Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming?

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 10:45 AM

Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? People respect honesty and this might be a good time to make use of honesty. I think we should just admit to people, "It does not matter if manmade global warming is real or not. What matters is that we act now in order to prevent it from becoming real. Also, we admit that this has been a tool for unifying world governments in a common cause. This will bring us all together and this is a good thing. Also, yes, we do have a one world government in mind. This is called progress. We are progressives. Just look at any story that people write about the future. They all have one world governments. It is a dream. We can make this dream come true. There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government." One thing we can leave out, of course is the fact that we had to disguise our plans for world unity to keep the stupid neocons from finding out. They might not understand or appreciate that.

Upchurch · 16th December 2009, 10:53 AM

Cleon · 16th December 2009, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Don't bogart the butter.

GStan · 16th December 2009, 11:01 AM

I can already tell this thread will be awesome.

(Do I win anything?)

theprestige · 16th December 2009, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? People respect honesty and this might be a good time to make use of honesty. I think we should just admit to people, "It does not matter if manmade global warming is real or not. What matters is that we act now in order to prevent it from becoming real. Also, we admit that this has been a tool for unifying world governments in a common cause. This will bring us all together and this is a good thing. Also, yes, we do have a one world government in mind. This is called progress. We are progressives. Just look at any story that people write about the future. They all have one world governments. It is a dream. We can make this dream come true. There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government." One thing we can leave out, of course is the fact that we had to disguise our plans for world unity to keep the stupid neocons from finding out. They might not understand or appreciate that.

Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments?

plumjam · 16th December 2009, 11:13 AM

What would be good or progressive about a one-world government?
All other things being equal, this would make global tyranny much easier to introduce and sustain.
In contrast, if you have two or three hundred nation states there is a degree of 'competition' there.. i.e. if your own particular nation state becomes tyrannical you can move (or at least attempt to move) to a less tyrannical one. Plus other less tyrannical states can attempt to intervene and correct the more tyrannical states.

Upchurch · 16th December 2009, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments?

I believe it is the straw man of other people's position on global warming, brought to you by nearly the entirety of the JREF board who is of the opinion that the US is not a democracy.

Hilarity is almost certainly guaranteed.

Corsair 115 · 16th December 2009, 11:28 AM

Doesn't anything mentioning "one world government" belong in the Conspiracies forum?

Upchurch · 16th December 2009, 11:42 AM

or Humor.

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments?

I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?).

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Doesn't anything mentioning "one world government" belong in the Conspiracies forum?

Nope.
Is it something people fear or think there is a hidden conspiracy about?

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by plumjam

What would be good or progressive about a one-world government?

How about global disarmament?

Lurker · 16th December 2009, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming?

*Yawn* There's nothing good on TV, conditions are perfect. Ooh yeah, it's business time. No time to discuss Global Warming and one world govt.

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

or Humor.

What is funny about the OP?
Or absurd?
Or wrong?

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Lurker

*Yawn* There's nothing good on TV, conditions are perfect. Ooh yeah, it's business time. No time to discuss Global Warming and one world govt.

Conditions of what?
Weather or Politics?

Praktik · 16th December 2009, 12:07 PM

Ya it's pretty sad really.

I remember reading a Jones screed on the Rockefellers and the NWO and taking apart some report for a "globalist" NGO somewhere that listed things like the following as "trans-national" issues that require international cooperation:

- environmental problems (pollution doesn't have to pass through customs)
- criminal networks
- disease outbreaks

Jones went on to describe such items in the list as "trojan horses" for One World Government, the flimsy excuses proffered by the "globalists" to justify expansion of international cooperation.

So tell me, exactly how are atomized nations without an international archictecture of cooperation supposed to address transnational criminal, environmental and health issues?

Isn't international cooperation the only way?

I was a student of International Relations in uni and it was a little strange to come out of that environment and be confronted with such a simple-minded view of things...

Further, it is pretty ironic to see some of the greatest concerns of sovereignty eminating from America, a country whose power translates to increased influence through international cooperation since its influence guarantees the architecture of organizations and the "rules of the game" are suited to its self-interest.

Look at the IMF and the WTO for example... in the UN it has veto power. Various treaties were negotiated (im including CUFTA and NAFTA) with outcomes weighted heavily to US interests (for example, under CUFTA and cont'd in NAFTA, the US retained the right to assess countervailing and anti-dumping duties, a key concession sought by the Canadians - further, they stated that "any future act of congress" could amend their understanding of the treaties).

In a world of growing international cooperation the stronger states are not shedding sovereignty - they are in fact, enhancing it.

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments?

Well, it is my current position. You see, I did not jump on the bandwagon just because Al Gore was writing a book. I am not a climatologist so I waited to see what scientists had to say. So when the UN seemed to back it up, I believed it. But now it looks like it was all untrue. So, why did AL Gore talk about it? Maybe to sell a book? But I know some Democrats and some other people think a one world government would be a good idea. Do you think it is a wrong idea. How come?

Eyeron · 16th December 2009, 12:25 PM

All around the mulberry bush
The monkey chased the weasel;
The monkey thought 'twas all in fun,
Pop! goes the weasel.

Upchurch · 16th December 2009, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

What is funny about the OP?
Or absurd?
Or wrong?

Absurd and wrong. Funny is subjective, but I think it is that as well.

You were maybe doing okay until you landed on this:

Quote:

Also, we admit that this has been a tool for unifying world governments in a common cause. This will bring us all together and this is a good thing. Also, yes, we do have a one world government in mind. This is called progress. We are progressives. Just look at any story that people write about the future. They all have one world governments. It is a dream. We can make this dream come true. There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government."

For whom were you speaking when you wrote this? Certainly not the current Democratic Party nor any progressives I can immediately think of.

Bob Blaylock · 16th December 2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? People respect honesty and this might be a good time to make use of honesty. I think we should just admit to people, "It does not matter if manmade global warming is real or not. What matters is that we act now in order to prevent it from becoming real.

If it's not real, then there's no need to “act now in order to prevent it from becoming real”.

And even if it is real, it does no good at all to “act now in order to prevent it from becoming real”, if the act that is undertaken is one that will be ineffective at best, and which, in the course of being undertaken, will prove expensive and burdensome and destructive to freedom.

Upchurch · 16th December 2009, 12:34 PM

Touche.

It's all absurd and wrong, then.

Praktik · 16th December 2009, 12:40 PM

I'm still hung up on the One World Government angle.

We're talking about a treaty here.

So when the American government settled accounts with the Indians and made treaties with them, were these steps towards One World Government?
What about the Paris Convention of 1883? The Convention on International Civil Aviation?

"treaties" go back thousands of years between contracting parties. What makes the Copenhagen efforts for a treaty on carbon limits more conducive to "One World Government" than say, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of '96?

The Platypus · 16th December 2009, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

I'm still hung up on the One World Government angle.

We're talking about a treaty here.

So when the American government settled accounts with the Indians and made treaties with them, were these steps towards One World Government?
What about the Paris Convention of 1883? The Convention on International Civil Aviation?

"treaties" go back thousands of years between contracting parties. What makes the Copenhagen efforts for a treaty on carbon limits more conducive to "One World Government" than say, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of '96?

Extreme delusional paranoia, that's what makes the difference.

Drysdale · 16th December 2009, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?).

Other than that I cant conceive how it would be possible, are you suggesting it would be more effective? Not sure where you're going here.

Praktik · 16th December 2009, 01:48 PM

Greater international cooperation ≠ One World Government

Upchurch · 16th December 2009, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?).

It can be plural in so far that there could be multiple proposals for one world governments or there could be successive one world governments.

theprestige · 16th December 2009, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?).

There's more than one type of government.

Did you mean a one-world theocracy? A one-world dictatorship? A one-world People's Committee of This and That?

You want to talk about a one-world government in the singular, you'll have to pick a single type of one-world government to talk about.

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

How about global disarmament?

The City of Los Angeles has a one-city government, but not much city-wide disarmament. What makes you think that situation would go away at the global scale?

BenBurch · 16th December 2009, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Don't bogart the butter.

pass the salt

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by The Platypus

Extreme delusional paranoia, that's what makes the difference.

How come?
What is wrong with a global government?

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The City of Los Angeles has a one-city government, but not much city-wide disarmament. What makes you think that situation would go away at the global scale?

I mean no two countries will go to war with each other. I can see how it will be a more peaceful world.

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

If it's not real, then there's no need to “act now in order to prevent it from becoming real”..

Remember the Boy Scout Motto?

Bill Thompson · 16th December 2009, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Absurd and wrong. Funny is subjective, but I think it is that as well.

You were maybe doing okay until you landed on this:

For whom were you speaking when you wrote this? Certainly not the current Democratic Party nor any progressives I can immediately think of.

There really is some legit group. I forget where I heard them. But they meet and Hillary and Bill spoke there once. I guess I will have to do a search for them.

rain · 16th December 2009, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government." One thing we can leave out, of course is the fact that we had to disguise our plans for world unity to keep the stupid neocons from finding out. They might not understand or appreciate that.

You have some interesting ideas, but I think you need to think more outside the box. What we really need to do is infiltrate the fundamentalist masses right at the source; we'll call our church the peoples temple and we'll candy-coat our super liberalism with a thin facade of old timey Christian values. When we have those sheepies wrapped around our fingers, then they will truly understand the power of the Marx side.

MattusMaximus · 16th December 2009, 03:53 PM

There isn't a flamethrower big or powerful enough to burn down all of this straw...

theprestige · 16th December 2009, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

I mean no two countries will go to war with each other. I can see how it will be a more peaceful world.

Right. It wouldn't be countries going to war with each other, anymore. It'd be gangs of paramilitary insurgents, tens of thousands strong, armed with nuclear weapons.

ETA: And that's not even considering the warfare on an epic scale necessary simply to bring about a one-world government in the first place.

Upchurch · 16th December 2009, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

There really is some legit group. I forget where I heard them. But they meet and Hillary and Bill spoke there once. I guess I will have to do a search for them.

"Some legit group"? Well, why didn't you say so?

And they *meet*, you say? AND you say the Clintons both spoke there once?

Wow. How could I have doubted a straw man that is based on such high quality evidence?

Seriously, Bill, you have really bad instincts when it comes to politics. Whatever you believe is absolutely correct and is commonly understood, please double check first before posting.

Whiplash · 16th December 2009, 06:35 PM

JoeTheJuggler · 16th December 2009, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

"Some legit group"? Well, why didn't you say so?

Sounds like the D'Amico family--Fat Tony and the Legitimate Businessmen's Social Club.

daenku32 · 16th December 2009, 07:34 PM

As long as the One World Government doesn't have an electoral college, I'm all for it.

psychictv · 16th December 2009, 10:15 PM

You know, I think if I were going to try to enslave everyone under my one world government, cooking up a bogus story about the planet getting warmer due to the burning of fossil fuels and then conspiring with the scientific community to push my made-up story as fact in order to convince the public to conserve energy would be a brilliant way to go about doing it. Such a simple and elegant plan! How could it fail?

16th December 2009, 10:45 AM	#1
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? People respect honesty and this might be a good time to make use of honesty. I think we should just admit to people, "It does not matter if manmade global warming is real or not. What matters is that we act now in order to prevent it from becoming real. Also, we admit that this has been a tool for unifying world governments in a common cause. This will bring us all together and this is a good thing. Also, yes, we do have a one world government in mind. This is called progress. We are progressives. Just look at any story that people write about the future. They all have one world governments. It is a dream. We can make this dream come true. There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government." One thing we can leave out, of course is the fact that we had to disguise our plans for world unity to keep the stupid neocons from finding out. They might not understand or appreciate that.

16th December 2009, 10:59 AM	#3
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Originally Posted by Upchurch Don't bogart the butter.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

16th December 2009, 11:01 AM	#4
GStan Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wheeling, WV Posts: 1,342	I can already tell this thread will be awesome. (Do I win anything?)
	__________________ On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling "Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate

16th December 2009, 11:07 AM	#5
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? People respect honesty and this might be a good time to make use of honesty. I think we should just admit to people, "It does not matter if manmade global warming is real or not. What matters is that we act now in order to prevent it from becoming real. Also, we admit that this has been a tool for unifying world governments in a common cause. This will bring us all together and this is a good thing. Also, yes, we do have a one world government in mind. This is called progress. We are progressives. Just look at any story that people write about the future. They all have one world governments. It is a dream. We can make this dream come true. There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government." One thing we can leave out, of course is the fact that we had to disguise our plans for world unity to keep the stupid neocons from finding out. They might not understand or appreciate that. Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569

16th December 2009, 11:28 AM	#8
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,556	Doesn't anything mentioning "one world government" belong in the Conspiracies forum?
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

16th December 2009, 10:53 AM	#2
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423

16th December 2009, 11:13 AM	#6
plumjam Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Valencia, Spain Posts: 7,837	What would be good or progressive about a one-world government? All other things being equal, this would make global tyranny much easier to introduce and sustain. In contrast, if you have two or three hundred nation states there is a degree of 'competition' there.. i.e. if your own particular nation state becomes tyrannical you can move (or at least attempt to move) to a less tyrannical one. Plus other less tyrannical states can attempt to intervene and correct the more tyrannical states.

16th December 2009, 11:14 AM	#7
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	Originally Posted by theprestige Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments? I believe it is the straw man of other people's position on global warming, brought to you by nearly the entirety of the JREF board who is of the opinion that the US is not a democracy. Hilarity is almost certainly guaranteed.

16th December 2009, 11:42 AM	#9
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	or Humor.

16th December 2009, 12:02 PM	#10
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by theprestige Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments? I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?).

16th December 2009, 12:03 PM	#11
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 Doesn't anything mentioning "one world government" belong in the Conspiracies forum? Nope. Is it something people fear or think there is a hidden conspiracy about?

16th December 2009, 12:04 PM	#12
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by plumjam What would be good or progressive about a one-world government? How about global disarmament?

16th December 2009, 12:05 PM	#13
Lurker Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,187	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? Yawn There's nothing good on TV, conditions are perfect. Ooh yeah, it's business time. No time to discuss Global Warming and one world govt.
Lurker Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,187

16th December 2009, 12:06 PM	#14
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by Upchurch or Humor. What is funny about the OP? Or absurd? Or wrong?

16th December 2009, 12:07 PM	#15
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by Lurker Yawn There's nothing good on TV, conditions are perfect. Ooh yeah, it's business time. No time to discuss Global Warming and one world govt. Conditions of what? Weather or Politics?

16th December 2009, 12:07 PM	#16
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,241	Ya it's pretty sad really. I remember reading a Jones screed on the Rockefellers and the NWO and taking apart some report for a "globalist" NGO somewhere that listed things like the following as "trans-national" issues that require international cooperation: - environmental problems (pollution doesn't have to pass through customs) - criminal networks - disease outbreaks Jones went on to describe such items in the list as "trojan horses" for One World Government, the flimsy excuses proffered by the "globalists" to justify expansion of international cooperation. So tell me, exactly how are atomized nations without an international archictecture of cooperation supposed to address transnational criminal, environmental and health issues? Isn't international cooperation the only way? I was a student of International Relations in uni and it was a little strange to come out of that environment and be confronted with such a simple-minded view of things... Further, it is pretty ironic to see some of the greatest concerns of sovereignty eminating from America, a country whose power translates to increased influence through international cooperation since its influence guarantees the architecture of organizations and the "rules of the game" are suited to its self-interest. Look at the IMF and the WTO for example... in the UN it has veto power. Various treaties were negotiated (im including CUFTA and NAFTA) with outcomes weighted heavily to US interests (for example, under CUFTA and cont'd in NAFTA, the US retained the right to assess countervailing and anti-dumping duties, a key concession sought by the Canadians - further, they stated that "any future act of congress" could amend their understanding of the treaties). In a world of growing international cooperation the stronger states are not shedding sovereignty - they are in fact, enhancing it.
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

16th December 2009, 12:10 PM	#17
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by theprestige Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments? Well, it is my current position. You see, I did not jump on the bandwagon just because Al Gore was writing a book. I am not a climatologist so I waited to see what scientists had to say. So when the UN seemed to back it up, I believed it. But now it looks like it was all untrue. So, why did AL Gore talk about it? Maybe to sell a book? But I know some Democrats and some other people think a one world government would be a good idea. Do you think it is a wrong idea. How come?

16th December 2009, 12:25 PM	#18
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	All around the mulberry bush The monkey chased the weasel; The monkey thought 'twas all in fun, Pop! goes the weasel.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

16th December 2009, 12:29 PM	#19
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson What is funny about the OP? Or absurd? Or wrong? Absurd and wrong. Funny is subjective, but I think it is that as well. You were maybe doing okay until you landed on this: Quote: Also, we admit that this has been a tool for unifying world governments in a common cause. This will bring us all together and this is a good thing. Also, yes, we do have a one world government in mind. This is called progress. We are progressives. Just look at any story that people write about the future. They all have one world governments. It is a dream. We can make this dream come true. There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government." For whom were you speaking when you wrote this? Certainly not the current Democratic Party nor any progressives I can immediately think of.

16th December 2009, 12:33 PM	#20
Bob Blaylock Forklift Operator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: N38°35' W121°29' Posts: 3,013	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? People respect honesty and this might be a good time to make use of honesty. I think we should just admit to people, "It does not matter if manmade global warming is real or not. What matters is that we act now in order to prevent it from becoming real. If it's not real, then there's no need to “act now in order to prevent it from becoming real”. And even if it is real, it does no good at all to “act now in order to prevent it from becoming real”, if the act that is undertaken is one that will be ineffective at best, and which, in the course of being undertaken, will prove expensive and burdensome and destructive to freedom.

16th December 2009, 12:34 PM	#21
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	Touche. It's all absurd and wrong, then.

16th December 2009, 12:40 PM	#22
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,241	I'm still hung up on the One World Government angle. We're talking about a treaty here. So when the American government settled accounts with the Indians and made treaties with them, were these steps towards One World Government? What about the Paris Convention of 1883? The Convention on International Civil Aviation? "treaties" go back thousands of years between contracting parties. What makes the Copenhagen efforts for a treaty on carbon limits more conducive to "One World Government" than say, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of '96?
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

16th December 2009, 01:33 PM	#23
The Platypus Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,789	Originally Posted by Praktik I'm still hung up on the One World Government angle. We're talking about a treaty here. So when the American government settled accounts with the Indians and made treaties with them, were these steps towards One World Government? What about the Paris Convention of 1883? The Convention on International Civil Aviation? "treaties" go back thousands of years between contracting parties. What makes the Copenhagen efforts for a treaty on carbon limits more conducive to "One World Government" than say, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of '96? Extreme delusional paranoia, that's what makes the difference.
	__________________ I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth". Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.

16th December 2009, 01:47 PM	#24
Drysdale Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,017	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?). Other than that I cant conceive how it would be possible, are you suggesting it would be more effective? Not sure where you're going here.

16th December 2009, 01:48 PM	#25
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,241	Greater international cooperation ≠ One World Government
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

16th December 2009, 01:54 PM	#26
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,423	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?). It can be plural in so far that there could be multiple proposals for one world governments or there could be successive one world governments.

16th December 2009, 03:05 PM	#27
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?). There's more than one type of government. Did you mean a one-world theocracy? A one-world dictatorship? A one-world People's Committee of This and That? You want to talk about a one-world government in the singular, you'll have to pick a single type of one-world government to talk about. Originally Posted by Bill Thompson How about global disarmament? The City of Los Angeles has a one-city government, but not much city-wide disarmament. What makes you think that situation would go away at the global scale?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569

16th December 2009, 03:16 PM	#28
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,091	Originally Posted by Cleon Don't bogart the butter. pass the salt
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

16th December 2009, 03:37 PM	#29
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by The Platypus Extreme delusional paranoia, that's what makes the difference. How come? What is wrong with a global government?

16th December 2009, 03:38 PM	#30
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by theprestige The City of Los Angeles has a one-city government, but not much city-wide disarmament. What makes you think that situation would go away at the global scale? I mean no two countries will go to war with each other. I can see how it will be a more peaceful world.

16th December 2009, 03:40 PM	#31
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock If it's not real, then there's no need to “act now in order to prevent it from becoming real”.. Remember the Boy Scout Motto?

16th December 2009, 03:42 PM	#32
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	Originally Posted by Upchurch Absurd and wrong. Funny is subjective, but I think it is that as well. You were maybe doing okay until you landed on this: For whom were you speaking when you wrote this? Certainly not the current Democratic Party nor any progressives I can immediately think of. There really is some legit group. I forget where I heard them. But they meet and Hillary and Bill spoke there once. I guess I will have to do a search for them.

16th December 2009, 03:45 PM	#33
rain Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 126	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government." One thing we can leave out, of course is the fact that we had to disguise our plans for world unity to keep the stupid neocons from finding out. They might not understand or appreciate that. You have some interesting ideas, but I think you need to think more outside the box. What we really need to do is infiltrate the fundamentalist masses right at the source; we'll call our church the peoples temple and we'll candy-coat our super liberalism with a thin facade of old timey Christian values. When we have those sheepies wrapped around our fingers, then they will truly understand the power of the Marx side.
rain Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 126

16th December 2009, 03:53 PM	#34
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	There isn't a flamethrower big or powerful enough to burn down all of this straw...
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

16th December 2009, 04:09 PM	#35
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson I mean no two countries will go to war with each other. I can see how it will be a more peaceful world. Right. It wouldn't be countries going to war with each other, anymore. It'd be gangs of paramilitary insurgents, tens of thousands strong, armed with nuclear weapons. ETA: And that's not even considering the warfare on an epic scale necessary simply to bring about a one-world government in the first place.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569	Last edited by theprestige; 16th December 2009 at 04:10 PM.