Why does one global country appeal to you? - #73143264 added by rageisfunny at American Politics

Reply +4 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

A Question to all those that voted for OBAMA.
Would you have voted for him if he was found in the wrong in the Benghazi or the Fast and the furious scandals?
Did you think that having those celebrities and concerts at his rallies make him look like a better candidate?
Last one,
Since he backs a singular world government do you?

#14110 to #14083 - Patheos

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

1. No
2. No
3. Indifferent

#14084 to #14083 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

Wait, I'm republican and I support singular world government. Is that not our thing?

#14181 to #14084 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

"I support singular world government."
Tell me you're kidding.

#14196 to #14181 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Someone else said that as well. Looks like you didn't read the previous responses. Please do so.

#14199 to #14196 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

I've read said comments now, and Jebus Herbert Christ on a plastic cross, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're nothing short of delusional.

#14200 to #14199 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Meh. I don't think so. But to each his own.

#14201 to #14200 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

"But to each his own."
That's exactly what a global government will deny me.

#14202 to #14201 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Not the one I have in mind. It would have most of the same freedoms as America has now, and that includes Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression.

#14203 to #14202 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Everything short of universal self-determination will not do.
Maybe you're okay with living under a yoke, I'm not.

#14204 to #14203 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Universal self-determination? Why sugarcoat it? Just say anarchy. I won't judge you.

#14205 to #14204 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

That's not a sugarcoat, that's a synonym.
I'm not hiding anything and have never made a secret out of it; yeah, I'm an Anarchist and a radical one at that.

I dislike using the term though, as it instantly creates a wrong picture and prejudice of marauding punks and burning cities in people's minds.

#14206 to #14205 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

I would never presume that that's the universal agenda of all anarchists, because I know it's not. But it is a serious risk among certain individuals within the group, and for that reason, it's a little too dangerous for my taste.

#14207 to #14206 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Then stick to your self-imposed tyrants for a false sense of security but leave me out of it.

#14208 to #14207 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Tyrants? Where did you get the idea that I was advocating tyranny?

#14209 to #14208 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

What do you call it when people's lives are dominated by laws and rulers they have never agreed on, then?

#14210 to #14209 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Society. And that's not entirely true, because most laws are agreed upon. They're either common sense laws (like don't steal and don't kill) or they get voted on. My idea of a world government wouldn't be any more powerful than America's government is today.

#14211 to #14210 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Funny way of spelling tyranny. Or government, for that matter.
I did not vote to be ruled over. I did not agree to be liable to military service. I never agreed to paying taxes or what the state then does with the money that is rightfully mine and their disgusting pretense of "democracy" changes nothing about that.

I disagree. I do not want to be ruled. They do not have my consent.
They are tyrants held in place by nothing but their lies and violence.

#14212 to #14211 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Then I suggest you develop your survival skills, procure a boat, a kindly get the fuck out of my country.

#14213 to #14212 - techketzer

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

May I present a rebuttal?
Go fuck yourself with a cactus.

That's the first thing you have to learn; you hold no authority whatsoever over me or anyone else.

#14217 to #14213 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

It doesn't matter what country you live in because they all have at least some form of government. And you wouldn't be ale to survive without it. That's why humans developed it.

#14214 to #14213 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

I was not attempting to exercise any form of authority. I was merely making a suggestion. You would obviously be happier if you left, and we would be happier without you. It's a win-win.

#14216 to #14214 - techketzer

0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

First of all, chances are I'm not a resident of your national people-farm so the whole point is moot to begin with.

Second, no. I have the right to live in self-determination everywhere I damn well please, and I intend to make use of it.
I intend to make this world a bit better and less violent than it was before and that is not accomplished by running.

#14100 to #14084 - Ruspanic

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

The idea of the "New World Order" came from George H.W. Bush, but in general Republicans oppose strong government power.
That said, there are neoconservatives who support using military force to spread democracy and pursue American (non-security) interests abroad. These people tend to be Republicans.

#14101 to #14100 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

Ohhh. Well I don't support the use of heavy force, but I do sympathize, to some degree, with those who want all the world's countries to be united in one global super-nation. Seems like it would get rid of a lot of problems.

#14089 to #14084 - latinotornado

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

please tell me you're joking

#14098 to #14089 - anon id: 38b432b6

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

He's either trolling or just being satirical of the stereotype that Americans are a bunch of imperialists. Doubt he's serious.

#14102 to #14098 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

Semi-serious. As I said in reply to Ruspanic's comment, I don't advocate heavy force or fascism, but the idea of uniting all countries into one global country appeals to me. I don't believe world peace is a realistic goal, but that would at least be a step closer to it.

#14109 to #14102 - anon id: 763cba43

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

I don't like the idea of global government too much, but so long as there is no single person or group of people with very large amounts of power, then I can see it working without corruption so easily overtaking it. It would have to operate under some sort of democratic parliamentary form of government.

#14116 to #14109 - jokeface

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Oh I agree. Certainly not one person representing it. I don't even like having a president that much. I think Congress is enough by itself. The way I imagine a world government would be like having just that, but on a larger scale.

#14107 to #14102 - rageisfunny

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

Why does one global country appeal to you?

#14122 to #14107 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

I feel that as a species, we shouldn't be divided amongst ourselves. We're the most advanced race on the planet, and we use that quality to kill each other. I'm not saying that a world government would rid us of war and violence, because that's absurd. They would still exist but I just feel as though it would alleviate some of the enmity and competition between nations, as well as unite us in a common sense of nationalism.

#14144 to #14122 - rageisfunny

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

So for a general feeling of nationalism? Each country already has that to varying degrees. Also, it wouldn't work. I would guess that a majority of countries wouldn't want that as everyone would lose individualism. Also, imagine how powerful that government would be.

#14160 to #14144 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Not just general nationalism, common nationalism. The ability for everyone in the world to salute the same flag. Treat every other human being as a fellow citizen. And the idea is that everyone in the world would live under the same laws and policies, which would give people a better sense of equality. And the government would only have as much power as the average government has over its country currently. The only difference would be the number of governors and the area of its jurisdiction.

#14163 to #14160 - rageisfunny

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Yea maybe. What checks are their on the government? What type of government is it?

#14167 to #14163 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Like I said, it would be like Congress, but larger. No front man though. That's too dangerous. What do you mean by checks?

#14174 to #14167 - rageisfunny

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Checks on the government expanding their power. And so the government would only be Congress, with representatives in both houses from all nations?

#14197 to #14174 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Again, I don't think the government would need any more power than it already has. This is how I would do it: You go down the list of all the issues (healthcare, welfare, etc.) and find out which country is #1 for each respective issue. Then create a universal government that emulates all of those countries for those issues. Obviously some issues would be eliminated entirely, such as foreign policy, because it would all be the same nation. The military would still exist because we would need someone better than the police to help maintain peace when some people get violent. Not to mention we would need a defense in case our planet gets invaded by a hostile alien race. But overall, there would be no war except small disputes between locally-grown militias. Economic problems would be eased, and without war, the brightest minds from every country could collaborate on solving problems like disease and the energy crisis.

#14221 to #14197 - rageisfunny

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

Think how long it takes our Congress to decide things. It would take hundreds of times longer then that if everyone was represented in Congress. What is to stop the government from controlling every aspect of our lives? Currently, if a country does something horrible, like genocide, other countries usually call them out and levy sanctions against them. What if this one universal government decided that Cuba should no longer be populated, and killed everybody on the island.

#14249 to #14221 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/12/2012) [-]

Why would they feel the need to commit genocide when they could just relocate the to a different part of the world? The entire planet is one territory now.

#14256 to #14249 - rageisfunny

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/12/2012) [-]

Cause its easier and more cost effective to kill them. Still, length of deciding things put before Congress.

#14198 to #14197 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/11/2012) [-]

And as for the second part of your question, yes.

#14093 to #14089 - jokeface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

Well I live in America, so I'm kind of an imperialist. My wish is for the rest of the world to become part of America.

#14086 to #14084 - natedizzie

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/10/2012) [-]

I am neither republican nor democrat so I wouldn't no.