It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does the left support World Government?

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: amfirst1

Bigger is better. If you think gov't is good, then big gov't is better and one world gov't is the best.
Why do republicans and most conservatives support big military and strong police? I hope people realize that's "big government" too. Only the libertarians are consistent on this topic.


Because history has shown through the past 5000 years that a country / empire will cease to exist or become conquered by their neighbors if they don't have a technological superiority of their military.

Roman empire could dominate the Mediterranean so long as their trimerenes were the heaviest and strongest in order to defend merchant ships. Once they lost that advantage, they got pushed back. Same with World War I and II.
Chinese built the Great Walls which helped contain raiders.
So then you get into a primary contradiction of conservatves. the question is if big gov is necessary for a certain issue due to overwhelming evidence, history, or data.

Well, that's also exactly why liberals and scientists argue for environmental regulations, as an example. So really it's what does the evidence say.


History and evidence says that if you don't defend your country, it will be conquered by people who don't respect your country.



Now, if this is true than the conservative "Muh small government" not only is a fallacy but intellectually dishonest.


No, it means you are overthinking the issues and have convinced yourself into a self-congratulatory pseudo-epiphany.
No it just means you haven't considered that double standard nor the fact out the gap in your logic. It's right there.

It's also pretty basic analysis, not an "ephiphany." Big and strong military as well as projection of power abroad is big government. So, either admit that it can be necessary when situations or evidence demand, OR please start calling as the libertarians do for a reduction in foreign excursions, wars, etc. There are only two choices available to you..


Defense of the nation is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

I have already said we should draw down our presence in other countries that can afford to defend themselves.

Like I said: you appear to have achieved some type of pseudo-epiphany, while the rest of us are rolling our eyes.
No, that's not what most republicans advocate for. Remember, I was talking about general conservatives, not you. You responded to my general point. This isn't about you.


-> Lumping conservatives together into a general nameless/faceless pool to construct a strawman argument, check.




posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Gotta happen one day.
When we reach for the stars more or make contact then it will happen.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harpua
See, when people who aren't "leftists" start to explain how leftists think, it leaves quite a lot to be desired. You say you want to understand how they think, but toss up these explanations like you have it figured out for them.


See, when people who aren't "right wing" start to explain how conservatives think, it leaves quite a lot to be desired...

Not that that ever stopped anyone from expressing an opinion before.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harpua

originally posted by: AllKnowing

originally posted by: the owlbear
What is going to happen when our entire planet is faced with a dire threat from some external force/entity?

Should we have nations bickering about who has the best god, who is the richest, who is the poorest, who is "right" or "chosen by god"?

The time will come when this happens. It's not if, it's when.
The sooner we can leave behind all the political bs and be one people on one planet, the better.


LOL, the odds of all people being just one community is actually ridiculous. It doesn't even work within a single country. The odds of getting all people on the same page with one main goal and distribute wealth equally or at least by production value/population is absolutely absurd. It will never happen, this is not Independence Day 2. There are hunderds of major religions, monetary banking systems, governments with their own religious laws, and to have that just go up in smoke willingly to accept another cultures laws...Not going to happen in the next thousand years unless billions of people are wiped clean from the Earth and everything must be rebuilt, and still, it won't be a one world government. There will always be factions, always be different ideals, manifestos, declarations, ideologies that will take hold and create new forms of thought and living. No idea is perfect, which is why a one world government could never work unless it was a slave state, which would then have an uprising eventually.

The only possible way a one world government would work is if there was free energy for everyone. That would be the beginning. After that, integration of social systems, endless amounts of clean food, a currency that is based of a real item, a government that is actually serving people and not their own wealth, etc. After that happens then we can talk. And still, not going to happen.


If we can imagine it, we can create it.


Creation does not equate to success, effectiveness, or non-corruption. The sheer number of people's lives that could be destroyed should give anyone pause.

Only extreme narcissists believe they have all the answers for a planet of 7.6 billion people.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: burntheships

Don't they care about their children's future? I rather die with dangerous freedom than be a peaceful slave as Benjamin Franklin once put it.


Yes, they do. They send them to exclusive private schools that no one else can afford. Usually for "security reasons".

As long as they keep everyone else in poverty, and then promise that the future can only get better, they are onto a winner. So offshoring, open borders, housing shortages, middle class neighborhoods being turned into buy-to-let HMO's for a transient population become all part of the plan.
Then there is a chance they'll get a cushy job with the EU or as a speaker on the international circuit.


All so very true. You have spoken truth to ignorance. So much so, I had to quote your response. They truly invision a caste system and, at the same time, they have magically managed to impact male fertility in the civilized world, thus insuring population decline going forward.

But never mind, the plebes are absorbed with beer, March madness and Facebook. They'll never know what hit them.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1

I'm a dem and I don't even know what you're talking about never mind believe in it.
I live my life. I eat, sleep, love in my little old Virginia city by the sea. I pay taxes and rail against the machine just like millions of others.

Why do you want to put everyone in a mold to suit your needs?

I mean it seems you do.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1

Am I the only person who's seen the HUGE flaw in the original post?

The EU, and other global organisations, are originally a concept of the right that wants to facilitate capital flow and trade between nations.

In the EU, the left has insisted on social protections - including labour mobility - to prevent individual regions and nations from becoming the sweatshops of the world.

Support for the EU comes from the left and the right. It suits the left because it enhances social protection; it suits the right because it helps business make money.

Opposition to the EU comes from the left and the right. The left don't like it because it allows transnational corporations to become too powerful and avoid regional and national responsibility; the right don't like it because the EU social policies impose financial and moral obligations they'd rather not have.

So, you've had Conservative and Labour party leaders since the war all in favour of the EU and outliers like Enoch Powell, Bill Cash, Tony Benn and Bob Crow against it.

The only people pushing the narrative that the left is pro-EU and the right is anti-EU are the elites behind Brexit. They stand to make a lot of money out muddying the waters.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Because the Dems leadership wants this and therefore, the leader decides the fate of the lemon. Although, I know a lot of leftists don't want world government, They are guilty by association because they vote for these people. Trump is now the leader of the right, so he is dismantling World Government one piece at a time, which will now redefine the right.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

But the EU is unelected and appointed by Central Bankers. What makes u think they have your interests and not the Bankers co-opting nation states?



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: amfirst1

Bigger is better. If you think gov't is good, then big gov't is better and one world gov't is the best.
Why do republicans and most conservatives support big military and strong police? I hope people realize that's "big government" too. Only the libertarians are consistent on this topic.


Because history has shown through the past 5000 years that a country / empire will cease to exist or become conquered by their neighbors if they don't have a technological superiority of their military.

Roman empire could dominate the Mediterranean so long as their trimerenes were the heaviest and strongest in order to defend merchant ships. Once they lost that advantage, they got pushed back. Same with World War I and II.
Chinese built the Great Walls which helped contain raiders.
So then you get into a primary contradiction of conservatves. the question is if big gov is necessary for a certain issue due to overwhelming evidence, history, or data.

Well, that's also exactly why liberals and scientists argue for environmental regulations, as an example. So really it's what does the evidence say.


History and evidence says that if you don't defend your country, it will be conquered by people who don't respect your country.



Now, if this is true than the conservative "Muh small government" not only is a fallacy but intellectually dishonest.


No, it means you are overthinking the issues and have convinced yourself into a self-congratulatory pseudo-epiphany.
No it just means you haven't considered that double standard nor the fact out the gap in your logic. It's right there.

It's also pretty basic analysis, not an "ephiphany." Big and strong military as well as projection of power abroad is big government. So, either admit that it can be necessary when situations or evidence demand, OR please start calling as the libertarians do for a reduction in foreign excursions, wars, etc. There are only two choices available to you..


Defense of the nation is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

I have already said we should draw down our presence in other countries that can afford to defend themselves.

Like I said: you appear to have achieved some type of pseudo-epiphany, while the rest of us are rolling our eyes.
No, that's not what most republicans advocate for. Remember, I was talking about general conservatives, not you. You responded to my general point. This isn't about you.


-> Lumping conservatives together into a general nameless/faceless pool to construct a strawman argument, check.
I used plenty of qualifiers in my posts to avoid stereotyping, thanks. I also did not include libertarians in my points.

You still haven't addressed my points, but instead used a variety of dismissals. Also, whether you like it or not, continuing big military and intervention abroad has been part of the Republican platform and been supported by a majority of Republicans for many years.

Obviously there are conservatives who don't.

You are welcome to your own opinions, but you aren't welcome to your own facts.

edit on 19-3-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

But the EU is unelected and appointed by Central Bankers. What makes u think they have your interests and not the Bankers co-opting nation states?


The EU isn't unelected and has its own Central Bank.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Great post!

Listen to this guy



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Have you ever seen a world govt portrayed in a negative way?

Star Trek... how many decades have we had the concept pushed as a wonderful awesome everything is great for everyone way?

If people here the propaganda long enough they will slowly change to think its a good idea...

Look at the EU, you have some of the eastern European members saying no to uncontrolled immigration and the EU has repeatedly told them you will take the or else. Even though the countries voters said no to the immigration, now you have 4 or 5 of those countries banding together to say no as a group.
Should be interesting to see how it shakes out if the EU presses them on it.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
A one-world government is easier to control with just seven and ten. It would be even easier to control if the population was, say, cut to 1/2 billion people. This is what the "wicked" would love.

IMO, we are supposed to be culturally different, yet cooperative.

Individually, we should "sit under our own vine and fig tree". (That's a metaphor


There is a reason languages were confused and people were scattered to all four corners of the Earth. (semi-metaphor



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

You forgot the part about if everyone were marked with a microchip that guarded our access to our money and stuff so that if we were "bad," we could be punished by being cut off or simply cut out.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   
The more u centralize the easier it is for the elites to control you. If u decentralize it becomes harder to co-opt and bunch of unknown variables.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

How is war considered center right??? The Democrats started all wars in American history outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. The left is the war side.

Now they want to start war with Putin because Obama lost the Syrian war to Russia and deep state is mad as hell. They also are against peace with N Korea that's why they constantly attack Trump for meeting with N Korea.

Clinton gave N Korea nuclear technology knowing it would cause a crisis down the road and force our hand into war. Obama did the same thing for Iran.

Trump is F**** all that long term plan up and that is why they hate him. Trump is the accidental president that was suppose to not happen.
edit on 20-3-2018 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1
Perhaps a history lesson is in order explaining how we as a country got to where we are today.

We are not ‘globalists.’ We’re Americans.

At one haunted moment in American history — early in 1939, not long after Kristallnacht — Sen. Robert Wagner (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Edith Nourse Rogers (R-Mass.) introduced a bill that would have allowed 20,000 unaccompanied Jewish refugee children into the United States. Opponents argued that Congress should focus on the welfare of American children and that German refugees were a Trojan horse. “Twenty thousand charming children,” said President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s cousin, “would all too soon grow up into 20,000 ugly adults.”

The legislation died in committee. And most of the children, presumably, did not grow up at all. At the time, some 80 percent of Americans opposed increasing the quota of European refugees.

Six years later, journalist Marguerite Higgins was among the first to enter the Dachau death camp as it was being liberated by the 42nd Infantry. She found the main yard empty. But then “a jangled barrage of ‘Are you Americans?’ in about 16 languages came from the barracks 200 yards from the gate. An affirmative nod caused pandemonium. Tattered, emaciated men, weeping, yelling and shouting ‘Long live America!’ swept toward the gate in a mob. Those who could not walk limped or crawled.”

It is easy to forget the epic scale of this transition. On the American side, World War II was won with a combination of idealism and unimaginable ferocity. Here was a country that talked of “Four Freedoms” and dropped two atomic bombs. Having reduced the Axis powers to rubble and hunger, 90 percent of Americans supported the continuation of food rationing at home if it were necessary to help the starving people of Europe and Asia.

Click article for more



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Have you ever seen a world govt portrayed in a negative way?

Um.... Yes. There is a whole genre of fiction dedicated to future dystopias. It's pretty much the chief paranoia fuel for conspiracy theories like this. That and the bible.


If people here the propaganda long enough they will slowly change to think its a good idea...

Good point. People have been listening for 2000 years from the Bible that one world governments are bad. Did you ever think that maybe that had an effect on current thinking? I mean the people of the bible were MANY MANY MANY generations removed from ever realizing a one world government and even today we haven't truly realized one. So what would they know about the perils of one?



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Yes, the democratic establishment is pro war. Until the 90's only the real left and hippies were criticizing US foreign policy. Most conservatives were not. That is demonstrable.

As far as war, both parties stand together.

Secondly, Reagan and his ilk were involved too in foreign blunders. You know, Iran Contra? Then both Bush presidents went into Iraq..

If Trump is so against all this, why is he trying to take apart the Iran deal, and join the anti Iran hysteria?

Why did his administration conduct strikes in Syria? Syria is just yet another US led regime change operation.


a reply to: amfirst1


edit on 20-3-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join