President Obama: "USA to LEAD the WORLD in the New World Order"

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

You are not the common person though. Of course people like yourself should be cared about. I fail to see how your condition invalidates the genius of the original constitution plus some much needed amendments.

I am not putting down the original constitution. But its not enough. It may have been enough in the beginning with a population of 3,929,000 (probably not including Native Americans and Slaves) - - and room to grow.

It is not enough for today's population of 309,542,523. More control and organizations is needed.

reply to post by Annee



Well tell me, when a cell grows too large, does it just make a thicker membrane? or does it split into two?

You do not make more government for more people. You make more governmentS for more people.

Very simply put, the US has come to a point where it needs to make more local government power, rather than more centralization.

When there are too many voices for one man to hear, you add more men to listen, not make the man at a higher point above the rest.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

Well tell me, when a cell grows too large, does it just make a thicker membrane? or does it split into two?

You do not make more government for more people. You make more governmentS for more people.

Very simply put, the US has come to a point where it needs to make more local government power, rather than more centralization.

When there are too many voices for one man to hear, you add more men to listen, not make the man at a higher point above the rest.

Well I don't see it quite that way. I do think local government is needed for some things. Mostly cultural diversity.

I'm in SW Arizona. Officials are always being sent down from Phoenix like they are experts on our local problems. Its laughable. Phoenix is like Los Angeles. Its like Picante sauce made in New York City. So Yes - - local government is very important.

I'm talking about a solid foundation to keep all citizens from falling through the cracks - - yet still have freedom of stucture for the ambitious & hard working.

I do not support or believe in welfare as it is today. I do not support hand outs - - because "money not earned has no value". However - - I do support a socialist basic base of humanity need. Such as shelter - food - & purpose. (hey it could be a tent city in the desert - I'm not talking luxury).

What I support are Levels. Each person has to earn levels. It can't be inherited.

In other countries to go into higher learning you have to pass entrance exams. If you don't qualify - you don't go. Same thing. You have to earn levels in society.

reply to post by Annee


Sorry, that pretty much goes against humanity and in many ways can be called a third group known as ultra individualism.

People need inheritance, they need to inherit these so-called levels. They need to be able to trade these so-called levels.

Nope.

The best government is a shell government. No touch. All it does is act as a shell above protecting, and a net bellow catching. You do that very simply by treating people unable to work as special cases that need support, but everyone else as normal people doing their duties.

Everyone has their own culture, their own beliefs, their own ways. Believe it or not but your method goes against many of them, most specifically Islam.

The government's role is only to be a cpu of a nation. It only exists to hear and process complaints, keep safety, defend, fund, etc etc. They are for nothing more.

Everything is good as it is today except for a few things.

-Health
-power
-money in politics
-the people's knowledge.

Of these, the last is beginning to change. So in time, it will naturally fix the rest.

Just as nations long ago had to deal with the American revolution and the hatred of the kings and queens, once more in America nations must deal with the people now educated and more active. Just part of the cycle.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91


I purposefully left religion out of the discussion.

By inheritance - I meant level of competence. Each person has to earn their level. I wasn't talking about personal family inheritance.

Later . . .

reply to post by Annee


Well that's already there via the freedom of information act.

And you can leave religion out if you want, but to ignore it in government construction is foolish and dangerous at best.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Nothing you mentioned is related to governing with logic and common sense. And because of that, it is irrelevant to what I was talking about.

This World Union would not be involved, let alone care about, how you view the shape of the Earth.

In fact, what I described to you is in perfect correlation to the founding father's desires:

What I said has EVERYTHING to do with your claim that "logic must be enforced"...

BTW, in case you didn't know Thomas Jefferson was known to change his mind very frequently. As an example there were times that he spoke/wrote in favor of democracy, and at other times he spoke/wrote against democracy.

Each one of the forefathers had different ideas from the others, but what they agreed on is what funded the Constitution, and the foundation stone of this nation.

You cannot enforce logic, because logic CHANGES with time... i explained that well enough for anyone to understand it but obviously you just don't want to change your mind and you still want to "enforce your version of logic"...

BTW, in case you didn't know even our knowledge of math is ALWAYS evolving and changing, just like all branches of science are ALWAYS evolving... ONce a person, and much worse a world government, or what you want to call a world union wants to "enforce their version of logic" tjhey become close minded, as you are, to new discoveries since "their version of logic does not make sense of new discoveries"....

Logic should NEVER be enforced, plain and simple.

Originally posted by Annee


I am not putting down the original constitution. But its not enough. It may have been enough in the beginning with a population of 3,929,000 (probably not including Native Americans and Slaves) - - and room to grow.

It is not enough for today's population of 309,542,523. More control and organizations is needed.

....More control and more government is NOT needed...

This is one of the reason why I don't like Socialists, and those who claim to "just have some Socialist ideals"... They all want to steer a country like the United States in the direction of other Socialist dictatorships...

I was born in Cuba, a Socialist/Communist dictatorship whose regime is ALWAYS imposing their ideals on people, and they have gotten good at it since people are indoctrinated since childhood to believe the "Socialist ideals are the awnser to everything"....

The government of Cuba OWNS EVERYTHING, and meanwhile they do provide "basic shelter", and btw a house in very bad conditions is viewed as "basic shelter in such countries, they can move your family from the house that belonged to your ancestors, and which your grandfather, or father built with his own hands simply because a high ranking Communist wants it, or because you have one less family member than another family, hence the other family gets your house, and your family and you are moved into a smaller house... and of course this is done for "the good of the cause, of Socialism/Communism, and the good of the nation"....

To the Socialist maniacs this might sound like heaven, but obviously they have not experienced what this is like.

Just like the "Socialist/Communist" regime controls all property, one of the goals of Socialism/Communism is to ban private property, they also regulate food, and every "basic need". Of course people STILL have to pay for everything, as long as they have money. However, families and individuals are given a "libreta" (food book) that says what amount of food they can buy, and it is a meager amount, and that is IF there is any to be bought...

Socialist ideals go against individualism, and against all forms of spirituality because Socialist ideals put the whole before the individual, and FORCE individuals to give up their freedoms "for the good of the whole".

We, in the United States, do not need "MORE CONTROL", or "MORE GOVERNMENT"... what we need is for those who are in power to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to start working for the people like they are supposed to.

If you want more control, and more government I can set you up with my family members who are still living in Cuba to take you in for a time, of course you will have to pay them, so you can see what your desire for "more control, and more Socialist government" does to the people of such nations, and what it does to the nation itself...




[edit on 20-6-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

....More control and more government is NOT needed...

This is one of the reason why I don't like Socialists, and those who claim to "just have some Socialist ideals"... They all want to steer a country like the United States in the direction of other Socialist dictatorships...

Yes - more control and organization is needed.

Been through this with you before: Socialism is NOT Communism. And true Communism is not a dictatorship.

However - - I'm talking about a modern approach that is tweaked. Anything can be done right or wrong.

Difference Between Communism and Dictatorship

Communism vs Dictatorship

Communism and dictatorship are very different in all aspects, political as well as economic ideologies.

In communism, the society or the community is on top of everything. But in dictatorship, society or community is only secondary and it is the dictator who governs everything.

Communism regards the society or community as powerful. But in dictatorship, it is the dictator who is the most powerful. Dictatorship is a system in which a single person rules the nation. On the other hand, in communism the power is not vested in a single individual.

www.differencebetween.net...

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

Well that's already there via the freedom of information act.

And you can leave religion out if you want, but to ignore it in government construction is foolish and dangerous at best.

I am a major supporter of NO - ZERO - religion in government.

Government is about logic for all people. Government does not need to be in the "belief" department. NO ONE should be force governed by a god belief. Not even in Islam.

NO FORCED God belief. If people want to follow Islam and Islamic rule - - that is their choice. A world government would not allow it to be forced.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


some things never change, like 1+1 =2.

Does that change over time?

No. It does not. To say anything else is absolutely retarded on your behalf.

The math you speak of are ultra complex computations for physics. That takes research.

Just like that, there are certain simplicities of logic that never change. You're being retarded if you say anything else.

Also, Thomas Jefferson, like many of the founding fathers, were young men. They changed in one direction, they did no change back and forth. As do all young men. That is why they failed miserably for the first government and years later made a new one. The original confederate US lasted no more then 20 years.

they were young men.

But once older, they were wiser. And indeed, these ideas of their elder years were just better versions of what they had from a younger age.


This is called DEVELOPMENT. and it is all too often one way, towards better.


Likewise, when the child learns 2+2 = 4, it does not invalidate not make wrong 1+1= 2.


Please.

Stop being retarded.

Logic is absolute. That is why computers run on it. That is why morals suck unless they obey logic.

Now stop making a dumb case.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Annee


I'll actually go and say that Star Trek was about Earth being a communist-socialist wonderland.

And you know what that did for "the next generation"? It let the second generation of writers write about how flawed it was.


No government lasts for ever. And just as so, your socialist wonderland came tumbling down as well in Star Trek.

It's great when people have already wrote about and talked about the birth and death of what you so desire.



You cannot have the world you want. because it irrefutable leads to a perfect government with imperfect leaders, and in turn, those imperfect leaders making a more imperfect government.

The Republic lasts the longest, and therefore is the most stable.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

What I said has EVERYTHING to do with your claim that "logic must be enforced"...

You cannot enforce logic, because logic CHANGES with time... i explained that well enough for anyone to understand it but obviously you just don't want to change your mind and you still want to "enforce your version of logic"...

Huh? YOU explained what logic is?

You can't enforce Logic - because logic changes? That's very logical. Logic recognizes and adapts to change.

LOGIC: Logic is the study of reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activity, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science.

Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic falls in the area of epistemology, which asks: "How do we know what we know?" In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.

The study of logic was part of the classical trivium. Averroes defined logic as "the tool for distinguishing between the true and the false"; Richard Whately, '"the Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning"; and Frege, "the science of the most general laws of truth". The article Definitions of logic provides citations for these and other definitions.

Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples, the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second considers how parts can be combined to form a whole.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Annee


reply to post by Annee


That's not your choice. You can ban favoring any one religion from being enforced. This is good. You cannot ban religion from government, Inevitably, you will have people to challenge that. And to deny their freedoms, well there you go. You have begun the road to dictatorship

All forms of government are fascist, presuming to tell human people what they should or should not do, implement laws to control and enslave the individual.

A global government lead by USA under Obama will NOT be a good thing for the non Islamic world.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

I'll actually go and say that Star Trek was about Earth being a communist-socialist wonderland.

And you know what that did for "the next generation"? It let the second generation of writers write about how flawed it was.

Not sure where you get the Communist part of it.

But - - what happened with Star Trek is viewers wanted action.

Deep Space 9 - was designed to take place on a Space Station. That was actually to save money on sets. But viewers got bored - - they wanted fighting and action in space.

I seriously believe Gene was channeling. Star Trek lost its heart when they lost Gene.

Anyway - - yes there purposely were political under currents. But - Gene was only involved in the development of STNG.

Originally posted by teapot
All forms of government are fascist, presuming to tell human people what they should or should not do, implement laws to control and enslave the individual.

A global government lead by USA under Obama will NOT be a good thing for the non Islamic world.

Define enslave.

I don't view organized as controlling people's thoughts. Thoughts are Free.

I do see a population that is too large to run amok.

Are you inferring Obama is Islamic?

Originally posted by Gorman91

That's not your choice. You can ban favoring any one religion from being enforced. This is good. You cannot ban religion from government, Inevitably, you will have people to challenge that. And to deny their freedoms, well there you go. You have begun the road to dictatorship

Its not my choice? - - not to be governed by an imaginery "guy in the sky"?

Who said anything about denying freedom of thought or belief?

There is no dictatorship in demanding a God belief be by choice. If you believe it - - then you choose to put yourself under the laws of that belief.

NO FORCED GOD in Government. NO GOD of any kind in Government.

reply to post by Annee


people in government use their religion for influence and choice and actively say they rule by x religion. That is their right to, and the right of the people to elect that person.


So it is religion in government.

Any one of the founding fathers would tell you in 1776 that America was not a religious inspired nation. But then in 1790, any one of them would tell you it was.

You will not have religion forced upon you. But you will always have religion mixed with politics and government policy.

It's simply what people are.



Oh. And not everybody is gene Roddenberry. That is exactly the point. You only need look at star trek on why your government would fail in one or two generations.

Originally posted by Annee

Define enslave.

I don't view organized as controlling people's thoughts. Thoughts are Free.

I do see a population that is too large to run amok.

Are you inferring Obama is Islamic?

Enslavement through limiting choice through economic policy through thought control through hybrid education/marketing propaganda/media strategies through false market construct and hierarchy?

The size of the population is not the issue. The immature developmental stage of the species is the issue. The human psyche has not evolved a societal strata that can sustain the lack of leadership or direction.

Obama is an Islamic Kenyan. He is not a liberal democrat with socialist ideals, that is just the coat he wears.