Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1  
Old 06-18-2011, 03:45 AM
astaalvista_b astaalvista_b is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-10-11
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Only one country at world?

What if there is only one country at world?

1) People do not need to make ware since there is only one country, to whom you are going to declare war?
2) People do not need to try to find ways to go to different countries in order to live in better conditions. Since we are going to be the citizen of the new "world" country, everyone can go whatever he/she likes?
3) Prices and salaries are less or much will be similar, there will be only one currency. China can not produce goods with people lower salaries, US can not borrow money from China-Japan.

Ideas?
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2  
Old 06-18-2011, 05:32 AM
rabble's Avatar
rabble rabble is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-24-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,868
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I actually much prefer the 'no country' scenario.
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-21-2011, 08:47 PM
Breeze Wood's Avatar
Breeze Wood Breeze Wood is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 04-06-11
Location: USA
Posts: 958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
One Gov't: United States of Earth - A Constitution, Federal Gov't and Sociopathic States Rights Activists.
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-22-2011, 05:09 AM
Dan Williamson Dan Williamson is offline
The Controversial Coder
 
Join Date: 05-01-06
Location: Manchester; UK
Posts: 2,710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
The problem with this ideology is that there would be wars deciding just who was the leader of this 'country'.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-22-2011, 05:17 AM
djpoint's Avatar
djpoint djpoint is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 05-13-11
Location: Asia
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
It'll be very boring to live then.

Tribes or sects/groups etc are always formed and wars will happen, even if not between countries but then among the people of that one country.
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-22-2011, 05:22 AM
serena85 serena85 is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 04-19-11
Posts: 1,118
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Human nature will never agree with this idea..............
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-22-2011, 12:41 PM
astaalvista_b astaalvista_b is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-10-11
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I checked the number of sovereign states through 1950s to 2010. Guess what it increased from 106 to 200. That's some how explains people are eager to form new countries.

Sovereign States
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-27-2011, 07:15 AM
g36's Avatar
g36 g36 is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-14-11
Posts: 83
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Even when there's one country, there'll be still wars. If you take a look at history, you'll find a lot of civil wars.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-27-2011, 07:59 AM
astaalvista_b astaalvista_b is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-10-11
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Ok I agree that there will be wars however people can not be prevented to travel from one state to another since there is only one citizenship. Visas are useless. I can go to U.S and Europe without a passport and visa. Moreover a worker who earns $100 a month at China, India will not work for that money anymore. He/She will go to the states which are more developed in which living standards are higher. Countries do need to pay huge amount of money for weapons, war etc. Only U.S. defense ministry budget is nearly 700$ billion dollars.(Ref Wiki
Currency exchanges are no more needed we all have same currency.
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-27-2011, 08:09 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,767
iTrader: 5 / 100%
If you want to end all wars, get rid of the select few people who like starting them.
Most of us just want to live our lives and be left alone.
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-27-2011, 09:24 AM
MyUserNameRocks MyUserNameRocks is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-17-11
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
If you want to end all wars, get rid of the select few people who like starting them.
Most of us just want to live our lives and be left alone.
And by doing so you've just declared war on a certain group of people that you disagree with politically, ideologically, etc. Therefore proving that wars are not started because of borders, they are started because of competing ideology.

There is an ideology like this that has been trying to change the world to have no war, no poverty, etc. for almost a century here in the US its called progressivism. The biggest problem with this ideology is that it always leads to more pain and suffering and has never truly accomplished it's goals in a meaningful way.

For instance, Margaret Sanger, an early 20th century US progressive, wanted to eradicate poverty. Her solution, institutionalize a culture of abortion among minority communities. In her own words..

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

There are countless other examples of early 20th century progressive "thinkers" who, in pursuit of a more perfect world, advocated the eradication of whole populations to create a racially pure world.

If you want other examples I will be happy to provide them, in their own words however, I feel this is sufficient to show the danger in such one world style ideology. It starts with the best of intentions and then becomes twisted until the ends justify the means.
 
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-27-2011, 05:18 PM
rabble's Avatar
rabble rabble is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-24-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,868
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyUserNameRocks View Post
And by doing so you've just declared war on a certain group of people that you disagree with politically, ideologically, etc. Therefore proving that wars are not started because of borders, they are started because of competing ideology.

There is an ideology like this that has been trying to change the world to have no war, no poverty, etc. for almost a century here in the US its called progressivism. The biggest problem with this ideology is that it always leads to more pain and suffering and has never truly accomplished it's goals in a meaningful way.

For instance, Margaret Sanger, an early 20th century US progressive, wanted to eradicate poverty. Her solution, institutionalize a culture of abortion among minority communities. In her own words..

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

There are countless other examples of early 20th century progressive "thinkers" who, in pursuit of a more perfect world, advocated the eradication of whole populations to create a racially pure world.

If you want other examples I will be happy to provide them, in their own words however, I feel this is sufficient to show the danger in such one world style ideology. It starts with the best of intentions and then becomes twisted until the ends justify the means.
for one who claims to be speaking the truth, I see only shameful allegations and no supporting references. As a person who fancies himself a progressive from time to time ... I insist you provide proof the progressive movement advocates for genocide. And please ... no Glenn Beck fantasy echo chamber references.

Last edited by rabble; 06-27-2011 at 05:23 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-27-2011, 05:55 PM
rabble's Avatar
rabble rabble is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-24-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,868
iTrader: 0 / 0%
You infer Ms Sanger is representative of the current progressive movement in America.
Your narrow focus on Ms Sanger, actually a principal early advocate for responsible family planning,
informs me you are most likely a pro-life conservative. (as though we aren't ALL 'pro-life') ...
That's perfectly OK though.

What I object to is you presenting yourself as a neutral commentator.
Nor did Ms Sanger ever advocate using the power of the state for eugenics purposes.
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-27-2011, 06:32 PM
MyUserNameRocks MyUserNameRocks is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-17-11
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabble View Post
You infer Ms Sanger is representative of the current progressive movement in America.
Your narrow focus on Ms Sanger, actually a principal early advocate for responsible family planning,
informs me you are most likely a pro-life conservative. (as though we aren't ALL 'pro-life') ...
That's perfectly OK though.

What I object to is you presenting yourself as a neutral commentator.
Nor did Ms Sanger ever advocate using the power of the state for eugenics purposes.
I'm having some family time right now so why don't you give me until tomorrow to reply. Trust me, I will reply.
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-28-2011, 04:49 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,767
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyUserNameRocks View Post
And by doing so you've just declared war on a certain group of people that you disagree with politically, ideologically, etc. Therefore proving that wars are not started because of borders, they are started because of competing ideology.
I've done nothing of the sort.
I'm saying, in very simple terms, that I'd rather sit down and have a beer with someone and discuss differences that way, rather than kill them for those differences.
Let the warmongers go to war and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Those who start the wars are never the ones actually fighting in them.
Change that, and we'll see how many wars are started.
If George Bush wants to start a war with Iraq, let him put his combat boots on and drop him off in the desert.
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-28-2011, 06:20 AM
rabble's Avatar
rabble rabble is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-24-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,868
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Those who start the wars are never the ones actually fighting in them.
I like to keep the 60s concept:
'What if they gave a war and nobody came?' in mind.
I was never in favor of abolishing the draft and I could
go into my reasons for that in the right thread. However;
I have noticed there is no absence of US Army volunteers now
our government(s) have tanked the economy.

Last edited by rabble; 06-28-2011 at 06:23 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-28-2011, 06:33 AM
MyUserNameRocks MyUserNameRocks is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-17-11
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabble View Post
for one who claims to be speaking the truth, I see only shameful allegations and no supporting references. As a person who fancies himself a progressive from time to time ... I insist you provide proof the progressive movement advocates for genocide. And please ... no Glenn Beck fantasy echo chamber references.
All the quotes of Sanger have references.

As promised, in their own words...

George Bernard Shaw, “ I don’t want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people who I might want to kill…I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every 5 years or every 7 years…just put them there and say , ‘Sir or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existence…if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little bit more then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."

Shaw wrote, “ I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short- a gentlemanly gas deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel.”

I suggest you rent or buy a copy of a documentary called Maafa21. It outlines beautifully, using their own words, how early 20th century progressives advocated openly for the eradication of the black race. Planned Parenthood was designed to do this (along with all others who were to be considered feeble minded).

Now all you have to consider is how these people tried desperately to soak up unlimited government power. Unlimited power in the hands of people like this is exactly what led to the holocaust.
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-28-2011, 06:54 AM
MyUserNameRocks MyUserNameRocks is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-17-11
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabble View Post
You infer Ms Sanger is representative of the current progressive movement in America.
Your narrow focus on Ms Sanger, actually a principal early advocate for responsible family planning,
informs me you are most likely a pro-life conservative. (as though we aren't ALL 'pro-life') ...
That's perfectly OK though.

What I object to is you presenting yourself as a neutral commentator.
Nor did Ms Sanger ever advocate using the power of the state for eugenics purposes.
[YT]0Av6D6Cs8SY[/YT]

Listen to her reasoning. It's like saying I hate what Hitler did but I admire him immensely.

Not just Hillary though, Nancy Pelosi is in on the act as well.

[YT]3ZQ8n_2w2Ko[/YT]

Also, Sanger may not have openly called for the state to provide all the services she advocated but she certainly aligned herself with the eugenics movement which believed in state control of populations.
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-28-2011, 06:58 AM
MyUserNameRocks MyUserNameRocks is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-17-11
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
I've done nothing of the sort.
I'm saying, in very simple terms, that I'd rather sit down and have a beer with someone and discuss differences that way, rather than kill them for those differences.
Let the warmongers go to war and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Those who start the wars are never the ones actually fighting in them.
Change that, and we'll see how many wars are started.
If George Bush wants to start a war with Iraq, let him put his combat boots on and drop him off in the desert.
Quote:
get rid of the select few people who like starting them.
How do you get rid of someone by ignoring them? I was basing my statement on what you actually said, not what you think I should infer from it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-28-2011, 08:28 AM
rabble's Avatar
rabble rabble is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-24-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,868
iTrader: 0 / 0%
While I am going to quote you, I will not be including the videos.
This means I will also have to edit out a couple of pronouns in your quotes.
It is not to offend, but to give clarity to what I am responding to.
I ask you forbearance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyUserNameRocks View Post
Listen to Hillary's reasoning.
It's like saying, 'I hate what Hitler did but I admire him immensely.'
The above simile does not pass the 'straight face test'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyUserNameRocks View Post
Not just Hillary though,
Nancy Pelosi is in on the act as well.
Admitting a fact does not place Nancy Pelosi 'in on the act',
especially since you have not revealed what the act is she and Hillary are 'in on'.
You are using code words designed to illicit nodding agreement
from the morally dumbfounded.

What is Nancy Pelosi to say?
That contraception provided to poor families won't reduce future
costs in welfare? What would she be then? A liar?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyUserNameRocks View Post
Also, Sanger may not have openly called for the state to provide all the services she advocated
You admit you falsified the earlier fact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyUserNameRocks View Post
but she certainly aligned herself with the eugenics movement which believed in state control of populations.
and then you follow it up with another unreferenced and thus unsubstantiated allegation?

We do stray from the topic of one world but not so far we can not
see your primary objection to it. You would wonder and worry if the
one world which prevails would live up to your traditional values.

Oddly, I share your concern. That's why I prefer the no country model.
Just free people free to be themselves.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III Franc Tireur Controversial Social Issues 12 11-11-2009 10:07 AM
USA - Third World Country..... Inbound Controversial Social Issues 22 03-29-2009 06:20 PM
New World Order One World Government how close??? intruth Controversial Social Issues 20 10-04-2008 07:25 PM
third-world countries - a shame and disaster for the whole world Bonnie24 Forum Lobby 6 03-28-2008 04:52 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC