Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

komrade Annoyed implied they're developed countries & was essentially equating them with the US just cause those countries themselves are wealthy (the fact that most people there live in misery is irrelevant to him) I'm just pointing out the extreme dishonesty in that argument

I in no way disagree SR, but expecting self reflection from annoyed is as about as likely as salvation for an atheist.

[jelgate]

That's why we mock him

[Gatefan1976]

That's why we mock him

Again, I must simply state, Indeed.

[SoulReaver]

I in no way disagree SR, but expecting self reflection from annoyed is as about as likely as salvation for an atheist.

he is capable of self reflection
in front of a mirror

[Gatefan1976]

he is capable of self reflection
in front of a mirror

That assumes he has a reflection.
Considering how old he is, he might just be a vampire.

[jelgate]

Nah, vampires have brains. I'm thinking a zombie

[Annoyed]

Or something you've never heard of before.

[Gatefan1976]

We know what idiots are.
But sure, go ahead.

[Gatefan1976]

[mad_gater]

Those nations are -developing- nations, they need more to get to where you and I are.
They ALSO have not been spewing gigatons of crap into the air for over a hundred years.
Basically, they are using the EC model of giving smaller states a vote despite the will of more people.
You should like that.

I seriously doubt that the treaty establishes a one-world government similar in structure to the US republican form of government, thus no real "voting" takes place...only a choice to participate in the treaty or not...and if the US doesn't agree by providing its signature on this attempt at a legalized money grab? What're these nations gonna do then? Attempt to get it from us by force of arms? Hate to break it to you but if they go that route then we've had most of the nations attempting this beaten in the "force of arms" dept. for decades now and would likely get flattened.

[Gatefan1976]

I seriously doubt that the treaty establishes a one-world government similar in structure to the US republican form of government, thus no real "voting" takes place...only a choice to participate in the treaty or not...and if the US doesn't agree by providing its signature on this attempt at a legalized money grab? What're these nations gonna do then? Attempt to get it from us by force of arms? Hate to break it to you but if they go that route then we've had most of the nations attempting this beaten in the "force of arms" dept. for decades now and would likely get flattened.

It's not a government per se, it's an international agreement. It's about politics and diplomacy MG and if the only superpower left standing does not want to take part, why would any other?

[Annoyed]

I seriously doubt that the treaty establishes a one-world government similar in structure to the US republican form of government,

If the U.N. ever did decide to try to impose a one-world govt., do you really think it would be a Democracy or a Republic, where the sheeple could tell the elites in the leadership positions to take a hike at the ballot box if their agendas suck? Not on your life.

Remember, the UN doesn't really care what the US citizenry thinks, they just want to be able to tax us.

In any case, at our level of technical development, a one world govt. can't work. Maybe after we develop "free" and universally available energy supplies & matter / energy conversion to supply other resources for little or no cost, it might have a shot.

[Annoyed]

no biggie the upper elites of India & Gina are richer so overall the countries are richer for the GOP that's all that counts (nevermind if poverty & wealth disparity are higher than ever)

Why is it the United States' problem if there is a wealth distribution problem in China or India? Wouldn't that be an internal problem, for those nations to solve themselves? Why is that an excuse for that nation to get a pass on the fees that treaty wanted to impose on the U.S. and it's people?

Granted, you're not going to fix wealth distribution issues in these or any nation. I don't care what economic or political system you have in place. There are always those on the top, those in the middle and those on the bottom. And it's far better to be on the top. What defines who is where varies, be it wealth or political connections, but those divisions always exist.

None of that excuses the blatant attempt by the UN to pay for their bills.

[Falcon Horus]

Sidenote: multiquote won't work again... it's hit and miss...

If the U.N. ever did decide to try to impose a one-world govt., do you really think it would be a Democracy or a Republic, where the sheeple could tell the elites in the leadership positions to take a hike at the ballot box if their agendas suck? Not on your life.

I think the world has already shown everyone on this planet that a one-world government is simply not possible. There are way too many differences setting every country apart, even within most countries.

Heck, the USA has as many governments as there are states + 1 federal.
Same as Belgium which has 5 -- yes, 5 governments, and we are a tiny little speck on the global map (Flanders, Walloon, German, Federal and Brussels).

[Annoyed]

Sidenote: multiquote won't work again... it's hit and miss...



I think the world has already shown everyone on this planet that a one-world government is simply not possible. There are way too many differences setting every country apart, even within most countries.

Heck, the USA has as many governments as there are states + 1 federal.
Same as Belgium which has 5 -- yes, 5 governments, and we are a tiny little speck on the global map (Flanders, Walloon, German, Federal and Brussels).

I disagree. I think it is possible, but only after the need to compete for resources ends. If some bright boy invents a clean, unlimited energy supply & matter/energy conversion (a.k.a. Replicators from Star Trek), that will eliminate the need for that competition.

Until then, people and nations have to look out for their own best interests, first, last and always. And that is quite proper.