I completely understand your point, but I am a citizen of the USA and not the world. Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does the fact that one one citizen has the most guns give him the right to make all the rules? When not making the rules subjects my family and country men to the whims of the rest of the world, the answer to your question is an unqualified, definitive, YES. Daniel Ferguson wrote: No, because he makes decisions based on his own self-interest. Yes, for the reason you state, "he makes decisions based on his (my and mine) self interest. Daniel Ferguson wrote: The best way is for the town to elect a sherrif to enforce the rules that the town collectively decides on. We did. His name is, G.W. Bush. Now I'll editorialize: The best way to gain peace in the world is not some one central government, that will some become corrupt. You simply have to look at the UN and the current Oil for Food corruption to see why. Free trade and democracy, creating interlocking dependencies and open dialog while delivering to each country's self interest is the correct way to "govern" the world. If "you" create a centralized, one world, government "you'll" soon be paying taxes so someone can have an HDTV and HDTV signal beamed to him whilst he herds sheep (because that is what he "feels" good about doing) on some desolate plain. It will not work. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does the fact that one one citizen has the most guns give him the right to make all the rules In this small town, does everybody pay equal taxes or does one pay a lot more than anyone else? "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
That depends, does everybody earn an equivalent income and have the same standard of life?
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: To summarize what I believe is being said, the UN is saying that if (for example) we (the US) are threatened or attacked we can't retaliate if the rest of the world agrees that in doing so we jeporadize the well being of the rest of the world. Had the UN already enacted these new ideas, we might have never gone into Iraq, and instead used more stringent sanctions, which inevitably would have lead to finding about the oil for food scandal. With 200 billion more dollars and an "ununsed army", we might be better equip to deal with Iran. We all live on the same rock, shouldn't we try to move in a more unified direction? I mean is there not enough moeny and oportunity to go around? And honestly GWB wouldnt listen to them if his life depended on it, not that they deserve to be heard, but usually a US president would atleast pretend. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
JimRivera wrote: Had the UN already enacted these new ideas, we might have never gone into Iraq, and instead used more stringent sanctions, which inevitably would have lead to finding about the oil for food scandal. I beg to differ. France, Russia, China and Germany had been pushing and lobbying for years to drop the sanctions. JimRivera wrote: With 200 billion more dollars and an "ununsed army", we might be better equip to deal with Iran. This, as well as Iraq, had to be dealt with it was just a matter of which to tackle first. If you pay attention to the news (I am not being sarcastic) you'll note that Europe is unwilling to do anything other than "huff and puff". Iran is going to be left to us (the US) and Israel to deal with, the same as it would have been prior to Iraq. JimRivera wrote: We all live on the same rock, shouldn't we try to move in a more unified direction? I'll lead, you follow. That was sarcastic but I'm trying to make the point that someone has to lead and I for one don't like the UN direction. JimRivera wrote: And honestly GWB wouldnt listen to them if his life depended on it, not that they deserve to be heard, but usually a US president would atleast pretend. Now isn't it great to have some Presidential honesty? I personally believe that the "nice nice" of Powell like (as an example) diplomacy is crap. Teddy Roosevelt had it right, we shouldn't have strayed. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Analogies can be dumb, but bear with me Certainly Daniel Ferguson wrote: imagine the world as a small town and each country as one citizen in that town. I completely understand your point, but I am a citizen of the USA and not the world. Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does the fact that one one citizen has the most guns give him the right to make all the rules? When not making the rules subjects my family and country men to the whims of the rest of the world, the answer to your question is an unqualified, definitive, YES. Daniel Ferguson wrote: No, because he makes decisions based on his own self-interest. Yes, for the reason you state, "he makes decisions based on his (my and mine) self interest. Daniel Ferguson wrote: The best way is for the town to elect a sherrif to enforce the rules that the town collectively decides on. We did. His name is, G.W. Bush. Now I'll editorialize: The best way to gain peace in the world is not some one central government, that will some become corrupt. You simply have to look at the UN and the current Oil for Food corruption to see why. Free trade and democracy, creating interlocking dependencies and open dialog while delivering to each country's self interest is the correct way to "govern" the world. If "you" create a centralized, one world, government "you'll" soon be paying taxes so someone can have an HDTV and HDTV signal beamed to him whilst he herds sheep (because that is what he "feels" good about doing) on some desolate plain. It will not work. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: I completely understand your point, but I am a citizen of the USA and not the world. That's the problem. You are a citizen of the USA, but you are also a citizen of the world. In my cute small town analogy, you're a citizen of your house and a citizen of the town. You're both unless you never leave your home. Mike Gaskey wrote: The best way to gain peace in the world is not some one central government, that will some become corrupt. Would you say that the American (or Canadian, or British, or German) govt is absolutely not corrupt? We have a small scandal here in Canada right now about corruption. It's inevitable with government and thus the posibility that it could happen with a theoritical world government is not surprising, nor is it a reason not to try. That said, I haven't given it much thought, but I'm not in favour of a world government at this point in history. Ask me again in 20 years. Mike Gaskey wrote: Free trade and democracy, creating interlocking dependencies and open dialog while delivering to each country's self interest is the correct way to "govern" the world. I completely agree, and it's one of the reasons why I think the USA should not have invaded Iraq without the agreement of the UN.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
That depends, does everybody earn an equivalent income and have the same standard of life?
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
David Wulff wrote: That depends, does everybody earn an equivalent income and have the same standard of life? Everybody has the same opportunity, their income and standard of life depends on how hard they work. At least that's how it works in my small town. ;) "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Can you eat money, does it protect you, pave your streets, teach your children? Money plays a big part in things these days, but so many are willing to forget the "little people" whose crappy jobs make our lives a little simpler. The rich guy may pay more taxes, but only cause he has more money to pay with, only fair. I mean he does get to buy more, live better, and always has more influence. But then thats the thing with greed, its never enough. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
JimRivera wrote: Can you eat money, does it protect you, pave your streets, teach your children? Yes - money buys food, police, asphalt and teachers. JimRivera wrote: The rich guy may pay more taxes, but only cause he has more money to pay with, only fair. No, not fair. I pay taxes to the government. In turn they supply me with services. It is not charity. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: In this small town, does everybody pay equal taxes or does one pay a lot more than anyone else? Either way, you only get one vote for the sherrif. :)
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Either way, you only get one vote for the sherrif. Ooops sorry. I'm from Chicago where the folks with the most money get to vote as often as they'd like. :rolleyes: "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Because a lot of people with literacy problems believe the Bible says there WILL be an evil one world government, said people are therefore predisposed to find evidence of it's imminent arrival. I remember when my dad was telling me that Saddam was the antiChrist ( before Gulf War I ). I have only vague recollections on who he moved to after that, I suspect Ronnie Reagan was the culprit before ( all his three names had 6 letters ). It's sad. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
JimRivera wrote: Had the UN already enacted these new ideas, we might have never gone into Iraq, and instead used more stringent sanctions, which inevitably would have lead to finding about the oil for food scandal. I beg to differ. France, Russia, China and Germany had been pushing and lobbying for years to drop the sanctions. JimRivera wrote: With 200 billion more dollars and an "ununsed army", we might be better equip to deal with Iran. This, as well as Iraq, had to be dealt with it was just a matter of which to tackle first. If you pay attention to the news (I am not being sarcastic) you'll note that Europe is unwilling to do anything other than "huff and puff". Iran is going to be left to us (the US) and Israel to deal with, the same as it would have been prior to Iraq. JimRivera wrote: We all live on the same rock, shouldn't we try to move in a more unified direction? I'll lead, you follow. That was sarcastic but I'm trying to make the point that someone has to lead and I for one don't like the UN direction. JimRivera wrote: And honestly GWB wouldnt listen to them if his life depended on it, not that they deserve to be heard, but usually a US president would atleast pretend. Now isn't it great to have some Presidential honesty? I personally believe that the "nice nice" of Powell like (as an example) diplomacy is crap. Teddy Roosevelt had it right, we shouldn't have strayed. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: I beg to differ. France, Russia, China and Germany had been pushing and lobbying for years to drop the sanctions. Yeh but you got to figure that with the US wanting war, they would have been able to get tighter sanctions against Iraq. I mean think about it, with over 20 billion in bribes, it did not save himself from being overthrown. Mike Gaskey wrote: This, as well as Iraq, had to be dealt with it was just a matter of which to tackle first. If you pay attention to the news (I am not being sarcastic) you'll note that Europe is unwilling to do anything other than "huff and puff". Iran is going to be left to us (the US) and Israel to deal with, the same as it would have been prior to Iraq. Yeh but i do not think that Iraq was as big of a threat. In fact Chalabi (hope i spelled his name right) had given us nuclear missle plans that Saddam was supposedly using. Intelligence said that the documents looke more "Iranian" in dialect and writing, now look, Iran seems to be the bigger threat. Listen all I am saying is that there could have been a more diplomatic approach, at the very least, a more effective one. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
-
JimRivera wrote: Can you eat money, does it protect you, pave your streets, teach your children? Yes - money buys food, police, asphalt and teachers. JimRivera wrote: The rich guy may pay more taxes, but only cause he has more money to pay with, only fair. No, not fair. I pay taxes to the government. In turn they supply me with services. It is not charity. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Yes - money buys food, police, asphalt and teachers. I meant literally, how stupid do you think i am? I'm not knew to the whole idea of currency Mike Mullikin wrote: No, not fair. I pay taxes to the government. In turn they supply me with services. It is not charity. Exactly and you pay your share, and you deserve your services, which are usually alot better than the rest of us. But you do not have the right to control the rest of us just because you have a bigger share, you have to think about those who make your food, teach your children, and pave your streets. We are all important in the shceme of things, little cogs in a big machine. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Yes - money buys food, police, asphalt and teachers. I meant literally, how stupid do you think i am? I'm not knew to the whole idea of currency Mike Mullikin wrote: No, not fair. I pay taxes to the government. In turn they supply me with services. It is not charity. Exactly and you pay your share, and you deserve your services, which are usually alot better than the rest of us. But you do not have the right to control the rest of us just because you have a bigger share, you have to think about those who make your food, teach your children, and pave your streets. We are all important in the shceme of things, little cogs in a big machine. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
JimRivera wrote: I'm not knew to the whole idea of currency Then what was your point about money? JimRivera wrote: which are usually alot better than the rest of us. Do policemen or firemen respond faster depending on how much tax you pay? Do the rich get to drive on better streets? Do the teachers in public schools favor the students whose parents pay the most taxes? JimRivera wrote: But you do not have the right to control the rest of us just because you have a bigger share I don't remember ever saying as much. I was just fleshing out Daniel's analogy by asking a question. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick