Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Goodbye U.S Sovereignty...

philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:42:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Goodbye U.S Sovereignty... Hello One World Government!

We watched this video at school, and the second it was over, everyone was screaming and yelling. This has caused an immense topic of debate for many people.
America is in the era of a new world. We are going to be forced into a one world government, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Or is there?
Something needs to be done while we are still free! We have up until December, before we are all screwed against our will.
Global warming was a guise and now its being used as an excuse for us "to pay back the world"
Whether we like it or not, Obama will pass this. It's inevitable. Even if he got impeached, it would pass.
What can we as free americans do to remain free?
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:59:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
WHO is going to govern the whole world by what means? I don't like videos.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:01:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:59:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
WHO is going to govern the whole world by what means? I don't like videos.

world nations such as U.N. Either way its being signed in december
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:01:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:59:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
WHO is going to govern the whole world by what means? I don't like videos.

There's a climate change conference in Copenhagen this year. http://en.cop15.dk...

Nothing about a treaty on that website.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:03:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 9:01:33 AM, philosphical wrote:
At 10/24/2009 8:59:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
WHO is going to govern the whole world by what means? I don't like videos.

world nations such as U.N. Either way its being signed in december

What treaty? And I want to read it. I'm pretty sure the world would be up in arms about it, not just some pro-business anti-climate change group who wants to destroy this climate change conference through scaremongering.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:08:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 9:01:33 AM, philosphical wrote:
At 10/24/2009 8:59:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
WHO is going to govern the whole world by what means? I don't like videos.

world nations such as U.N.
First that phrase doesn't make sense semantically-- the UN is not a nation.

Second it doesn't make sense politically-- the UN is about as effective as a wet noodle for lethal purposes, and Obama has better things to spend his stupid allowance on.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:09:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
What treaty? And I want to read it. I'm pretty sure the world would be up in arms about it, not just some pro-business anti-climate change group who wants to destroy this climate change conference through scaremongering.

I would like to see the treaty too. Thats just the point...
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:13:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 9:09:29 AM, philosphical wrote:
What treaty? And I want to read it. I'm pretty sure the world would be up in arms about it, not just some pro-business anti-climate change group who wants to destroy this climate change conference through scaremongering.

I would like to see the treaty too. Thats just the point...

Then why'd you post all that BS at the start?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:19:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Then why'd you post all that BS at the start?

Please telll me, little irish lad, what "BS" you are referring too?
I am under the impression that you don't even know what any of this means.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:38:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 9:19:36 AM, philosphical wrote:
Then why'd you post all that BS at the start?

Please telll me, little irish lad, what "BS" you are referring too?
I am under the impression that you don't even know what any of this means.

Uh, I do, but the fact you're allowing a guy in a video tell you about treaty which you can't even produce makes me doubt your mental capacity for reasoning.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:39:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Question: Why is a one-world government bad, beyond the negative stigma given to the phrase? It seems like you think that one-world government = slavery, in which leads me to believe that you think any type of government to be bad, which makes me wonder why you never told us that you were an anarchist.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:47:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Uh, I do, but the fact you're allowing a guy in a video tell you about treaty which you can't even produce makes me doubt your mental capacity for reasoning.

The treaty of copenhagen? Look it up.
I doubt you will but here is a link if you decide to
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Twice in the treaty of copenhagen, does it mention bringing us into a world government.

For more information on why Obama is doing this, read the link Puck posted above.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:50:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 9:47:28 AM, philosphical wrote:
Uh, I do, but the fact you're allowing a guy in a video tell you about treaty which you can't even produce makes me doubt your mental capacity for reasoning.

The treaty of copenhagen? Look it up.
I doubt you will but here is a link if you decide to
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Twice in the treaty of copenhagen, does it mention bringing us into a world government.

For more information on why Obama is doing this, read the link Puck posted above.

@ link - --->
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:50:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Question: Why is a one-world government bad, beyond the negative stigma given to the phrase? It seems like you think that one-world government = slavery, in which leads me to believe that you think any type of government to be bad, which makes me wonder why you never told us that you were an anarchist.

A one world government is bad, becuase it implies that american citizens give up their soveirgnty.
America's freedoms, were brought from our constitution. Most of the which is opposed against in the laws brought up from organizations such as the U.N.

If you read the U.N. contract, you will find that many of it's laws contradict themselves and oppose our constitution. America needs to be left the way our founding fathers meant it to be, if we seek to remain free.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:54:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 9:50:59 AM, philosphical wrote:
Question: Why is a one-world government bad, beyond the negative stigma given to the phrase? It seems like you think that one-world government = slavery, in which leads me to believe that you think any type of government to be bad, which makes me wonder why you never told us that you were an anarchist.

A one world government is bad, becuase it implies that american citizens give up their soveirgnty.
America's freedoms, were brought from our constitution. Most of the which is opposed against in the laws brought up from organizations such as the U.N.

Most of the world is a democracy. What freedoms are being lost if it's a one world democracy?


If you read the U.N. contract, you will find that many of it's laws contradict themselves and oppose our constitution. America needs to be left the way our founding fathers meant it to be, if we seek to remain free.

Never invoke your founding fathers. Never ever ever. Society is progressive. Live with it.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:55:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 9:50:59 AM, philosphical wrote:
Question: Why is a one-world government bad, beyond the negative stigma given to the phrase? It seems like you think that one-world government = slavery, in which leads me to believe that you think any type of government to be bad, which makes me wonder why you never told us that you were an anarchist.

A one world government is bad, becuase it implies that american citizens give up their soveirgnty.
America's freedoms, were brought from our constitution. Most of the which is opposed against in the laws brought up from organizations such as the U.N.

If you read the U.N. contract, you will find that many of it's laws contradict themselves and oppose our constitution. America needs to be left the way our founding fathers meant it to be, if we seek to remain free.

Yep. The UDHR definitely contradicts all forms of freedom. See, I don't understand why 'giving up sovereignty' is bad. Sure, you're appealing to fear and all, but I also think that you're relying on some deep-seated assumption that giving up sovereignty = infinite subjugation. I don't exactly understand how that argument works.

So, allow me to ask again.
How exactly is one-world government bad? What proof do you have that such horrors would become reality if a one-world government actually came into existence?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 10:05:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...

^ The actual document in question - it is NOT a treaty, it's more a list of proposed addendums to the Kyoto treaty at this stage - the point of the Copenhagen meeting is to discuss the proposed changes. Even if something is signed it's unlikely to be legally binding, being more a declaration of future intent than anything.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 12:01:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Most of the world is a democracy. What freedoms are being lost if it's a one world democracy?
Most of them. Voters overseas are even more anti-freedom than the ones at home.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 2:47:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
In addition to the other able responses as to why this is not a 'smoking gun' that the OP and the lecturer in the video suggest: such a treaty would almost certainly not be accepted by the Senate, even with a Democratic majority. Remember that all treaties are reviewable by the Senate.

Such a move would be political suicide to Obama and any Senator in favor. Keep in mind that politicians are known to worry more about their own careers than policy.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 3:32:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I've missed most of this discussion, so this may be coming late, but if the idea is that the Copenhagen talks are a step toward 'one world government,' then you'll have to explain how even the guy that is supposed to run this doesn't even believe anything that substantial, and certainly not a treaty, will come out of it: http://en.cop15.dk...

"A fully fledged new international treaty under the [UN Framework] Convention [on Climate Change] – I do not think that is going to happen," Yvo de Boer says.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 3:47:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 3:41:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'm a bit surprised that Geolaureate hasn't made a comment about this, yet.

I'm surprised he hasn't made a forum topic about the swine flu emergency declaration by Obama yet.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 1:10:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Metz- According to the American Policy Center, "Unlike any other treaty in history, the International Criminal Court ignores national laws. The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers with knowledge that collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians or damage to civilian objects or damage to the natural environment" may occur. In other words, you can have a war, but don't break anything, hurt any civilians, or the environment. It is physically impossible for the military to comply with those restrictions and still achieve its mission to protect our National Security." The First Purpose of any government is protecting itself and its citizens. The ICC places us in a situation where we have almost no way to defend ourselves. We are currently engaged in a war not against countries, that may also submit but against organizations that present a much larger threat.

This is to cody franklin, a qoute from Metz, reffering to my point about contradiction.
It couldn't be said any better than this.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 2:30:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Lol @ perceived threat from the ICC.

The ICC is mandated by treaty, not force, philosophical. They can only get you you for war crimes if your country agrees to the treaty, or if you set foot in a country that is signatory to the treaty, and if they'll actually uphold it, which is rare in most cases where there is an actual head of state - case and point with Omar Bashir.

The United States is not signatory to that treaty for fairly obvious reasons. So don't worry; the only law you'll have to face is domestic ones when you shoot up the Democrat convention or whatever it is far-right Republicans plot these days.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 2:31:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/25/2009 1:10:00 PM, philosphical wrote:
Metz- According to the American Policy Center, "Unlike any other treaty in history, the International Criminal Court ignores national laws. The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers with knowledge that collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians or damage to civilian objects or damage to the natural environment" may occur. In other words, you can have a war, but don't break anything, hurt any civilians, or the environment. It is physically impossible for the military to comply with those restrictions and still achieve its mission to protect our National Security." The First Purpose of any government is protecting itself and its citizens. The ICC places us in a situation where we have almost no way to defend ourselves. We are currently engaged in a war not against countries, that may also submit but against organizations that present a much larger threat.

This is to cody franklin, a qoute from Metz, reffering to my point about contradiction.
It couldn't be said any better than this.

The UDHR - international law

First of all, you're simply suggesting that it's permissible to kill the innocent civilians of other nations in order to protect ourselves, which is a point that I'd really like you to justify, without putting United States citizens on a higher level than foreign citizens - that is, I need you to prove that United States > All other countries.

Second of all, I'm still curious as to why you consider a universal authority to be a bad thing. If you think that local, state, and national governments are acceptable, I fail to see why stepping up to an the international is at all a bad thing, besides the inherent negative stigma of a 'one-world government' and the paranoid conspiracy theories that seem to plague the internet these days.

Third of all, and most importantly, the question remains as to why you equate a universal political authority with limitless subjugation of the general population; and, I expect an answer that isn't based in fearful speculation and cynical conjecture.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 2:34:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/25/2009 2:30:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
Lol @ perceived threat from the ICC.

The ICC is mandated by treaty, not force, philosophical. They can only get you you for war crimes if your country agrees to the treaty, or if you set foot in a country that is signatory to the treaty, and if they'll actually uphold it, which is rare in most cases where there is an actual head of state - case and point with Omar Bashir.

The United States is not signatory to that treaty for fairly obvious reasons. So don't worry; the only law you'll have to face is domestic ones when you shoot up the Democrat convention or whatever it is far-right Republicans plot these days.

Yeah, I thought about mentioning that, but I wanted to give philosophical a chance to fight back; it kind of reminds me of that famous (mis)quote - "John Marshall has made his decision - now let him enforce it!"

The point is, the ICC can make rulings, but the only way to enforce those rulings is through the power of its constituent nations; therefore, it's clear that, if nations begin losing their power, they can pull out of the Rome Statute.