Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
First I want to point out that this is pie in the sky, and in reality it will never happen. At least, not without some extremely significant event - a catastrophic global catastrophy or aliens landing on earth.

That being said I kind of like the idea, even if it's completely unrealistic. When it comes right down to it every country's borders ar ...[text shortened]... is all pie in the sky. But who knows what will happen between now and the next 1000 years.

Star Trek is an interesting example which you raise. Money had been done away with apparently and there was no more hunger on earth.

However there was still a military ruling power (the federation) that had possessed all the kick-ass weapons and therefore made all the decisions. There was also the small problem of the Klingons and other aggressive species who were not interested in sharing their dilitheum crystals with everyone else and so had to be "corrected" by the Federation who confiscated them!

So, a single government is merely a matter of perspective.

Originally posted by whodey
Paranoia? How is the progressive movement not moving towards collectivism? Of course, you could argue that very few or perhaps none of them have the goal of a one world government. However, that does not mean that they may not be unwittingly setting the stage for such an occurance.

A movement that does not exist can not move towards anything.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I figure I can stand ouside of town and holler "Wolverines" with the best of them.🙂

We are all counting on you then. 😛

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A movement that does not exist can not move towards anything.

A movement that does not exist? Now thats rich.

Just on the outside chance you are being serious, here is a synopsis.

http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Enjoy!!

Originally posted by whodey
A movement that does not exist? Now thats rich.

Just on the outside chance you are being serious, here is a synopsis.

http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Enjoy!!

"Progressive" parties are not united. There may be no left wing party in the US, but most European countries have several. For example, in Germany you have the Green Party, the Social Democrat Party and the Left Party. In Holland you have the Labour Party, the Socialist Party, Green Left, Democrats 66 (social liberals) and the Party for the Animals (yes, not kidding). If they are not even united within single countries, how can you argue that they are united all over the world?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
First I want to point out that this is pie in the sky, and in reality it will never happen. At least, not without some extremely significant event - a catastrophic global catastrophy or aliens landing on earth.

That being said I kind of like the idea, even if it's completely unrealistic. When it comes right down to it every country's borders ar ...[text shortened]... is all pie in the sky. But who knows what will happen between now and the next 1000 years.

I don't know.

I like my country and Im not prepared to give it up for some global superstate.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think your paranoia is spiraling out of control.

its getting out of control.

and now it isn't only whodey, there are other paranoid loons siding with him.

Originally posted by whodey
It is the dream of the progressive movement to have some sort of one world order.

That right there is one hell of a reach to make. On individual progressive issue, be it taxation, healthcare, social liberties, etc. why can't you just take each each issue based on merit? Why does there have to be some underlying, secret world domination agenda?

I'm sorry, but your post did sound quite paranoid. I didn't look at your country of origin, but if you're referring US politics the left (and) the right are both collectivist by nature. So according to you both should be suspect for trying to implement a world order.

Originally posted by joe beyser
The idea itself has a lot of merit. Wars, and hunger need to go away. Humans are smarter than how we have been conducting ourselves. If there is any truth to this article, then I want no part of it though.

http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

How will wars go away? There are numerous civil wars going on at any given time. They're not fighting another nation. Some are drug wars, while others are for the sole purpose of wiping out an ethnic or cultural group.

What if the one world order is run under Sharia laws? No thanks.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
"Progressive" parties are not united. There may be no left wing party in the US, but most European countries have several. For example, in Germany you have the Green Party, the Social Democrat Party and the Left Party. In Holland you have the Labour Party, the Socialist Party, Green Left, Democrats 66 (social liberals) and the Party for the Animals (yes ...[text shortened]... ven united within single countries, how can you argue that they are united all over the world?

Well its pretty simple, you can be working toward similar goals without actually being united. In short, it is a statist mentatlity to which I am referring. More and more and more power given to the state to solve our problems. In the end, however, we still have our problems only we have less freedom that has been surrendered to the state.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
How will wars go away? There are numerous civil wars going on at any given time. They're not fighting another nation. Some are drug wars, while others are for the sole purpose of wiping out an ethnic or cultural group.

What if the one world order is run under Sharia laws? No thanks.

There are not civil wars in every country, so I fail to get your point.

Originally posted by pawnhandler

What if the one world order is run under Sharia laws? No thanks.[/b]

There are those working towards that don't you know? I would define them as statists as well.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
How will wars go away? There are numerous civil wars going on at any given time. They're not fighting another nation. Some are drug wars, while others are for the sole purpose of wiping out an ethnic or cultural group.

What if the one world order is run under Sharia laws? No thanks.

I mentioned it as it is one of the goals claimed by the UN. People willing to kill other people to take things, for religion, or political ideology will be hard to stop. It is a hollow promise by the NWO propagandists to get folks onboard with the plan. The same organization that installed the UN mind you, brought about much of the wars in the last century. That is why I don't go along with it.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I mentioned it as it is one of the goals claimed by the UN. People willing to kill other people to take things, for religion, or political ideology will be hard to stop. It is a hollow promise by the NWO propagandists to get folks onboard with the plan. The same organization that installed the UN mind you, brought about much of the wars in the last century. That is why I don't go along with it.

The term hollow promise is what is key here. It is like Obama saying that health care will not raise the national deficit over the next 10 years or that unemployment will not break 8% or that his stimulus package will create over half a million jobs. Once we take the bait and believe those promises no one cares when they never come to pass. All we are left with are statist powers over us that will never be removed and broken promises that will never come to pass.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I mentioned it as it is one of the goals claimed by the UN. People willing to kill other people to take things, for religion, or political ideology will be hard to stop. It is a hollow promise by the NWO propagandists to get folks onboard with the plan. The same organization that installed the UN mind you, brought about much of the wars in the last century. That is why I don't go along with it.

The main goal of the UN is to promote worldwide peace and stability by providing a platform for diplomatic negotiations between the most important heads of state. The UN has no possible way or seizing worldwide power, since it relies on its member states to supply peacekeeping forces.