|
Post by mouse on Jun 10, 2010 11:36:22 GMT
Politicians are always calling for more international co-operation in certain areas, but not for giving up their own nations for some kind of world government. """
heard all that before..it was called the EU just co-operation between european state etc etc any one remeber the that...and here we are down the line the err ahem united states of europe..own currency etc etc
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Jun 10, 2010 12:51:33 GMT
A difference, acceptance of the dollar was compulsory in the USA. The Euro is not compulsory in the EU.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 10, 2010 13:48:44 GMT
World government doesn't HAVE to be a totalitarian tyranny.
I DON'T support it but it doesn't HAVE to be repressive and exploitational.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 10, 2010 18:43:13 GMT
World government doesn't HAVE to be a totalitarian tyranny. I DON'T support it but it doesn't HAVE to be repressive and exploitational. it doesn't matter whether it is tyrannical or totally benevolent. the basic premise of it is prima facie evil. the world is 190+ totally separate and distinct nations. there is NO such thing as one world to intelligent and rational people
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 11, 2010 0:42:44 GMT
World government doesn't HAVE to be a totalitarian tyranny. I DON'T support it but it doesn't HAVE to be repressive and exploitational. it doesn't matter whether it is tyrannical or totally benevolent. the basic premise of it is prima facie evil. the world is 190+ totally separate and distinct nations. there is NO such thing as one world to intelligent and rational people The one world government strategy is to make the people apathethic and not caring. This has nothing to do with promoting true tolerance. If this scheme works then there's no need to appear tyrannical!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jun 11, 2010 0:59:35 GMT
I like the idea of global world government. Let's just bring GW Bush back from retirement and make him President of the entire world. Then we'd finally start to do something conclusive about the Jihadists.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Jun 11, 2010 18:50:29 GMT
"new world order"
"one world government"
hmmm.
Roman Empire, Persian Empire, Empire of Alexander, British Empire etc.
We've been there before and we've been there many, many times...the conspiracy types haven't "discovered" anything new here.
There will always be folks who want to rule, some will want it for good, others for bad, but nothing lasts forever.
AH
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 14, 2010 11:40:01 GMT
Well said, Alpha!
People have been trying to establish a world government for thousands of years and no one has yet managed to do it.
The British Empire came closest but on the whole that was pretty benevolent because it rested largely on at least tacit consent from the occupied nations.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Jun 15, 2010 14:04:36 GMT
I like the idea of global world government. Let's just bring GW Bush back from retirement and make him President of the entire world. Then we'd finally start to do something conclusive about the Jihadists. He doesn't even know where the world is. As for Jihadistaliseationment!
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jun 15, 2010 15:23:12 GMT
But surely the United nations is a basic form of world government. Government does not have to mean ONE dictator, or any one group (Bilderberg??) or even one nation running the entire world. But it could mean all the nations of the world cooperating in areas of mutual interest; much as the United nations was meant to do. I can agree that at present the UN is little more than a talking shop, riven by factional infighting, and largely run by the major league players. A very expensive talking shop at that, but on occasions they can come together and get things done; and the various UN agencies do good work among the third world and the worlds poorer nations.
And there is also the E.U.; which again is designed to be a form of centralised government for the disparate nations of Europe who have agreed membership. So world government does not necessarily have to mean dictatorship, nor does it have to mean military dominance. The only problem against it is human nature, and its inbuilt tribalism. Whether in time we can overcome this base instinct is, to my mind, very doubtful
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Jun 15, 2010 16:02:19 GMT
One of the most important advantages of the EU is that any country can leave at any time without formality. This is further clarified in the Lisbon Treaty.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 16, 2010 7:48:24 GMT
lawdy ..ireland couldnt even vote against the eu...gave an elected resulut and bingo...they had to vote yet again...this time giving the right answer.....democracy in action is a wonderful thing to behold you vill vote..and vote in till we get the answer we want
|
|
|
Post by jade on Jun 28, 2010 11:04:50 GMT
The emphasis is not really on "ruling" tho, is it? Surely the whole point of the group is that they are extremely rich and priviledged people who want to remain extremely rich and priviledged, and indeed become even more priviledged.
Actual power over people is only important in that it allows further accumulation of wealth and priviledge.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Jun 28, 2010 11:14:38 GMT
Mouse, they could have voted the same way again. Surely the collective vote of all member nations is more important. We could copy the USA system and elect a college of voters who will decide on who is to be president. No system is perfect but any system that produces Bush and son must need overhauling.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jun 28, 2010 20:33:43 GMT
Definitely confirmed that it needs overhauling Alan because it produced the likes of Bill Clinton and Obama (gasp).
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Jun 29, 2010 9:35:06 GMT
Mouse, they could have voted the same way again. Surely the collective vote of all member nations is more important. We could copy the USA system and elect a college of voters who will decide on who is to be president. No system is perfect but any system that produces Bush and son must need overhauling. PHONY "Savior" Obama has KEPT UP at least some of the evils of Dubya. When are people going to admit what a JOKE it is that there's really any difference between them?
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Jun 29, 2010 9:40:02 GMT
Definitely confirmed that it needs overhauling Alan because it produced the likes of Bill Clinton and Obama (gasp). Anyone who voted for Dubya and Obama deserve 100% what they get. If you vote for someone who says torture is OK and orders it (Dubya) then EXPECT for YOU to be tortured. You vote for Obama KNOWING that he's keeping up the evil abuse of FISA (and ALSO voting for the phone companies doing the illegal spying to not even be arrested) then EXPECT that YOU'RE going to have all your phone calls listened to/e-mails read. People DESERVE EXACTLY WHAT THEY VOTE FOR. What a bunch of coward ***### who compromise on all kinds of evil. Obama renewed the evil Patriot Act also. It doesn't matter who does these evils or what party they're in. They're only puppets for the elite ***### who go to Bilderberg every year. The last US president who didn't let this **#### fully control him was killed (JFK).
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Jun 29, 2010 9:43:45 GMT
Mouse, they could have voted the same way again. Surely the collective vote of all member nations is more important. We could copy the USA system and elect a college of voters who will decide on who is to be president. No system is perfect but any system that produces Bush and son must need overhauling. What about Obama doing the SAME evils as Dubya? The renewal of Patriot Act is just 1 example. Isn't that just as bad as Dubya?
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Sept 9, 2010 21:27:00 GMT
I DO love these people who see conspiracies everywhere. The Bilderberg group is an annual meeting of influential people by invitation. Originally set up to foster USA/European cooperation, it is little more than a talking shop, with little real influence on world government or world affairs. Consider the disparate people who have attended a Bilderberg meeting. From the UK, we have Paddy Ashdown, Ed Balls, Ken Clarke, Dennis Healey, Peter Mandelson David Owen, Enoch Powell. And we must not forget Blair, Brown, Heath and Thatcher. The Yanks have included Hilary and Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Kissinger. People from all corners of the political spectrum, left and right. The conspiracy theories arise from the fact that the press are excluded, and nothing of their discussions are published. Some people see conspiracies everywhere, and in this case they seem to be convinced that Bilderberg is some sort of world dominating organisation being run by a Goldfinger operative a la Smersh . But there again, some people STILL argue that 9/11 was a gigantic CIA conspiracy! www.newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Sept 12, 2010 19:36:45 GMT
Nothing new here, Pumpkinette. Mind you, the "examples" this site presents as proof that conspiracy theorists are always right are laughable in that context. Politics is full of dirty tricks, and so is big business. And shit happens. That is the way of things. But to argue that Bilderberg is somehow a precursor to world domination is only believable to those of a certain intellectual makeup. As I pointed out once before, there are those who still swear that the twin towers were blown up by the CIA, and that those films of aircraft crashing into them was faked.
|
|