You have admitted you support world government, that you believe it is inevitable.

You have admitted you believe the Constitution grants the federal government almost unlimited power.

The only thing left is socialism, which if you don't believe in, then I apologize, but it sure appears that you lean towards socialism.

I love it.

"Please watch the video."

"You must watch the video."

"You watched the video? You don't believe in mass Konspiracies? You must be a fascist socialist marxist freedom-hating loon!"

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

TSGrachus has ADMITTING TO SUPPORTING WORLD GOVERNMENT WHICH MEANS THE END TO US SOVEREIGNTY AND THE US CONSTITUTION.

If you pulled your head out of your ass you would know this.

I am very disappointed that the American people does not even know those facts that have clearly been shown - even in court in USA. Why even most Finns know that the Anthrax case is closed.

The biological scientists studied the genetic composition of Anthrax in the letters and were immediately able to say what is the stock of the virus (genetic composition is like a finger print of the organism) - and this stock existed only in the CIA laboratory. Those who made the conspiracy did not understand that the tracing is possible.

It is a well-known fact that there was a major organization behind this plot ... false letters with Arabic letters were made and several Arabs working in USA were planted to be guilty - and arrested with major publicity. This was not a small right-wing group which did this - it was CIA itself.

And CIA tried to explain that there was a crazy person working in the CIA lab and he took Anthrax and sent the letters - recently this man did suicide - and that was the end of the story from their side. Imagine what a super-lie.

And this is exactly what happened with 911 - a theater the purpose of which was to made stupid Americans to donate their money and youngsters to war for military and oil industry (remember what Eisenhower said about that).

Quote: 2001 anthrax attacks: Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News
A top U.S. government scientist, suspected of the anthrax attacks, commits suicide. ABC News knows who is responsible for false reports blaming those attacks on Iraq, but refuses to say. If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks.
Clearly, Ross' allegedly four separate sources had to have some specific knowledge of the tests conducted and, if they were really "well-placed," one would presume that meant they had some connection to the laboratory where the tests were conducted -- Ft. Detrick. That means that the same Government lab where the anthrax attacks themselves came from was the same place where the false reports originated that blamed those attacks on Iraq.
It's extremely possible -- one could say highly likely -- that the same people responsible for perpetrating the attacks were the ones who fed the false reports to the public, through ABC News, that Saddam was behind them. What we know for certain -- as a result of the letters accompanying the anthrax -- is that whoever perpetrated the attacks wanted the public to believe they were sent by foreign Muslims. Feeding claims to ABC News designed to link Saddam to those attacks would, for obvious reasons, promote the goal of the anthrax attacker(s).
We now know -- we knew even before news of Ivins' suicide last night, and know especially in light of it -- that the anthrax attacks didn't come from Iraq or any foreign government at all. It came from our own Government's scientist, from the top Army bioweapons research laboratory. More significantly, the false reports linking anthrax to Iraq also came from the U.S. Government -- from people with some type of significant links to the same facility responsible for the attacks themselves.
----
Also US president candidate McCain was caught by telling that the anthrax is from Iraq and it is necessary to attack that country - already then the scientists knew that the virus came from US CIA/Army lab. Is this your next president?

Ivins worked for USAMRIID, but thanks for playing.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

And if you pulled your head out of your ass, your tinfoil hat would chafe.


We've had this discussion before. Until you figure out how to not come off like a raving lunatic, you're not going to be taken seriously by anyone.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Correct, eventually. I've also said it's impossible at this time. However, a more limited form of transnational government is a short-term prospect that I expect to happen, within the next 20 years at most. However, I've also said, and still say, that this does not mean we have to scrap the Constitution. Though why you should care one way or the other I'm not sure, in that:

Indeed, and it does, but actually that brings up an important point. You will observe that the U.S. government doesn't actually exercise unlimited power. Why is that? Because the libertarian concept of government as an entity that grows in pursuit of its own aggrandizement is plain wrong. Government grows (or shrinks) in response to public demand. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the federal government from raising income tax rates to 100% with no deductions, and then paying everyone a stipend from these revenues. Why doesn't it do so, if government grows to the limits allowed by law? Because that's wrong, it doesn't: it grows in response to public demand, and the public doesn't want a 100% tax rate with everyone on the government payroll.

In any case, this was not part of what you originally said I believe.

I suspect you have an iconoclastic definition of socialism in your head. By the usual definition, an economic system in which the state owns the means of production, no, I don't. Whether I believe in what YOU mean by socialism, I can't know without knowing what that is.

Here is what you said:

You have not offered any proof that these people exist.

The implication here is that I don't believe in individual liberty or limited government, of which you have received no indication.

The implication here is that world government and socialism are synonymous, which they are not.

Basically, Norrin, you come across like someone who is afraid of modernity and wants to go back to an earlier version of America; also like someone who is afraid of the rest of the world, thinks America has nothing to learn from the rest of the world, and wants to close our doors and put blinkers over our eyes; and finally like someone who is still scared of the Commies even though the Soviet Union has been nonexistent since 1991. Part of the reason you believe in these conspiracy theories is that you are looking for an explanation of why the country has changed over the course of your lifetime, when the simple answer is that it has changed because it exists within the stream of time like everything else and change is a constant. If you can't handle that concept, I suggest you might consider a monastery or an ashram, whatever fits your own spiritual beliefs. Life is simpler and less threatening in an environment like that.

GOD, I like you more than anyone I have ever hated before in my life.

You are so intelligent, yet you support a world government.

You claim to care about freedom, yet you believe freedom and world government are compatible.

Life is NEVER simple.

If you have Bill Gates money, life is still not simple.

I give up.

You seem like a good person and if a world government were run by people like you it would probably be a good thing.

The problem is, you judge other people by your values.

There lies the problem.

You see, most people who crave power are not good peopple.

Most people who crave power are scumbags.

Ever hear of the Georgia Guidestones?

Who paid for them?

How many powerful people believe in their message?

Well, gee, thanks, I think.

I think you will find that most people who support a world government are intelligent. The motivations the idea conflicts with are nationalism and xenophobia. A certain amount of enlightenment is required to overcome these things.

Of course. But where you're making your mistake is in thinking that a world government would have any more power than a national government. Actually, it would have less power over the lives of individuals, and would also restrain the power of national governments. So individuals would be more free, not less.



No, I hadn't heard of the Georgia Guidestones, but I Googled it and found a Wiki article:

Georgia Guidestones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know who paid for it and neither do you, I'll bet; at a guess, it was some idealistic private group that wanted to present this message in a lasting, aesthetically appealing form. I don't know how many "powerful people" believe in that message, but with one nitpicky exception, I certainly do: the exception being that I believe the world can probably support more than half a billion people, although population needs to be reduced from its current level. I honestly can't see what problem you have with it.

What are you shuffling - there is a world government already - United Nations. The only problem is that some evil countries are trying to undermine it all the time.

When giving power to this world government we should use carefully selected indicators what countries could be in the background. Power can have countries which have: 1) sustainable economy in ecological terms; 2) not having military interests and never used e.g. nuclear weapons (including DU); 3) not having military bases or interventions abroad; 4) having high moral in sociological terms; etc etc.

We must continue preparing a list of the requirements of "world leaders". I think UN is very good in this already. But to whom to give the power - this is a difficult issue - countries like India, Iran, some S American countries, Nordic Countries, ... maybe. This world government could then start to control the criminal countries which attack to independent countries, use nukes, rob oil resources from other countries, have murder culture, etc.

Like pre-invasion Iraq.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

So, you believe the population needs to be reduced?

How much should the population be reduced?

How should the population be reduced?

Who gets to make these decisions?

Yes.

Don't know. The planet has a sustainable carrying capacity in terms of total biomass, and a limited percentage of that biomass can be our species. I'm quite sure we're over the sustainable limit now. I'm almost equally sure, though, that 500,000,000 is lower than the maximum. If I had to guess -- and this is a wild guess -- the sustainable capacity is somewhere between two and four billion.

Ideally, by emancipation of women with consequent drops in family size, the same way that birthrates have plummeted in the advanced nations. Less than ideally, through famine, epidemic, and war.

As a default, if we don't take responsibility for it ourselves, nature. Looking at the situation now, I'm fairly pessimistic and inclined to believe that it will, indeed, be nature. I say this mainly because of resistance to emancipation of women in Muslim, Latin American, and African cultures. That's enough of a chunk of humanity to overcome the gains in other cultures. I wish it were otherwise, and maybe it will be, but it doesn't look real great.

TSGRACHUS,

Well, I do agree that we are at, or very near the maximum sustainable population for Earth.

I agree that the emancipation of women is a great way to help cut population growth.

I also agree that in many countries their lack of basic human rights for women is a large obstacle to giving women the power to make their own choices regarding reproduction.

Of course, I believe that there will be other ways to reduce the population of earth. Ways put into action by rich, powerful men who have a noble cause, but will be willing to kill a few billion people in order to fulfill their "noble" purpose.

I can't prove this, nor do I have any evidence, it is just based on a feeling I have from the many thousands of hours I have spent doing research.

Oh well, at least we found something we agree on.

There are too many people in the world.

By the time women around the world are emancipated, the world's population could double, or triple. Heck, it's difficult to imagine the countries in the Middle East ever allowing their women to have rights.

But alas, I will not live long enough to see how this unfolds.

There are not too many people on Earth ... there are just too many nations which use natural resources like hell ... Americans and Europeans especially. If all the would live like many other nations do ... e.g. African and many Asian nations everything would be fine. No cars, no power plants, no any luxury things...