One Nation Earth

Yes, much better.

Nipok

Don't you think that civilizational and cultural differences, even conflicts (I don't mean war) are indispensable to the development of humanity?
And why mix god in your imperial nation (because what you pictured is an imperium)?

You can have a world government that provides equality, rights, justice, and a guaranteed median quality of life without sacrificing cultural diversity. Humanity may have evolved into what we are because of conflict but that does not mean we would not evolved into a more harmonious species if the conflicts were minimal. The environment we create for our great grandchildren will in my eyes dictate the survival of our species. Call me a pessimist or a realist but 100 years from now I think we risk passing the point of no return. After that I think the separation of the classes and the depletion of resources will create a chasm that will be to wide to be repaired until we are marred by major changes that will set us back centuries.

If you look at my previous post this was immediately followed by god or no god does not matter. I also was thinking of bringing it up when I agreed that one world sounded better than one nation but I was in a rush.

One world, one nation, one species (possibly under an infinite collection of self-aware energy possibly not) indivisible and united for peace, harmony, liberty, justice, equality, and a decent cup of coffee.

How's that, is that OK.

a seemingly altruistic, but misguided attitude; there is no way to justify supporting the current dishonest, corrupt, in fact, morally bankrupt regime, obviously bent on power mongering, at the expense of the American people, regardless of the national need for cohesion.

Is it necessary to stand outside the 'scene of the crime', to see it?

[the rest of the world is waiting breathlessly; if he wins Kerry will become a 'world hero', overnight!]

We have evolved the way we have because of our biological origins, as our propensity for violence and conflict are born of the demands of 'survival'.

this creates two things:

our decadent history of unspeakable acts of demonic depravity, where the competition seems to be who can do the most damage to humanity, in the least amount of time?

and a chance to rise out of these ashes, tear out the chains of savagery binding our visceral impulses to a competitive lust for 'power', and forge a world of hope, where while sharing the resources of this planet fairly, we can turn our attention to the 'real', not imagined, challenges of the universe!

BGW... there is no link between savagery and "competitive lust for 'power'". Ignorance coupled with violent intolerance fuels savagery. As for the "the challenges of the universe, You must think we're pretty significant, eh?

Go on believing that if it makes you feel good... but Chirac laughed out loud when asked about Kerry's "new credibility with our friends in Europe" nonsense. Then he made clear the French were not changing their position regardless of who's elected. (He had the perfect opportunity to pump the Kerry campaign... and didn't… not even with something vague. )

But why don't we leave the politics for the political forum...

about as significant as a grain of sand on Mars; but then, that's the 'challenge', eh!



quite so! :wink:

"no way to justify supporting the current dishonest, corrupt, in fact, morally bankrupt regime"

I'm sure that you believe the current administration is "dishonest, corrupt, and morally bankrupt", but something on the order of half of the electorate holds a different opinion. There are, of course, dishonest, corrupt and morally (whatever that means) questionable people involved in every political grouping on the planet. Does that mean that you would never support any of them? Surely, you don't believe that Kerry and all of those who would serve in his administration would be totally honest in all things, beyond corruption (which may mean unable/unwilling to make compromise), and of unimpeachable moral rectitude?

Presidents Hoover (R) and Carter (D), were both men of very high integrity who were forthright, honest to the bone, and with the highest moral reputations. One was unable to effectively deal with the Great Depression and Dust bowl. During the time when the world was speeding toward World War II, American remained unarmed and unprepared as Hitler rose to power, Italy invaded Ethiopia, and Japan spread its tenacles across the Asian landscape. President Hoover was a good man, but probably was a worse President than George Bush, who has responded to the crisis we face.

President Carter certainly deserves the Nobel Prize, one could ask for no better neighbor, but as a President he was a disaster in the opinion of many. He muddled through foreign affairs leaving the nation in chaos, and with less credibility than he found it. Faced with hostages in Iran, he wrung his hands and nothing effective was accomplished. He told the world well in advance that he wouldn't run for re-election (which he probably couldn't have won anyway), and so the nation struggled along with a lame-duck President while the world waited for someone to take the helm. The nation's military during his administration couldn't seem to get anything right, and the Soviet Union got a reprieve. The economy during the Carter administration was in terrible shape. The tax burden was crushing, inflation was out of control, and business productivity way down. President Carter is a wonderful man, but I, and many other Americans, would rather have either Bush than Carter sitting in the White House.

Those of you who believe that the present administration should be replaced have your opportunity in a few short weeks. If Kerry is elected, I don't believe he will be able to change much, but our enemies will certainly try to convince him to surrender Southwest Asia to the radical Islamic movement. I don't believe that Kerry would pull American forces out of Iraq or Afghanistan, even if the violence continued to escalate. Whatever the President's (Kerry, or Bush) decision it is his alone to make, that's why we elect Presidents and it is in accord with the Constitution.

I know it sounds maudlin, but the Constitution and our representative form of government is worth defending and dying for. It is shocking to me that so many seem to be willing to accept the blessings of our system only so long as it is in accord with their personal opinion. If we do not support the national leaders we ourselves elect, then what is the point? If your candidate isn't elected and you refuse to support those elected, then what do you propose? The South tried to leave the Union when, and because, Lincoln was elected. Do you want to retry that bloody experiment? Our enemies would like nothing better than to see significant numbers of Americans obstructing national policies intended to protect and defend us.

One world government might be great if it was Libertarian and would disolve instantly at the first hint of socialism, facism, or other government in our face. Very improbable. What do you think becomes of letters and Email citizens send to the WTO, CFR, GATT, NAFTA, World Court, NATO, United Nations etc? Neil