http://patriotpetitions.us/intro.asp?id=4
Finally...a bill and a petition to get the US to withdraw from the UN...
Printable View
http://patriotpetitions.us/intro.asp?id=4
Finally...a bill and a petition to get the US to withdraw from the UN...
It is hard to have a solid opinion on this either way. I don't think it is totally good to be in the UN, but I don't think it will be totally good to withdraw from the UN. I still think cooperation with other countries is important, but with the controversy over the Iraq war and all I dunno what's going on.
EDIT: and that's about as politically correct and as unbiased as I could possibly make that post.
Aye, but it's possible to cooperate with countries through alliances, trade agreements, etc, without being in the UN...and then we don't have to cooperate with the nations which don't play nicely with others.
Wow, "patriotpetitions.us", huh?
You'll excuse me if I don't really take that page seriously.
4/24/03 - NEVAR FORGET.
One second. I need to take my oversized flag down from my raised 4x4, then I'll sign the petition whilst whistling "I'm a yankee doodle dandy" and mulling over the lyrics to a Toby Keith song. Hoooooooiiiiieeeee!
I doubt that petition will be recognized.
Simply Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, UN is clinically dead.
A pure waste of time.
> but with the controversy over the Iraq war and all I dunno
> what's going on.
The UN is more than the security council. It also contains the organisations for children, third world development, refugees, human rights and other things. In my opinion those things are very important to do together in this world and the UN is a body for that.
> but it's possible to cooperate with countries through alliances,
> trade agreements, etc, without being in the UN
Yes, that is possible. And a lot of things are done without the UN. In Europe think about the European Union and the Benelux for example. Also I think about organisations like Novib and such who do work for third world development.
But I still think it is important that there is a global organisation.
Frankly speaking, having veto power of 5 members is the most unacceptable undemocratic written clause of UN . This option made lots of discrimination, and were exploited in the past. Expect more democracy, think at least 2/3 or 4/5 of total members for security countil resolution. And make sure no one is visiting from country to country to get vote to attack any country. Anyway, I think that world will never be better in my life time.Quote:
Originally posted by Shiro
The UN is more than the security council. It also contains the organisations for children, third world development, refugees, human rights and other things. In my opinion those things are very important to do together in this world and the UN is a body for that.
..........................................
But I still think it is important that there is a global organisation.
Shiro, whatever the Org is, picture will never change for ever. Better always keeping in mind "Might is Right". It was in stone age, will be there for ever.
> Frankly speaking, having veto power of 5 members is the most
> unacceptable undemocratic written clause of UN .
As I said, the security council, is just a part of the UN.
> whatever the Org is, picture will never change for ever.
What picture?
In this time where many things are becoming global, it is important to have a global organisation. I think it is naive to think that currently countries can do all things themselves.
I have lots of critics on the European Union, but I know that without the EU we wouldn't be as far as we are now. The EU is currently far from ideal, but gives instruments to work together.
:) Whatever you say, may be this is for a period of time but "Might is Right" dominated and will dominate the creation. I'm 28, hopefully will be alife for another 28. Keep in touch, we will meet again on this issue.Quote:
Originally posted by Shiro
In this time where many things are becoming global, it is important to have a global organisation. I think it is naive to think that currently countries can do all things themselves.
I have lots of critics on the European Union, but I know that without the EU we wouldn't be as far as we are now. The EU is currently far from ideal, but gives instruments to work together.
Never underestimate the power of idiots in large groups.
As someone already mentioned, the UN is about so much more than the Security Council. Nothing the UN does is a threat to our sovereignty. They obviously didn't stop us from unjustly blowing up whomever we please. The only reason people are now in such a huff over the UN is because they disagreed with us. The US is in such denial about the world. Guess what, everybody? There are only two countries in the world that have a majority approval rating of President Bush, the US and Israel. Guess what else? Other countries are allowed to have their opinons. Differences of opinion are allowed. Yeesh, I'm so sick and tired of people who claim to be all about rights and freedoms, but view anyone with different views to be a massive threat. People protesting the war are not un-patriotic. A bunch of countries opposing the war is not enough to completely withdraw from an organization that has helped us and the world so much. People are so short-sighted; people are so stupid.
Oh, and zahid, the mightiest may rule and do whatever they please, but that does not by any means make it right. Get some morals, man. This isn't the stone age anymore.
Do tell...what HAS the UN done for us? The league of nations didn't work, and I don't know why the world thought that the UN would. Honestly, I've heard it described as "a debate club for rich people," and it's not far from the point. You probably assume that I'm against the UN because of the thing with the war, but I've been against the UN for as long as I've known about it, and I was also against the war...
http://www.un.org/News/facts/confercs.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/yir/english/page5.html
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/unsucess.html
http://dodd.senate.gov/press/Speeches/104_95/0627.htm
http://www.globaled.org/curriculum/UNB-Reading.html
And that's just what a little googling can do. I especially liked that last one. It talks about how the UN has changed how nations think about people and the international community.
Oh, and here's a big thing the UN has done for the world, the World Health Organization. Surely you can't tell me that the WHO isn't an accomplishment.
howdy,
Who pays the bills for the UN?
M.R.
Did you also sign the other petition on this site?
>>A petition to redress the anti-American petitions and ad campaigns sponsored by Hollywood and academic Leftists ostensibly objecting to the U.S. military campaign against terrorism following the unprecedented attack on our countrymen September 11, 2001. <<
I'm sorry but doesn't that violate the "Hollywood and academic Leftists" right to FREE SPEECH?
The big problem was that other countries threatened to user their veto power to block a resolution the US wanted in the UN. The US then acts as if this is an abuse of power.
Prahaps you should look up which country has used its veto power in the UN the MOST and WHY.
Surprise, surprise........... its the US.
The most recent US veto was to stop investigation into Israel killing UN relief workers and destroying a UN food warehouse.
Want to know what else the evil, irrelevent UN wanted to have a resolution about that the US vetoed?
on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians:: Dec 2001
on establishing a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians:: March 2001
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...o/vetosubj.htm
>>but it's possible to cooperate with countries through alliances, trade agreements, etc, without being in the UN...and then we don't have to cooperate with the nations which don't play nicely with others.<<
In an envioronment where the US can throw its weight around in an 'one on one' fourum. Rather than in a democratic forum where a weak country can hope to have a chance.
"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us. And if they don't, they can go straight to hell." Bill Clinton, April 2003
howdy,
ORQuote:
"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us. And if they don't, they can go straight to hell." Bill Clinton, April 2003
we could send them money and beg them to stop. :rolleyes:
M.R.
So little time, so many faulty assumptions. First, the United Nations is neither an "external legislative body" nor is it an "'entangling alliance.'" The UN is many things, but it is not a world government organization. The various branches and levels of the U.S. governmental system remain sovereign and independent as shown by President Bush's actions.
If one country reasonably expects to work with another country, the international equivalent of respect is necessary. Precisely because the UN is not and cannot be a world government, it cannot coerce compliance from its sovereign members, specifically the U.S. The U.S. leadership had a humanitarian duty to call on the UN to stop genocide, too many times it backed away. The U.S. has neglected to pay its UN dues, depriving the UN of working for third-world concerns. With isolationists and unilateralists in the United States, the only current nation-state "super power," preferring the UN as the U.S.'s bully-pulpit or nothing, it's no wonder the UN has failed at its responsibilities. If walking out on talks on global warming, human rights, etc. and trying to buy support is "cooperation," then I'd rather see less "cooperation." Can President Bush and the other unilateralists realize that friends are not won when they are all treated as potential enemies?
Yes, France, Germany, and Russia let their self-interest show through when they opposed the resolution, but so did the United States in supporting and proposing it. It is hard to see concern for the downtrodden Iraqis when there is so much oil just ready to be liberated.
Returning to the text of the petition, "'Old Europe' and lesser nations" are equated with moral evil! If it is righteous for the United States to defend its own self-interests, how does it transform into being "morally evil" when these "lesser nations" do it? Oh, now I see. The UN's efforts may undermine corporate interests, conservative Christian morals, and the right to a machine designed expressly to destroy living organisms. We wouldn't want the UN cracking down on terrorist cells' ability to obtain AK-47's, nor would we want to interfere with CEO's' ability to extract wealth most efficiently from third-world countries.
What exactly is meant by 'lesser nations'?!Quote:
Taken from the petition preamble:
The United Nations, then, is not merely morally ambiguous, but morally evil -- a clearing house for the ambitions and economic interests of "Old Europe" and lesser nations
The preamble to that petition is one of the most ridiculous, short-sighted and internationally-blind pieces of drivel I've ever read and the US calls itself democratic? OK, maybe there's democracy within the country, but God forbid another country disagrees with the US government.
Some americans really need to wake up and see that people have the right to disagree with your country's principles/actions, and that the US, as a major power, needs to listen to others' concerns, and not just go ahead and do what they want regardless.
BTW, I was in full support of the war in Iraq, but was not in full support of the US's blatent disregard of the UN's power and authority. If they can disregard it so easily, why should other countries respect it? It's that kind of attitude that means that bodies such as the UN are condemned to failure from the start.
Regards,
howdy,
no we don't, other countries need to realize the United States isn't playing the UN game anymore. WE the US can and will take care of it's own business with or without the aproval of anyone else.Quote:
Some americans really need to wake up and see that people have the right to disagree with your country's principles/actions, and that the US, as a major power, needs to listen to others' concerns, and not just go ahead and do what they want regardless.
M.R.
Whilst I fully respect your viewpoint, do you really believe that any country should be able to do what it wants, whatever about anyone else's opinions, or do you only believe this is the right of the USA?Quote:
Originally posted by itld
howdy,
no we don't, other countries need to realize the United States isn't playing the UN game anymore. WE the US can and will take care of it's own business with or without the aproval of anyone else.
M.R.
If the former is your opinion, then surely you are merely supporting anarchy in another guise? If the latter is your opinion, then surely you are suggesting a superiority of the USA over other nations? That sort of thinking was what caused the second world war, was it not?
*One plea everyone; let's try not to let this thread turn into a flame-war; let's see if we can have a constructive, thoughtful and intelligent debate on this interesting subject.*
Regards,
howdy,
i would agree with your second asumption, however at this point in history the US is unlikely to try to conquer the world. at some point a country must deciede to stand for itself, this is not anarchy it's not even superiority, it's principle.
even today i hear that the UN has placed Cuba in a high position on the human rights council.
how can the UN expect to be taken seriously when it make appointments like this.
M.R.
The following are taken from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in Dec. 1948.
"23.1 Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." (We're all ensured a job...Marx and Engles had this idea..."Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!")
"24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay" (For anyone without paid holidays, go to your boss and demand them, telling your boss that they are in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
"25.1 Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." (For anyone who's ever needed something and the state hasn't stepped up and given it to you...I assume that's all of us...better complain to your local representatives)
"26.1 Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." (Yeah. Affirmative Action in colleges. Merit. I think I want to tell them I'm from Mars to see if that makes me enough of a minority to get admitted.) (that wasn't intended to offend anyone, and let's not turn this into an affirmative action thread, we can start one if we must, though. Anyway, the fact remains that at University of Michigan and other colleges, being a member of a minority group counts for significantly more than an excellent essay or perfect SAT scores.)
Just a cursory glance through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights brought up these violations by the most advanced nation in the world. Personally, I wouldn't WANT to live in a country which met all the demands in those articles...perhaps the UN is setting some impossible goals.
FURTHERMORE, nations are allowed admittance to the UN despite gross violations of the charter, a fact which has undoubtedly aided in the decay of the UN.
"All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. "
"to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours" Heh. US, Iraq, Iran, DPRK (North Korea), more than I'm prepared to name...
"Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states " See above.
"A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. " Take a look at most of Africa, most of Asia, and much of the rest of the world. They/we're still members.
"the United Nations shall promote:...universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion...All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55." Wow...there are so many nations which violate this...the Middle East and South Eastern Asia are two big examples...along with places such as Rwanda.
I'm not going to keep citing these things. There are way too many examples which prove that the UN is hypocritical. If those are the goals of member nations, and if the failure to honor them can get a nation removed from the UN, why were nations practicing genocide ever admitted? Furthermore, why are these nations allowed to continue to hold membership when they clearly have no regard for the UN charter? Perhaps if members in good standing were willing to enforce the ideals of the UN through selective membership, something would get done. Until then, however...Rwanda, Somalia, Pakistan, Mauritius (total population: 1200) and North Korea will continue to have the same influence as Germany, Canada, Mexico, Australia and Spain.
>>do you really believe that any country should be able to do what it wants, whatever about anyone else's opinions, or do you only believe this is the right of the USA?
Yes, and Yes... most countries already do what they wish and the US will follow suit - what restricts the AFRICA nations from waring with each other and commiting attrocities - noone - they're doing what they wish along with IRAN, and SYRIA who support terror - noone at the UN prevented India or Pakistan from getting NUKES... so really the UN spends too much of it's time trying to restrict the actions of the US and not dealing with the rest of the globe.
It is clear that the UN has aspirations of becoming a WORLD GOVT. -- as shown by the setup of ICC and World Courts - the once lofty ambition of becoming a military entity and power - with it's efforts in BOSNIA and SOMALIA where a central commitee was setup to command the forces and both efforts ended in dismal failure. -- Also, the ambitions to create a world TAX that will go to the UN where at least 1% of your GDP must go to the UN.
The ambitions of the UN councils to be involved intimately within a countries political process by imposing it's standards for worker requirments, standard minimum wage, emission controls, and etc.
Whether you agree or not with the above it shouldn't be the UN who forces what a countries domestic and economic policies it should use. It's alright to pressure another country to adopt favorable policies with money incetives like the US does but to have the UN force it upon others with the rule of international law is BS.
The UN brings in these countries with terrible human right records in teh hope that they can be coerced diplomatically to reform (as the only other option is by force which will not benift those who are oppressed)
The veto power is what has eroded the UN.
No small country has a chance (against a major power or its allies) when their resolutions can be thrown out on a whim.
We need a world government/court that can stop corporations exploiting poorer countries for their natural resources and cheap labour.
>>do you really believe that any country should be able to do what it wants,
OSR >> yes
So Iraq should be allowed to develop WMD?
North Korea should be allowed to develop nukes?
>>however at this point in history the US is unlikely to try to conquer the world.
I think it already has. Thru its corporations and culture. They run the show in the US and many other countries. Just the threat of an army ten times its nearest rival (and a demonstrated willingness to use it) is enough to force most countries to tow the US line.
howdy,
yes there is no question that America is the leader in the industrialized world economy, But is that a bad thing. i think not. that kind of control in the hands of a nation like Iran would be a travisty to say the least.Quote:
Thru its corporations and culture
my god look at what you are saying!Quote:
We need a world government/court
a world government??
are you serious??
gives me the chills just thinking of it.
M.R.
>>So Iraq should be allowed to develop WMD?
>>North Korea should be allowed to develop nukes?
Yes, weren't and aren't they already... it's also are right to KICK THEIR ASS for doing so.
You can't have it both ways OSR.
You can't say that these countries should be able to develop WMD. Then say that you have the right to attack them if they do.
And no, Iraq was not allowed to. Wasn't that the reason for the sanctions and the war?
>> my god look at what you are saying!
a world government??<<
Some thing to stop corprations from exploiting workers. Think about all the Americans on unemplyment after thier jobs are moved to cheap labour countries offshore.
Who pays these benifits?
We as tax payers do.
So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can make more profit?
I feel that the world environment belongs to me as much as it does to you or any corporation.
Yet in countries like Angola, Boganville and Nigeria safety and environmental protections are removed so the corporation can make more profit.
Who protects the population of these countries against corporations who make more proift than the countries GDP? (and so can buy whom ever they need to ensure their activities can continue?)
>>Who pays these benifits?
>>We as tax payers do.
>>So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can >>make more profit?
Uhh we will pay anyway, but my way I'm paying the TAX to my govt. and not the UN -- do u think that the UN won't require taxes and a hefty increase in taxes at that to pull the weight for those countries who can't survive w/o suking at the UN's teet...
To give an example a LAW is being proposed at the UN right now to tax the internet and those monies will go to the UN -- the UN is trying to get this law to be passed in it's council -- the law namely is a 1cent tax on every email throughout the world - if this law passes and the UN gains international LAW status with the expansion of the ICC -- all of us will have to pay 1cent to the UN to send an email...
The UN sees itself as a perfect entity to tax things that cross international boundries like the internet.
>> To give an example a LAW is being proposed at the UN right now to tax the internet and those monies will go to the UN -- the UN is trying to get this law to be passed in it's council -- the law namely is a 1cent tax on every email throughout the world - if this law passes and the UN gains international LAW status with the expansion of the ICC -- all of us will have to pay 1cent to the UN to send an email...<<
LOL! this is an old joke. Post a link if you have some info.
Its not like the US states trying to add sales tax to internet transactions.
That is if you buy something on line which state gets the sales tax? The one the buyer is in, the one the seller is in? The one the company is registered in?
A number of authorities have suggested paying a nominal fee for send each e-mail. I believe the figure being talked about is more like 0.01 cents. It is being discuused as an anti mass mailing spam counter, not a tax however. AOL, YaHoo and MicroSoft are amongst the players in that game, there are stories on all of their web sites, BBC, THG...
howdy,
dead wrongQuote:
Who pays these benifits?
We as tax payers do.
So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can make more profit?
we the bussiness owners have to pay into the unemployment fund every quarter. local, state and federal taxes have nothing to do with it. if i lay an employee off he is paid out of the $$$ my company has paid into the fund, then my unemployment insurance premium is increased.
M.R.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,20705,00.html
There's your link... the report has been used to author the BILL that is currently in the UN -- fortunately it's receiving little support but someday I'm sure it will...
>> we the bussiness owners have to pay into the unemployment fund every quarter. local, state and federal taxes have nothing to do with it. if i lay an employee off he is paid out of the $$$ my company has paid into the fund, <<
So if I am unemployed, I don't get cheap healthcare, housing (rent or govt assisted loans), food or other government assistance?
As I am unempolyed I am not contributing to that tax base, purchasing or saving. In other words contibuting to the economy.
>>then my unemployment insurance premium is increased.<<
So the employees unemployment benifit is payed 100% from his former employers pre paid contributions?
No 'top up' from the federal purse?
OSR:from your link
"Raworth said that the UN would be in no position to enforce the tax, and that the proposal was merely a suggestion. Individual member nations will decide whether or not to adopt the idea."
Even if it got to the floor of a UN meeting, one veto and its gone...........
howdy,
you are right in the respect that if you chose to apply for and receive public assistance then that comes out of the federal government/tax payers pocket.
in the state of New Mexico the employer pays into a pool that all unemployment benifits are drawn from, i'm sure if it was to run dry the state government would contribute to it however it is set up to pay out less than is payed in. all unemployment is handled at the state level AFAIK the fed's only get involved when the fund gets into trouble.
M.R.
>>Even if it got to the floor of a UN meeting, one veto and its gone...........
Veto is ONLY in security council, which wouldn't be dealing with that resolution. It would likely go through the economic committee before being brought to a vote in the General Assembly, where it is a straight vote...one vote per country, regardless of size and human rights violations.
it's just a jingo website run by a bunch of retarded jingo $$$$asses
And the road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'.Quote:
Originally posted by novacain
Prahaps you should look up which country has used its veto power in the UN the MOST and WHY.
Surprise, surprise........... its the US.
The most recent US veto was to stop investigation into Israel killing UN relief workers and destroying a UN food warehouse.
Want to know what else the evil, irrelevent UN wanted to have a resolution about that the US vetoed?
on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians:: Dec 2001
on establishing a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians:: March 2001
I disagree with you, novacain, and I'm going to tell you why: anti-semitism. We can't trust the U.N. to solve the Israel-Palestinian problem. We need them to solve it themselves. A touchy issue. I think Israel will give up a good chunk of their territory eventually but Israel's security would be that much more in shambles. You can't trust the anti-semitism wave out there, it's definitely not in Israel's best interest.
There are too many countries that have a new anti-semitic movement within their people. Some of those countries are in the UN (i.e., France). I know their have been mistakes by the UN and the US but I trust my country's leadership (for once) to do the right things after 9/11.
Interesting letter to Woody Allen about France. Something I found on the web ;)
I sure hope this puts things in perspective for some of you. The US seems like a war monger but there are many things going on behind the curtains.
Dude, after agreeing with what you said in that other forum topic your posts in this thread seems to have been done by a COMPLETELY different person. I'm baffled by some of the comments here.Quote:
Also, originally posted by novacain
>> my god look at what you are saying!
a world government??<<
Some thing to stop corprations from exploiting workers. Think about all the Americans on unemplyment after thier jobs are moved to cheap labour countries offshore.
Who pays these benifits?
We as tax payers do.
So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can make more profit?
A world government? Does anyone need a big brother? Heck, after the complaints I've seen about the US wouldn't you think they would be 100 times worse with the UN? This isn't Star Trek....a world union will never happen.
And about your slants against big corporations: why we dissing the almighty dollar? People have worked hard to build their empires, why do we want to take them down? Because of companies like Enron? C'mon, everyone isn't like Enron. Most of these corporations do big, big things for their communities....that's what I look at when I see such big companies. " What can that company do for the community they are in?" Enron did great things for Houston until the veil was unshrouded. It's funny because I was just thinking yesterday about how bad Enron hurt some good people in Houston :/
And before someone does it, don't take what I said about the dollar being 'almighty' serious. Sheesh.
" disagree with you, novacain, and I'm going to tell you why: anti-semitism. We can't trust the U.N. to solve the Israel-Palestinian problem"
.... surely there is as much anti-Islamic feeling around if not more than antisemitic.
"We need them to solve it themselves"
Then why give billions to Israel?
Anyway we don't need to let them solve it themselves, we need to put pressure on both sides to go back to diplomacy.
"world government? Does anyone need a big brother?"
A world government has nothing to do with "big brother", and would be a great thing.
"Heck, after the complaints I've seen about the US wouldn't you think they would be 100 times worse with the UN?"
No.... because the complaints against the US are based on their foreign policy.
"And about your slants against big corporations: why we dissing the almighty dollar? People have worked hard to build their empires, why do we want to take them down"
Big companies have one and only one goal: $$$. They pay absolutely no attention to ethical constraints. Companies like Pfizer show some of the dangers of 'big corporations'.
Plus they seem to have a stupid amount of influence over the US government (and other Western governments).
howdy,
HOW could this be a great thing???Quote:
A world government has nothing to do with "big brother", and would be a great thing.
M.R.
>>> HOW could this be a great thing???
How could it not be? Instead of spending obscene billions every year on defence against other governments, that money could be released and used to solve REAL problems.
No more, "thats not my problem it happened in <insert non-important non-ally country here>", as ALL problems/disasters etc. are everybody's.
Until we have a central planetary government, we will never really go into space, and ultimately, we must. To do so requires global effort, we will not acheive this with the continual caveman tribalism that pervades much of the world, and I include the developed nations in that category.
Reading some of the comments in this and other threads makes me really wonder if we are all the same species. If we are, then I am ashamed to be one some times.
"The State Department has approved spending
$600,000 of your income to renovate the kitchen
of the Waldorf-Astoria apartment for the U.S. ambassador
to the UN."
I'm glad the government works hard for us. </sarcasm>
Do not put your faith in organizations or governments, for they will always fail you because they are bult by men, which have an inherent 'sin nature' in them. The only "perfect society" or world will arise as described in Revelation 11:15:
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever."
Read Hebrews 9:28 to see how you fit into this equation:
So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
howdy,
a world government would IMO create the following:
- 1. a group of supper eliteist would control everthing with no respect for culture.
2. all financial/net worth issues would be determined by one group with total disregard for whom created it.
3. organised religion and political diversity (i.e. political activism)as we know it would be in serious jepardy due to the watering down of individual rights.
4. the little people (you and i) would have no say what so ever in the creation and eforcement of laws. just look at what just happened in Iraq.
5. space travel would be a thing of the past, all eforts would be on bringing everyone into equality socialy and financialy thus leaving few resources for technological advancement.
i could go on but sufice it to say, world domination by a single force has been tryed and has failed many times through out history and if attempted now it would fail again.
M.R.
With 1-4, if you live outside the US, you could be forgiven for thinking we have that now, (assuming you meant "super elitists" - I don't think I'd have much to fear from a bunch elite late evening meal eaters!!!)
Ultimately we must move into space to ensure the survival of our race. Having everyone on a single planet is always going to be a risk. That said, I would gladly sacrifice a few years or decades of progress in space if it meant solving your point 5.
I disagree with your points:Quote:
howdy,
a world government would IMO create the following:
1. a group of supper eliteist would control everthing with no respect for culture.
2. all financial/net worth issues would be determined by one group with total disregard for whom created it.
3. organised religion and political diversity (i.e. political activism)as we know it would be in serious jepardy due to the watering down of individual rights.
4. the little people (you and i) would have no say what so ever in the creation and eforcement of laws. just look at what just happened in Iraq.
5. space travel would be a thing of the past, all eforts would be on bringing everyone into equality socialy and financialy thus leaving few resources for technological advancement.
i could go on but sufice it to say, world domination by a single force has been tryed and has failed many times through out history and if attempted now it would fail again.
1: Don't see why you end up with super-elitism in a world government, if anything you end up with less eliteism because everyone is part of the same group.
2: Yea.... but that "group" would be everyone! I see no problem here either.
3: Why, would individual rights decrease?
4: We would be voters.
5: This is speculation, though it is pretty feasable, space travel might well be put on the back-burner for a while, but eventually it would get back in the spotlight.
The benefits would be STAGGERING, aside from the vast sums of money spent on defence we would actually be able to start solving world problems because decisions would actually get made.
If it happens and i believe it will (and that you can see the start in the EU), it will happen gradually over a LONG period of time.
howdy,
you make a valid point.Quote:
If it happens and i believe it will (and that you can see the start in the EU), it will happen gradually over a LONG period of time.
i think the UN and possible the Warsaw pact were probably an attempt at setting up a world government, both failed or are failing.
if you look at the US, the "leaders" are very seldom people from the main stream. they are usually bussiness people from families that have been wealthy for a long time. I doubt this would change in the case of a world governing body.
with a single governing body political diversity i.e. Democrate/Republican... would be gone. or basically the 2 party system we love and hate here in the US. i'm afraid that on the coat tails of a single government comes a single religion or at least a single recognized religion.
everyone on the planet voting??? now that would be interesting. i envision helicopter loads of Amazon tribesmen brought into a vilage to vote whaile the world military looks out for attacks from rival tribes men..
M.R.
"if you look at the US, the "leaders" are very seldom people from the main stream. they are usually bussiness people from families that have been wealthy for a long time. I doubt this would change in the case of a world governing body."
That is true of the US, but i don't think it's true of Europe (certainly not of the U.K.), hence it does not necessarily have to be true for a world governing body, it all depends on the mechanics of the system used.
"with a single governing body political diversity i.e. Democrate/Republican... would be gone. or basically the 2 party system we love and hate here in the US. i'm afraid that on the coat tails of a single government comes a single religion or at least a single recognized religion"
Whats to stop multiple political parties eventually existing on a world stage? or the existance of a world parliament/congress/other alternative?
"everyone on the planet voting??? now that would be interesting. i envision helicopter loads of Amazon tribesmen brought into a vilage to vote whaile the world military looks out for attacks from rival tribes men.."
Right not exactly a realistic scenario, but consider this scenario;
Individual countries form unified organisations like the EU and gradually over decades maybe centuries power is gradually transfered from the individual member states to the central organisation. For poorer countries the process will be much slower because of infrastructure problems, how they can be encorporated into a global governing body without paralysing the system will not be easy to solve but i don't see it as an insolvable problem especially given time.
I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon, but i do think that at some point in the future there will be a global governing body, and that it will be a great thing.
Still i have no way of testing my hypothesis so it remains mere conjecture.
>>The benefits would be STAGGERING, aside from the vast sums of money spent on defence we would actually be able to start solving world problems because decisions would actually get made.
Umm...yeah. We wouldn't save money on defense, because what are now wars on an international level would turn into civil wars. I'm sorry, but some groups are never going to agree with one another.
"Umm...yeah. We wouldn't save money on defense, because what are now wars on an international level would turn into civil wars."
By your reasoning every country would be in the midst of civil war because the different clans and warlords that once existed would still be fighting..... just as small territories and kingdoms were replaced by countries so too will countries be replaced by collections of countries.
Besides a civil war doesn't make sense in light of the fact that people will be benefitting from the global state. Do you think that Europe is going to be drenched in civil war as more power is passed to Brussels?
" I'm sorry, but some groups are never going to agree with one another."
Groups of people don't agree because of differences in two things; culture and religion, one naturally fades away as integration occurs the other becomes less and less important as education progresses.
Was Europe drenched in war when Alexander the Great controlled it, Rome took power, when the barbarians took it back, or during the Carolingian Empire? If you don't know, perhaps you can answer these questions. Was Europe drenched in war when Napoleon led all of Europe? Was Europe drenched in war during WWI, when one nation decided to govern Europe, whether they wanted it or not? Was Europe a nice, safe, happy place to be during World War II when they tried it again?
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington
>>Was Europe drenched in war when Alexander the Great controlled it, Rome took power, when the barbarians took it back, or during the Carolingian Empire? If you don't know, perhaps you can answer these questions. Was Europe drenched in war when Napoleon led all of Europe? Was Europe drenched in war during WWI, when one nation decided to govern Europe, whether they wanted it or not? Was Europe a nice, safe, happy place to be during World War II when they tried it again?<<
Whilst I don't think a world government is a realistic possibility, your examples are somewhat irrelevant. There is a world of difference between one conquering nation attempting to force it's rule upon others and groups of nations attempting to work together to create a better overall life for everybody.
"Was Europe drenched in war when Alexander the Great controlled it, Rome took power, when the barbarians took it back, or during the Carolingian Empire? If you don't know, perhaps you can answer these questions. Was Europe drenched in war when Napoleon led all of Europe? Was Europe drenched in war during WWI, when one nation decided to govern Europe, whether they wanted it or not? Was Europe a nice, safe, happy place to be during World War II when they tried it again?"
All those examples are of someone trying to take control BY FORCE, of course that results conflict. But if the countries by CHOICE unify gradually over decades even centuries then there is no cause for conflict.
So i repeat my question, do you believe that as more power is transfered from individual governments to Brussels civil war will break out? If you do then why hasn't it already?
howdy,
i must say even after the differences in opinion regarding the war in Iraq the EU remained as stable as it has been, of coure this is only a small test. The real test will come when one of the EU members embarks on an unpopular action then we will see how tightly wraped the EU is.
M.R.
I think the real test of the EU will come the next time one of the member states decides to give genocide another go...most likely in the Balkans, but possible anywhere...
>>So i repeat my question, do you believe that as more power is transfered from individual governments to Brussels civil war will break out? If you do then why hasn't it already?
Ask yourself, why did the soviet union break-up?? It was a conglomeration of different countries who became satelite republics but they benefited militarily and economically from the soviet union even how bad it was. Why did they ALL decide to break-away in the early 90's??
Ask yourself why did the league of nations break up?? Japan left the league of nations b/c they felt that they were being chastized and being prevented from dealing with their own issues, namely a lack of resources is why they invaded china.
There are always regional issues and no matter what political or religious lines can be blurred those regional matters will remain and it seems the height of arrogance to say that a council in brussels will deal with and make all decisions concerning an issue like the tensions between the Turks and the Kurds.
I see absolutely no benefits from a central govt. commitee that the UN wishes to become. The polotics won't change, and the economics won't change, in fact they will be hindered greatly by new regulations and probably approvals needed for every single major biz transaction decided in the councils - a big honkn slothy mess. The only benefit would be to those anti-americans out there who wish to see american power and influence eroded to nothing.
Most likely a UN central govt. would be SOCIALIST and impose high taxes and a redistibution of wealth and publication of formerly privately owned biz's. Guess what - socialism like communism doesn't work - great you're guaranteed a job but for only $100/month and u must pay 70%+ taxes and live with the incompetence and inefficiency of govt. run services. That's why european countries are so stagnant and in poor shape as they are up to their eyeballz in social welfare programs. Here's another shocker, ppl are selfish and they work for their own benefit and not for the cuase and wellbeing of the STATE, REPUBLIC, or UN...
You wanna see a civil war... just have this UN govt. tell us americans that our constitution is now invalid and the first thing the UN does is eliminate the "right to bear arms". You'll see some blood then.
OF COURSE the UN government would be socialist. Check the universal declaration of human rights for proof! They might even border on all out communism.
OneStiffRod - I don't think your comparisons are fair:
The USSR satalites were oppressed by a central government far away without much election power. Any UN state that would develop in the future would have to have a democratic system to select leaders due to the domination of the world today by westren democracies. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be socialist.Quote:
Ask yourself, why did the soviet union break-up?? It was a conglomeration of different countries who became satelite republics but they benefited militarily and economically from the soviet union even how bad it was. Why did they ALL decide to break-away in the early 90's??
The League of Nations was a joke with no teeth. Especially when the founding country didn't join.Quote:
Ask yourself why did the league of nations break up?? Japan left the league of nations b/c they felt that they were being chastized and being prevented from dealing with their own issues, namely a lack of resources is why they invaded china.
Also a socialist system doesn't mean garenteed job and insane taxes. Britain is socialist. Their taxes aren't quite that high. There is a big diffrence in socialism and communism.
>> Most likely a UN central govt. would be SOCIALIST and impose
>> high taxes and a redistibution of wealth and publication of
>> formerly privately owned biz's.
> Also a socialist system doesn't mean garenteed job and insane
> taxes. Britain is socialist. Their taxes aren't quite that high.
> There is a big diffrence in socialism and communism.
Also the Netherlands is quite socialistic, depending on the composition of the government. Last year we had a right-wing government, leading to high taxes, large unemployment and decreasing social securities. It were the socialists bringing the jobs and distributing wealth among the people. I see no bad in distributing wealth among people, in my opinion that's better then a few people being wealthy and most of the people being poor.
And yes, there is a big difference between socialism and communism. Communism is more extreme, we have a few communistic parties here. But they are very, very small.
> That's why european countries are so stagnant and in poor
> shape as they are up to their eyeballz in social welfare
> programs.
People in the European countries maybe don't have the wealth the American people have, if that is true, when expressing wealth in terms of money. But wealth is more than just money. If you are happy with the situation in which you live, than that is much more wealth than only having a lot of money and be unhappy.
Social welfare programs are the foundations of most European countries. Solidairity is an important thing, it keeps people together. In a non-social society, where it is: everyone for himself, you usually see big differences between poor and rich and little solidairity.
I don't see anything bad in having a social society. You Americans like to live in your society, we live in ours. I think if one is happy and feels rich in the country one lives, that is the biggest wealth one can get.
"There are always regional issues and no matter what political or religious lines can be blurred those regional matters will remain and it seems the height of arrogance to say that a council in brussels will deal with and make all decisions concerning an issue like the tensions between the Turks and the Kurds"
Its simply a matter of scale, just as you have local administration in countries, so too you would have local administration in our super state, the only difference is that instead of the buck ending in say Madrid, London or Paris, it ends in Brussels.
"I see absolutely no benefits from a central govt. commitee that the UN wishes to become. The polotics won't change, and the economics won't change, in fact they will be hindered greatly by new regulations and probably approvals needed for every single major biz transaction decided in the councils - a big honkn slothy mess"
Why are countries better than a lot of smaller warring regions?
"The only benefit would be to those anti-americans out there who wish to see american power and influence eroded to nothing"
So basically you don't like idea of Americans not being more influential than other people.
"Most likely a UN central govt. would be SOCIALIST and impose high taxes and a redistibution of wealth and publication of formerly privately owned biz's"
It would no doubt have some "socialist" aspects, you think everything "socialist" is bad?
"That's why european countries are so stagnant and in poor shape as they are up to their eyeballz in social welfare programs"
.... There is just so much wrong with what you say, its really hard to know where to start.
The 1st world European countries are not "stagnant and in poor shape", they are less powerfull, less rich, no doubt less efficent than the US, but who cares? Why prioritise those things over people?
"Here's another shocker, ppl are selfish and they work for their own benefit and not for the cuase and wellbeing of the STATE, REPUBLIC, or UN..."
Right..... which is why communism doesn't work, and the relevence is........?
"You wanna see a civil war... just have this UN govt. tell us americans that our constitution is now invalid and the first thing the UN does is eliminate the "right to bear arms". You'll see some blood then"
Which is why it would not work in todays world, because yea lots of people would object for lots of stupid reasons like you mention, but anyway I think the process will occur gradually over a large time frame not as a sudden change.
We may be seeing the beginnings in the EU but that could well fall through, never the less given enough time and assuming we dont destroy ourselves in the mean time, i think it will happen, and that it will be a great thing.
"Here's another shocker, ppl are selfish and they work for their own benefit and not for the cuase and wellbeing of the STATE, REPUBLIC, or UN..."
>>Right..... which is why communism doesn't work, and the relevence is........?
The relevance is that socialism and communism are born of the same ideology and socialism just as true communism, is BANKRUPTING - soon there will only be rhetoric about working for the state as the money will be gone. The only difference between socialism and communism is in communism you get to hide your problems your socialist state produces by jailing, murdering, and lying to the ppl.
>>It would no doubt have some "socialist" aspects, you think everything "socialist" is bad?
Uhh, yes, it's atleast not ideal... every single socialist country or those with socialist programs are going broke... ?? why is that?? maybe it's that socialism puts too much of a burden on the state and the ppl become lazy. Ask yourself why, again, did the Soviet Union break-up... they had a new GLASNOST or "Openness" communist regime - the soviet's began shifting it's resources to providing for their ppl for once but the burden was too great especially after they were bankrupted by the ColdWar and fielding their massive army... the whole thing collapsed upon itself from it's own weight - socialism will have the same ending b/c there is no way u can sustain the "socialistic" promises.
>>I see no bad in distributing wealth among people, in my opinion that's better then a few people being wealthy and most of the people being poor.
U can only distribute the wealth ONE time, then everyone is equal, they're all poor. No one, as everyone is inherently selfish, aspires to be poor. Having a few rich and many poor is a problem... but it is one that can be remedied and I think eventually in america we'll have someone who knows truly about economics as president and they will create millionares by the ton by creating favorable conditions for investment and opportunity. Beleive it or not there is plenty of cash out there even though it seems not right now especially if you're outta work - but ppl still have money to invest and banks are still willing to lend - creating favorable conditions for these investors and banks to lend the capitol freely w/o overly worrying about losses will create, new jobs. Having the govt. instead of handing out $300 rebates to everyone could create growth funds they setup in major cities worth billions of dollars each... it's like the gold rush -- puting the growth fundz in would create an environment for companies to bid on contracts and hire new employees... the promise of gold in the gold rush generated more cash then the gold they pulled out ever was.
To americans and I guess europeans are different in this respect, having BRUSSELS or some foolz from every other country decide how america should conduct it's affairs and spend it's money and be subserviant to this delegation of ppl who make decisions about my country and don't even live here is outrageous and sickening.
I luv propoganda -- it's a funny read -- considering it's from the 60's, especially the UN stuff...
http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm
"The relevance is that socialism and communism are born of the same ideology and socialism just as true communism, is BANKRUPTING - soon there will only be rhetoric about working for the state as the money will be gone. The only difference between socialism and communism is in communism you get to hide your problems your socialist state produces by jailing, murdering, and lying to the ppl."
The ideology behind communism is great, it's just that it doesn't work in practice, that doesn't mean you can't keep ANY of the ideals.
If socialism is bankrupting, then why isn't Europe bankrupt?
"Uhh, yes, it's atleast not ideal..."
Right so the state having any supportive role is a bad idea?
"every single socialist country or those with socialist programs are going broke"
Which countries are going broke? And what exactly do you consider "socialism" to be?
"maybe it's that socialism puts too much of a burden on the state and the ppl become lazy. Ask yourself why, again, did the Soviet Union break-up... "
Socialism does NOT have to place too much burden on the state it merely depends how far you take it, the Soviet Union was one EXTREME, it didn't work for some of the reasons you give, but that does not mean that all socialism is doomed to failure.
Your argument is as weak as the a communist pointing out that fascism doesn't work therefore claiming that capitalism is a failure and that communism is the only way.
"socialism will have the same ending b/c there is no way u can sustain the "socialistic" promises."
You are going to have to tell me what your definition of socialism is, and which countries you consider to be "socialist", is England socialist? We have free healthcare (more or less), welfware support, social services that put many countries to shame (but still suck ass), so is the UK going to collapse?
"Having a few rich and many poor is a problem... but it is one that can be remedied and I think eventually in america we'll have someone who knows truly about economics as president and they will create millionares by the ton by creating favorable conditions for investment and opportunity"
This is in my opinion fantasy.
"Beleive it or not there is plenty of cash out there"
Yea it's in the pockets of the ultra rich.
" Having the govt. instead of handing out $300 rebates to everyone could create growth funds they setup in major cities worth billions of dollars each... it's like the gold rush -- puting the growth fundz in would create an environment for companies to bid on contracts and hire new employees... the promise of gold in the gold rush generated more cash then the gold they pulled out ever was."
Then why exactly is it that the rich-poor divide is INCREASING not decreasing?
"To americans and I guess europeans are different in this respect, having BRUSSELS or some foolz from every other country decide how america should conduct it's affairs and spend it's money and be subserviant to this delegation of ppl who make decisions about my country and don't even live here is outrageous and sickening"
You're not alone, alot people feel this way, its group mentality "I belong to THIS group, you belong to THAT group, and my group is better than your group" *sigh* such a pity, how slowed humanities progress has been and still is by such sentiments.
howdy,
sound familiar??Quote:
45) Repeal the Connally Reservation so the US can not prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
M.R.
>>sound familiar??
yup, my fav is no. 11 tho.
" luv propoganda -- it's a funny read -- considering it's from the 60's, especially the UN stuff..."
Propaganda indeed...
>>"The only benefit would be to those anti-americans out there who wish to see american power and influence eroded to nothing"<<
well said Clyde
>>So basically you don't like idea of Americans not being more influential than other people.<<
Of course the first world citizens are not going to like this. As their wealth has to be more equatibly redistrubuted.
Just as there were those who did not like action on womens sufferage and racial rights.
As to the site posted by OSR. Look at their main page. Follow some of the links and see if you think it is a unbiased source.
http://www.inoohr.org/
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
I hate it when people bring up old stuff (Abe quote too). I also do not like when people are backed into a corner then pull out the old "women's right" or "civil rights" card. Dude, I'm black and I must say I hate it even when black people bring this up in arguments. I don't know what race you are but put that back in your pocket. How are we going to ever move forward if we continue to argue about the past.Quote:
Originally posted by novacain
Just as there were those who did not like action on womens sufferage and racial rights.
OneStiffRod said everything needed to be said about the U.N. His points are valid, IMO, but I do realize everyone is going to interpret anything the way they want to see it.
I'm an American, and I've worked to protect America. If anyone has a problem with America so be you. I'm going to continue being an American. Those American's who have a problem with America then, I implore you to rationalize some of your thinking.
Maybe in your neck of the woods. I've seen at least one person get their ass kicked for that viewpoint, though.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
.... surely there is as much anti-Islamic feeling around if not more than antisemitic...
But some of the argument here have not been about foreign policy.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
No.... because the complaints against the US are based on their foreign policy...
And like your local news cast, you seem to forget the good people do. Yes, in your eyes everyone in these big corporations are evil. Do you work for a living?Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Big companies have one and only one goal: $$$. They pay absolutely no attention to ethical constraints. Companies like Pfizer show some of the dangers of 'big corporations'.
I hate to bring religion in this but whatever: yeap, so a big brother won't be the cure all some of you think. I hope the EU don't run into a crisis but it's inevitable.Quote:
Originally posted by Util_Mark
Do not put your faith in organizations or governments, for they will always fail you because they are built by men, which have an inherent 'sin nature' in them. The only "perfect society" or world will arise as described in Revelation 11:15:
I just started going back to church recently but I can tell you this: that's the exact reference dope smokers and anarchists (yeah, I know most of you anarchists are atheist) use when they feel biblical. They see the "Do not put your faith in organizations or governments" part and they are done. There is another Old Testament scripture that says God wants us to follow the law of the land. I can't recall which scripture, though. It's how you interpret it.
"I hate it when people bring up old stuff (Abe quote too). I also do not like when people are backed into a corner then pull out the old "women's right" or "civil rights" card. Dude, I'm black and I must say I hate it even when black people bring this up in arguments. I don't know what race you are but put that back in your pocket. How are we going to ever move forward if we continue to argue about the past."
His point seems valid enough, in the past people have always fought to preserver their power, whether it be whites over blacks, men over women, the British over its colonies, when OSR says:
It sounds pretty much like any other group who has power and doesn't want to give it up, even if a more equal spread of power/influence results in a better, juster, world.Quote:
The only benefit would be to those anti-americans out there who wish to see american power and influence eroded to nothing
"OneStiffRod said everything needed to be said about the U.N. His points are valid, IMO, but I do realize everyone is going to interpret anything the way they want to see it. "
What points? That because the communists thought it was a good idea it must therefore be wrong, guess gay people should be treated with prejudice then.
That all "sociliast" countries are going bankrupt? My neck of Europe seems to be doing ok.
That the state should have no role in support?
What exactly do think should happen to the old and the sick who cannot afford private help? They should be left to die?
"Maybe in your neck of the woods. I've seen at least one person get their ass kicked for that viewpoint, though"
.... in the US which one is more predominant anti-Islamic or ant-Semitic views?
"But some of the argument here have not been about foreign policy."
Some of the reason people object to the US, jealousy/fear, foreign policy, and for its hand in aiding the mega-corporations.
Which of those would apply to a central government?
"And like your local news cast, you seem to forget the good people do. Yes, in your eyes everyone in these big corporations are evil. Do you work for a living?"
....... do you have any idea the kind of things some of these corporations do?
The people in them aren't evil, it's the system that sucks ass, the system that you seem to be defending.
Big corporations should be regulated, such that ethics is taken account of, BUT that would reduce their profit... so certain countries that often seem to favour $$$ over everything else prevent such measures being taken.
Incidently i'm taking drug companies as the epitomy of this problem.
"I hate to bring religion in this but whatever: yeap, so a big brother won't be the cure all some of you think. I hope the EU don't run into a crisis but it's inevitable"
I don't really see the link between 1984's propoganda led police state and a world with a central essentially democratic government.
While the EU may run into problems i don't see why its inevitable.
howdy,
YEP me too!Quote:
I'm an American, and I've worked to protect America. If anyone has a problem with America so be you. I'm going to continue being an American. Those American's who have a problem with America then, I implore you to rationalize some of your thinking.
M.R.
im glad to hear some one finally say this.Quote:
Dude, I'm black and I must say I hate it even when black people bring this up in arguments.
I dont wanna read this whole thing (just read the first few posts but anyone who thinks the U.S. should withdraw from the UN is a ..........ING IDIOT and doesnt understand .......... about the world!!!
Its actually quite sad someone would consider this.
>>"I hate it when people bring up old stuff (Abe quote too).<<
But it is OK for OSR to post a link "considering it's from the 60's" from a homophobic site?
The Lincon quote is interesting because of its date. Lincon forsaw the problem over a hundred years ago.
Those that can not remember the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
As these corporations power/wealth/influence has grown, politicians are unwilling to reduce their power or impose ethical constraints on these corporations activities. Why? Because the politician would not get elected again.
"The tight market for technology jobs comes as hundreds of American companies outsource positions to smaller engineering and programming firms in India, China, Russia and other countries with inexpensive labor forces.
Nearly one in four large technology companies surveyed said they had already outsourced technology work to foreign countries, and an additional 15 per cent of large technology companies said they were considering a similar move within the next year.
Technology companies in the West and Midwest were most likely to send jobs overseas, according to the survey. The most likely positions to move overseas were programming and software engineering jobs, followed by network design and web development. "
http://news.com.au/common/story_page...E15306,00.html
(this link will only be valid for a few days)
If these companies cared for the health of the local economy (more than their own profit margin) they would employ local workers. The workers then would have more money to spend, stimulating the local economy. As it stands these local workers are probably unemployed, draining from the economy.
first of all, grow some balls and actually use your name. plus you b*tch what out saying a dam thing. one of the many reasons i will now be a independ, for no no dumba$$es. but im sure that wont last long either.Quote:
I dont wanna read this whole thing (just read the first few posts but anyone who thinks the U.S. should withdraw from the UN is a ..........ING IDIOT and doesnt understand .......... about the world!!!
>>first of all, grow some balls and actually use your name. plus you b*tch what out saying a dam thing. one of the many reasons i will now be a independ, for no no dumba$$es. but im sure that wont last long either.<<
For someone who moans about the way other people post, your grammar and use of profanity is terrible.
grammar, yeah probally. profanity, its gotten kind of old.