one world government is here (updated with link)

[treeschanna510]

i was reading in article in the washington post saying that the government is coming up with a contract basically that we're gonna become a one world government get ready folks

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... rld-order/

[Canuckster1127]

Do you have a link to the article in question?

[treeschanna510]

America, if you believe this country is great but you're not really into that whole One World Government thing, watch out," Fox News Channel's Beck warned a couple of weeks ago. His guest, Lord Christopher Monckton of Britain, told Beck that "at Copenhagen, a treaty will be signed that will, for the first time, create a world government with powers to intervene directly in the economy and in the environmental affairs of individual nations." Earlier on Fox News, **** Morris informed Hannity that President Obama "believes in One World Government." And author Jerome Corsi went on Hannity's show to warn about a One World Government in which "our sovereignty would be subject to the dictates" of the United Nations and other international organizations.

The One World Government was on open display at the Capitol on Tuesday, as international U.N. staffers waited outside the room where Ban spoke to the senators. The secretary general had come with his own world government (armed?) security detail, who stood alongside the Capitol police.

Ban, wearing a gold U.N. lapel pin, unfolded his speech. "Less than a month from now, the leaders of the world will gather in Copenhagen," he said. "They must conclude a robust global agreement," that is "comprehensive, binding, equitable and fair."

Speaking softly but firmly, the South Korean cautioned the Americans that "the world is not standing still," and that "all the eyes of the world are looking to the United States."

After a few minutes, Kerry cut off questioning. "Folks, the secretary general has to get to the airport."

Ban needed to catch the U.S. Airways shuttle to New York. The One World Government Air Force isn't what it's cracked up to be.

thats a direct quote fromminnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/20 ... nough.html

[Canuckster1127]

I don't see the original Washington Post article you referenced. Did you mean the Washington Times?

Further, an op-ed piece from a political activism page which quotes other journalists is not particularly convincing.

I'd think one world government arriving would merit a little more coverage.

[treeschanna510]

yeah i meant the washington times but the thing is it wasnt just those two foxnews.com covered it,wallstreetjournal ,jack van impe and regardless of how "unconvinced " this guy read the whole contract and he said one world government was mentioned over 200 times if you dont like it,dont live in america

If Mr. Obama signs the Copenhagen treaty, he "will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever," Mr. Monckton recently told an audience in Minnesota. "I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created."

this was also in foxnews.com

[Canuckster1127]

yeah i meant the washington times but the thing is it wasnt just those two foxnews.com covered it,wallstreetjournal ,jack van impe and regardless of how "unconvinced " this guy read the whole contract and he said one world government was mentioned over 200 times if you dont like it,dont live in america

OK, thanks for the clarification.

What if I don't like it and still want to live in America? Or what if I think there's some gross oversimplification and hyperbole and while I might have some concerns over the issue, I'm not prepared to see it as cut and dried and take Mr. Monkton or Fox News opinion as my authority? Would that be OK or is that not one of my choices?

[Proinsias]

If it's a one world government then what does it matter where one lives? Leaving America to give live elsewhere under the same government would seem rather pointless.

[Zebulon]

Hummmmmm.

Zebulon

[treeschanna510]

OK, thanks for the clarification.

What if I don't like it and still want to live in America? Or what if I think there's some gross oversimplification and hyperbole and while I might have some concerns over the issue, I'm not prepared to see it as cut and dried and take Mr. Monkton or Fox News opinion as my authority? Would that be OK or is that not one of my choices?

well first of all wether you like it or not this is going to be the outcome mainly ecause we're already on our way to a one world currency which will eventually lead us to a one world economy just because youre not ready for a one world government wont stop it from happening none of us want it to happen but the fact is it will have to eventually and apparently eventually has come not only that but its not an opinion theres lots of things america is doing now to lead us to one world government obama has proven he DOES want a one world government and if given the opprotunity thats what he will sign for this is an actual treaty called the Copenhagen treaty and Mr.monkcton read over it over 10 times and hes telling you exactly what it said youre just denouncing it because either a) youre not ready or b) you refuse to accept reality because im open minded to the point where if its not a universal fact i wont post it but this has merited alot of attention from different news stations mr.monkton and fox were only examples this is one of the things that has been hidden from americans and the funny thing is your ideology is the same one that got prayer taken out of schools people refused to accept that it would happen so they tuned it out and denounced it as fact so what happend it left

[Canuckster1127]

So again ... there's only two choices there in your point of view as to why someone might question the validity of the information you're providing or (gasp)question the conclusion you're drawing from it.

That's a common logical error but I suspect my input on those matters will be as unwelcome as my earlier comments.

Blessings to you, and I'll withdraw from the conversation and allow you to continue with others who may be more like minded or more interested in the material.

blessings,

bart

[treeschanna510]

well, i think your just trying to deny reality because you dont want it to happen and you havent shown any evidence saying that we arent turning into a one world government

[Canuckster1127]

well, i think your just trying to deny reality because you dont want it to happen and you havent shown any evidence saying that we arent turning into a one world government

1. You have no idea what I am trying to do or not do, only your own perceptions and opinions. Nor do you know the point of view from which I come from politically or eschatologically.

2. It is impossible to show evidence to prove a negative. The onus is upon you to demonstrate your point, which you've failed to do.

All you've done to this point is:

1. Claim a quote from a source that you couldn't produce and then subsequently corrected.

2. Made a claim on the basis of authority for a person whose credentials you've not produced whose claim is the reading of a treaty which you could read for yourself or link to and haven't.

3. Backed up your claim by giving a quote from The Washington Times, which is a reputable newspaper but also noted for it's ideological slant (which the Washington Post is as well although from a different slant.) It would have been pretty significant in my mind if the WP had made such an assertion because it would have been from a source that is typically more liberal than conservative, but then we've since clarified that you claimed the wrong source, which is fine, as you corrected it and I'm sure it was an honest mistake, all we have is a news source piece from October, which if it were true should be very easy to come up with much more material since then and hopefully from sources which are less ideologically driven.

4. Provided a link to a political website which comes from a particular point of view which aligns with the Washington Times in general and with several commentators on Fox News who are noted advocacy journalists and not traditional journalist in the sense that they attempt to come at things from at least an attempt to be objective in their reporting.

It's sad to me that there's not greater awareness in terms of what is traditional journalism and what is advocacy journalism. The lack of discernment in that arena coupled with a general lack of the ability to think critically and analyze information and sources is one of the primary contributors to the effectiveness of propaganda whether the source is the government (which is horrendous when it happens) or political parties or ideologies attempting to salt society with their particular slant on reality (which is par for the course, but when society confuses it with reality, then democracy ceases to function all that effectively.)

I've been reading and hearing stories and claims like this since I grew up in the Hal Lindsay era where Biblical prophecy was tied to this type of political analysis and whenever the political landscape changed, so too, did the interpretation of what scripture now meant when applied to the latest fad in prophetic interpretation.

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest we be cynical about everything that comes down the pike in this regard, but a healthy dose of skepticism is certainly called for in my opinion.

blessings,

bart

[treeschanna510]

ok first of all youre whining about how i could read the treaty myself right?? since you wanna act smart i dont understand why YOU dont read it because the fact is you could be wrong and this has gotten a lot more coverage than just the two source ive only named two because i wanted to leave room for people to respond not only that but ihave thought critically about this and analyzed it and it is a credible source because obama has shown signs he wants a one world government not only that but since you cant bring up proof about why we arent turning into a one world government and why the events that could lead to a one world government should be avoided my point is stronger than yours we're already on our way to one world currency we pretty much have a one world religion

the only reason you want to deny the existance of a one world government is because you dont want it to exist when someone doesnt want something to be true they will deny it up and down regardless as to the reality of the situation this is the same ideology that atheists have they refuse to accept that god exists because it means that they would have to change their entire life style and it means that they would be wrong about life's purpose and that they would be mentally skewed so they deny the existance of god because they just dont want him to exist. the fact is this is the last generation and the one world government is going to happen either now or later and knowing obama not much later

for every truth and fact there will always be someone there who denies it regardless as tot he amount of proof in front of them the fact that you couldnt come up with sources saying theres no one world government says that youre just skeptical based on your opinion because youre so used to the claim that youre not used to it being true

[Canuckster1127]

ok first of all youre whining about how i could read the treaty myself right??

Whining? You're the one claiming that a one world government is here. It's your job to prove your point. I've simply pointed out some very elementary flaws in your reasoning and I've attempted to do so politely and by addressing your points and sources, not you personally.

since you wanna act smart

I'm sorry. Apparently, you've taken offense at my disagreeing with your assertion and pointing out where I believe your reasoning is flawed. I have no desire to "act smart". I've simply addressed your post and pointed out what I believe to be inconsistencies in the sources and the logic.

i dont understand why YOU dont read it because the fact is you could be wrong and this has gotten a lot more coverage than just the two source ive only named two because i wanted to leave room for people to respond not only that but ihave thought critically about this and analyzed it and it is a credible source

It's not my job to do your research and groundwork. You're the one seeking to make a point. You're the one who is responsible to do your research.

because obama has shown signs he wants a one world government not only that but since you cant bring up proof about why we arent turning into a one world government

What signs might those be? Please be specific. I'm not an Obama supporter, but I'm not inclined to attribute a position to him simply on the hearsay of one person, or even a chorus of voices who coordinate their claims based on their shared political ideology. It's not an effective way to approach things, regardless of where you fall in the political spectrum.

and why the events that could lead to a one world government should be avoided

I'm in favor of avoiding scoliosis, psoriasis and chapped lips as well. I'll concede these points without argument. Now all you have left to do is demonstrate your point, which again, is your responsibility, not the responsibility of those who challenge your assertions.

my point is stronger than yours

Don't tell me then. Show me.

we're already on our way to one world currency

Are we? You've said so several times. We're certainly seeing regional consolidation in terms of the Euro and certain currencies dominating the world economy, but that hardly equates to one world currency, although I'll concede that would appear a possibility at some point in the future. It's hardly a foregone conclusion however.

we pretty much have a one world religion

We do? What might that be?

the only reason you want to deny the existance of a one world government is because you dont want it to exist when someone doesnt want something to be true they will deny it up and down regardless as to the reality of the situation

Well, now we're making some progress apparently. Before there were two possibilities and now you've narrowed it down to just one. So, in this scenario, the only options would be to agree completely with you or by definition then, disagreeing with you or asserting that you've failed to demonstrate your claims would then always mean that someone was in denial. That makes things pretty cut and dry for you then, doesn't it?

this is the same ideology that atheists have they refuse to accept that god exists because it means that they would have to change their entire life style and it means that they would be wrong about life's purpose and that they would be mentally skewed so they deny the existance of god because they just dont want him to exist.

That's probably true of some athiests. It's not necessarily true of all atheists. It's not applicable in my situation as I am not an atheist so assuming you weren't making that assertion (which I don't believe you were) then this must be an analogy of some sort. Is disagreeing with you then, the equivilent of thinking like an atheist?

the fact is this is the last generation and the one world government is going to happen either now or later and knowing obama not much later

Really? That is a fact is it? Maybe you could do a better job of demonstrating your claims given that this is so cut and dried. Is that asking too much?

for every truth and fact there will always be someone there who denies it regardless as tot he amount of proof in front of them

And I presume then that I am that collective "someone"? This is really rather convenient for you then isn't it? By making this assertion you've created a scenario in which you only have to assert something as true and then throw whatever you wish out as proof and if you're challenged on it you can claim the other person is in denial, that no amount of proof will suffice and so, you're relieved of any further responsibility to support your assertion. Do you see anything potentially wrong with that framework?

the fact that you couldnt come up with sources saying theres no one world government says that youre just skeptical based on your opinion because youre so used to the claim that youre not used to it being true

Again, it's your job to prove your point, but let's look at this again, you want evidence that there is no one world government?

How about a world map? Last I looked there were 192 countries in the United Nations and 195 countries in the world. Here's a source for that.

http://geography.about.com/cs/countries ... ntries.htm

Now again, the person who makes an assertion such as this, is the person who is responsible to prove their point. All I have to do is point out where you've failed to prove your point, and in this instance, unless you which to challenge it, you're welcome to examine the evidence that there are currently (as of July 31, 2009 anyway) 195 countries in the world and by definition, a country has it's own independent form of governance, so all indications would indicate that your claim is not true.

If you wish to clarify what you actually mean please feel free.

Perhaps you could do so by dealing with the issues you raise and not me personally, even though I've had the affrontary, apparently to disagree with you.

blessings,

bart

[treeschanna510]

Whining? You're the one claiming that a one world government is here. It's your job to prove your point. I've simply pointed out some very elementary flaws in your reasoning and I've attempted to do so politely and by addressing your points and sources, not you personally.

and i have if you clicked the links to the articles you would know that

I'm sorry. Apparently, you've taken offense at my disagreeing with your assertion and pointing out where I believe your reasoning is flawed. I have no desire to "act smart". I've simply addressed your post and pointed out what I believe to be inconsistencies in the sources and the logic.

the thing is,there are no inconsistancies mainly because like ive said before the road we're going down is headed straight towards a one world government for example one world currency
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75856
http://www.futureworldcurrency.com/


i didnt mean all 195 nations would become a one world government i meant the 10 powers that the bible was talking about in revalations and those are the ones that they have on the new world currency

It's not my job to do your research and groundwork. You're the one seeking to make a point. You're the one who is responsible to do your research.

not if youre trying to say im wrong in which case you need evidence saying that im wrong its not my job to work on your negative evidence

What signs might those be? Please be specific. I'm not an Obama supporter, but I'm not inclined to attribute a position to him simply on the hearsay of one person, or even a chorus of voices who coordinate their claims based on their shared political ideology. It's not an effective way to approach things, regardless of where you fall in the political spectrum.

http://wallstreetmarketnews.blogspot.co ... lobal.html

and in those obama said it himself

We do? What might that be?

http://www.vimeo.com/groups/churchsermo ... os/7857639

That's probably true of some athiests. It's not necessarily true of all atheists. It's not applicable in my situation as I am not an atheist so assuming you weren't making that assertion (which I don't believe you were) then this must be an analogy of some sort. Is disagreeing with you then, the equivilent of thinking like an atheist?

i never said you were an athiest i was just using an example but you seem to have the same kind of ideology

And I presume then that I am that collective "someone"? This is really rather convenient for you then isn't it? By making this assertion you've created a scenario in which you only have to assert something as true and then throw whatever you wish out as proof and if you're challenged on it you can claim the other person is in denial, that no amount of proof will suffice and so, you're relieved of any further responsibility to support your assertion. Do you see anything potentially wrong with that framework?

no actually its not a tactis you said yourself that you refuse to accept whats happening in front of you as reality

I'm not prepared to see it as cut and dried and take Mr. Monkton or Fox News opinion as my authority? Would that be OK or is that not one of my choices?

its through that comment that you revealed yourself as not wanting to face the truth im simply saying bible prohpecy is happening right now and i think that you refuse to accept the fact that it is

Now again, the person who makes an assertion such as this, is the person who is responsible to prove their point. All I have to do is point out where you've failed to prove your point, and in this instance, unless you which to challenge it, you're welcome to examine the evidence that there are currently (as of July 31, 2009 anyway) 195 countries in the world and by definition, a country has it's own independent form of governance, so all indications would indicate that your claim is not true.

well i know what my bible says which is: that there will soon be a one world government and if you choose to believe every part of your bible except Revelations fine go ahead but just know that youre going to be shocked at how we're in the midst of creating a one world government, one world currency and one world religion