Your Future Government


sorabji.com: What is your definition of hell?: Your Future Government
By spunkyDingo on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 10:49 am:


By Spider on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 10:52 am:

    What's your point? That our own government is going to be subsumed by these international organizations?


By trace on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 10:58 am:


By trace on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 10:59 am:


By Spider on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 11:24 pm:

    So I was right. Do you honestly think this is likely to happen?


By Antigone on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 11:35 pm:

    Golly spunk, isn't this the United Nations your fearless leader said was irrelevant?


By spunkyDingo on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 00:05 pm:

    No. Here is what he said:
    "The UN is in danger of becoming irrelevant.
    We are taking this course to enforce the UN resolutions that the member contries are unable or unwilling to enforce."

    He also has increased funds to the UN for 2003 & 2004.

    Don't be misled, there is no movement what so ever at any level of the US Government to withdraw from membership in the UN.


By Antigone on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 00:09 pm:

    Good.

    And, what's so bad about a world government, anyway?


By spunkyDingo on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 00:56 pm:

    Nothing.
    Except the form of that government.
    I have never opposed the idea.


By patrick on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 01:17 pm:

    the UN is democratic is it not? what exactly about the form do you have issue with?


By spunkyDingo on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 01:21 pm:

    No. The UN is not. The 5 perm nations have veto powers. One veto can overide all other nation's say.
    And I do not beleive the UN will end up being the Global Government. Not in it's current form anyway.


By patrick on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 01:43 pm:

    you're just referring to the Security Council bucko.


By patrick on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 01:53 pm:

    further....lest you not forget the President of the United States has veto power. One say can override an entire Congress.

    I would say though,with out spending too much time on it, its much more complicated than simply saying 5 permanent members who have veot power can override every other nation out there.

    According to the Security Council charter they vote in accordance to the 'relevent Articles of the Charter and of the Statute of the International Court of Justice'


By spunkyDingo on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 01:56 pm:

    To your first part:
    Yes, but the system of checks and balances mean that the justice department can over ride his veto.


    "you're just referring to the Security Council bucko."

    Correct. I do not beleive the UN is the targeted final form of global government


By kazoo on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 06:59 pm:

    Congress can override the president's veto, correct?


By Nate on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 07:50 pm:

    correct. don't look towards the liberal for facts.

    or the conservative, for that matter.

    it is kind of interesting how the grand scheme of this illusion is played out on the small scale here. the liberal makes a patently false statement expecting that if no one challenges him, his statement will be repeated and eventually become common wisdom. the conservative, on the other hand, speaks the truth, but only a small part of it. spreading disinformation implicitly and yet always maintaining the ability to honestly claim honesty.

    either way you look at it, nothing of importance will ever matter. you could be sucking your mother's cock with a feral weasel rammed into your colon and no one is going to stop to butter your bread. goddamnit, if that fucking kid doesn't stop beating that coffee can with a tire iron i am going to put a 30.06 slug through his mom's goddamn windshield.


By Ophelia on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 11:44 pm:

    hahaha... "nothing of importance will ever matter." oh how funny.

    i like this. plato's cave! were you serious about that psychology project on the other thread? if so does mark exist? i guess it doesn't matter either way about that. he exists.

    if you were serious i am delighted. if not, silly you for making up the story. but i am inclined to believe it, because i like it. it fits.


By patrick on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 00:07 pm:

    ". the liberal makes a patently false statement expecting that if no one challenges him, his statement will be repeated and eventually become common wisdom."

    sounds like common practice in the white house.


    nate. the woods call. go. sip your juice and eat berries.


By Nate on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 00:15 pm:

    you're high patrick. the media slams bush for every misspoken word. keep trying.


By patrick on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 00:30 pm:

    so what.

    what does that have to do with the fact that for well over a year the administration has used "terrorism" and "iraq" and "weapons of mass destruction" in the same sentence when there has been nothing but trickles of even being remotely connected. they are doing it again with Syria..right away, the same combo of words.

    they stopped just short of saying iraq committed 9/11. they dont have to, they've implied for over a year now, despite many questions from the media, most Americans have come to accept it...at least according to polls.