Absolutely Nothing To Do With Barack Obama Taking Over The World

[monkey0506]

DISCLAIMER: This is NOT a religious debate. Do not turn this into a religious debate or you will be slapped with not just one, but two, count 'em, two moist trout! You have been warned.

I've only recently discovered the "OMG BIRAQ HUSSEIN OSAMA BIN LADEN IS THE ANTICHRIST WTF" craze, but it does make me think. I'd really rather this not transform into a religious debate despite its obvious religious theme. The reason I'm starting the thread however is something that I feel non-religious, and even anti-religious, types can relate to.

Barack Obama has risen to fame and power quite quickly, and even the news media has pointed out his "cult-like following". Despite the wishes of many who are convinced that Obama is in fact the foretold Antichrist, it seems Obama will likely win the 2008 presidential campaign. Should Obama gain the presidency it is the fears of these people that he will not stop there, he will continue rising in power until he is the ruler of the entire world.

Regardless of whether this is Obama's agenda it does present an interesting point. If past history tells us anything we can see that when someone with "evil intent" is placed in power, simple civil rebellion is not generally enough to regain power. More often than not we find it takes allies in a position of power to overthrow the "evil force". So what then if the world was united under one single world government? What if this "unified government" was in fact eeeeeevvvvviiillll?

I don't know enough of the facts to honestly have an opinion specifically regarding Obama. I doubt I would vote for him as president, but that's strictly because of my devotion to Stephen Colbert...

I definitely have an opinion about a single world government however, and my opinion is that it is not just a bad idea, but a terrible one. If the entire world were "unified" under a single government, a single "world order" I doubt it would bring "peace, justice, and freedom" to everyone. The major problem is the fact that in this imperfect world a Utopian society simply cannot exist. There will always be problems. There will always be conflict. And if past history serves us we really must recognize that power is and always will be the major point of conflict.

A good example I think can be seen in George Orwell's "Animal Farm". A single world government wouldn't inherently mean a socialistic one, though I think it does provide a basis for understanding how quickly and easily power can be corrupted when placed in the wrong hands.

So...discuss?

DISCLAIMER: This is NOT a religious debate. Do not turn this into a religious debate or you will be slapped with not just one, but two, count 'em, two moist trout! You have been warned.

[Ponch]

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Personally, I don't think a singular world government will come to be in my lifetime or at any point in the next few centuries. However, I agree with you that it would probably be a terrible idea, though a well-intentioned one. I have absolutely no faith in humanity to create something like the Federation from Star Trek without it turning into the evil empire from Star Wars.

Still, to be one the safe side, I go to sleep every night with my head wrapped in tinfoil. And, of course, a towel under my pillow... just in case the apocalypse sneaks up on my while I'm asleep.

- Ponch

[miguel]

Some European people have the impression that the USA presidents are just the face and the front of some powerful groups. The general idea is that there is no difference between candidate A or B.
So, as a European guy I answer with a question, how powerful is a American president and what is the senate's part in the big decisions?
Please consider this a mere statement of opinion.

[evenwolf]

Should Obama gain the presidency it is the fears of these people that he will not stop there, he will continue rising in power until he is the ruler of the entire world.

Is popularity truly a sign of demonic possession?  Of anti christ status?   I suppose that's why the Backstreet Boys, Brittney Spears, The Pope, Michael Jordan, and Lance Armstrong are all so eviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil.    Especially Lance - He feels no pain!   Must be Satan!

Seriously.

Coming out of the administration known as George W. Bush you honestly pose this question regarding Obama?  Are you serious?    The only reason I'm not really really really pissed off at you is because this is typical of almost every presidential frontrunner.    People's imaginations run wild.


As someone who has paid attention to every waking second of the primaries, I'm really insulted by conspiracy theory hoax malarchy.    This just shows blatant ignorance and I wish you sit up and get involved in politics BEFORE the point where its conspiracy theory.

I don't know enough of the facts to honestly have an opinion specifically regarding Obama. I doubt I would vote for him as president, but that's strictly because of my devotion to Stephen Colbert...

I hope this is the key to your post.   That the whole thread is satire.   Because I don't think most impressionable minds will get it.     Stephen Colbert is an Obama supporter as far I can tell.

[skuttleman]

Congratulations. This thread brought my mind to a complete hault.

[miguel]

Can an American answer my question?
I became very interested on this subject since I saw on TV a Rocky/Wrestling mock up of the American Elections. I thought, this guys don't give a d... about it!

[TwinMoon]

I don't think Saddam viewed himself as being evil. Same goes for Hitler. I'm theoretically pro-globalisation but there's loads of things that can go wrong. Not that it will be an evil planetery government, just that it will be severely crippled like the EU.

Some European people have the impression that the USA presidents are just the face and the front of some powerful groups. The general idea is that there is no difference between candidate A or B.

Well, that's what I said the last time. But I think the agenda for the american government would have been very different had Gore been elected president. (For the record, I'm European.)

[monkey0506]

The point of it all evenwolf is that Obama has gained the strongest backing in the shortest amount of time of any presidential candidate to date (statistically speaking). I'm not saying Obama is the devil here. Simply pointing out the hysteria involving him (on both fronts) and one of the millions of possible conclusions.

BTW Ponch, I've been told I'm a good writer (sometimes) but most of my work is quite reportedly crap!

Is popularity truly a sign of demonic possession?  Of anti christ status?   I suppose that's why the Backstreet Boys, Brittney Spears, The Pope, Michael Jordan, and Lance Armstrong are all so eviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil.    Especially Lance - He feels no pain!   Must be Satan!

Seriously.

This is precisely the point of this thread.

I hope this is the key to your post.   That the whole thread is satire.   Because I don't think most impressionable minds will get it.     Stephen Colbert is an Obama supporter as far I can tell.

As far as I can tell Colbert is the right-wing counterpart to Jon Stewart and has always been very outspoken in his anti-Democratic, pro-Republican views.

The point of the post was that Obama's "following" brings up the question of globalization. Should we have one supreme government? What measures could be taken to prevent corruption within the government? Etc. I didn't intend my post as an attack against Obama. In fact, if you had read the first sentence in that quote I think you'd have gotten at least that much.

PLEASE READ!

If the title I chose really throws you off that much I can change it, but the point was that these extremists are the ones who put this line of thinking (about globalization) in my mind.

[evenwolf]

As far as I can tell Colbert is the right-wing counterpart to Jon Stewart and has always been very outspoken in his anti-Democratic, pro-Republican views.

Monkey I understand your intentions.   Obama's rise to power = globalization?     He is the only candidate to openly refuse PAC money.  This does not scream globalization to me.   Clinton or McCain would be more likely NWO material.    I find your reasoning flawed.   Take Colbert for instance.  He is not right wing.    He is one of the most liberal minds in the US media.    His portrayal of a news pundit is a parody of Bill O'Reilly.    The point of his show is to make fun of right wing nuts.

Liberal liberal liberal. I cannot stress this enough.    How long have you been watching the show?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_%28character%29

[skuttleman]

So, as a European guy I answer with a question, how powerful is a American president and what is the senate's part in the big decisions?

The U.S. government was designed to be kept in place by a series of "checks and balances". This means that the president can't do a whole lot without soliciting the help of the Legislative and/or Judicial branch. No one branch of the U.S. government has the power to do much of anything without one or both of the other two. So, the president is more than a figurehead, but less than a dictator (though not much less, it sometimes seems).

[miguel]

Thank you Skuttleman, even if it doesn't work right, I believe every democracy should have a senate.
The wise should prevail.

I guess in Europe everything is more serious. Colbert would be a one week joke here, not more.

Clinton (Bill) was known for his concern on fair policies on immigrants and social affairs, and that was told, first-hand by people I know who live in the USA.
If Hillary will do the same, I don't know, but I would vote for her because of that.
I know that close friends of my family have suffered from Bush take on immigration and minorities.
But I have this hint that McCain will be the next president.

[Emerald]

Pfft, America's on the way out, anyway.

I don't understand why people seem to think America will still be king of the world a thousand years from now. Empires fall down. Inevitably. It's happened hundreds of times throughout history, and there's never really been a case of it not happening.

There was a time when Britain ruled half the world, a time when France ruled half of Europe, a time when the Middle East were the most technologically and scientifically advanced civilisation on the planet, and a time when 'America' was just some Spanish dude.

Times change. And the concept of a 'unified government' has been tried and failed several times -- "No taxation without representation".

[evenwolf]

Empires fall down. Inevitably. It's happened hundreds of times throughout history, and there's never really been a case of it not happening.

You could be right.  Just might be.   One factor we should all think about.   Every instance of empires falling down in history excluded the presence of world media outlets.   We are a fast paced world now with public relations and corporations becoming the new "western expansion".   There's no real land grabbing going on.    And human rights seems to be a common theme around the world.    But the US economy could just be its downfall.

[Emerald]

You could be right.  Just might be.   One factor we should all think about.   

Yeah, and I bet a thousand years ago they thought they were so advanced when they discovered how to vaccinate against smallpox.

It's just simple logic: nothing of this earthly realm - be it organic, machine or philosophy - functions so efficiently that it would last forever. Everything that lives, dies.

That's not to say that America will be wiped off the face of the Earth, but it seems very unrealistic to assume that it'll be all-powerful from now on.

[evenwolf]

Um, slight sarcasm there but my point was more on the issue of US's "impending doom"  as in any time 1 - 50 years from now.


I think a world media is much different than general advances in technology.....  since when does vaccination effect public opinion.

[monkey0506]

'America' was just some Spanish dude.

Amerigo Vespucci was Italian. Columbus was Italian. Leif Ericson was Norwegian. So...not really sure where you get "some Spanish dude".

While we're all being technical and things here.

Oh, and just because we have no record of any government having existed since the beginning of time till the present doesn't mean that it is impossible that any single government could exist "UNTIL THE END OF TIME"...or indeed longer than any to date. It is still possible for modern governments to outlive those of yesteryear.

I'm not saying that America will be the one to do it, or indeed that we will absolutely see such a government in our own lifetimes, but saying that America will have completely fallen within the next thousand years is a bit prophetic...

Wikipedia didn't tell me anything about Colbert being a liberal, only that the "character" is fictional.

Really this topic wasn't intended as a debate over Colbert's true political views. I'm not saying you're wrong, only what I have seen myself, and I haven't seen the show for at least two months. Evenwolf if you want to continue the Colbert debate, or if you have some other problem with me, it would probably be best to do so in PMs.

[evenwolf]

Subtext.   Colbert defends Obama almost on a nightly basis through satire.


Examples of satire:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A

Billy O'Reilly appearance:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=VPfZBtxrT5s&feature=related

[evenwolf]

Monkey all this "Evenwolf youre going off topic"  nonsense cannot exist in this thread.

You brought conspiracy theories.   I didn't.    Everyone in the known universe understands satire.   I just find it fascinating someone is watching Colbert and taking it literally.  You have Blown My Mind.   There's nothing I want to express via PMs.    If you don't get the joke from watching the show how could I possibly convince you?

[monkey0506]

I don't take everything I see on Colbert Report literally, but I like to imagine that he's not 100% scripted. And I also imagine that if he was really as horribly liberal as you say he is he wouldn't be able to pull off a conservative quite the way he does.

The only "conspiracy theor[y]" (singular) that I "brought" was the idea that Obama is the Antichrist which despite the title (which I intended as a joke) isn't the actual topic. The idea that Obama will assume world power and declare himself supreme ruler of the universe got me thinking along the lines of a singular world government and the effects it could have.

You're coming across as pretty hostile and I'm at a loss as to why. I presented a serious topic with a bit of humor and absurdity mixed in and you seem as if you're already planning how you are going to violently murder me. I haven't meant to offend you, but it seems as if I have. Sorry about that.

[evenwolf]

No, I don't plan on anything like that.    ( You only brought up the harmless idea that Obama was the anti christ?)   You're pretty careless with your assessments of US political figures.

"I heard someone say Obama was the anti-christ".   (pretty harmless statement!)


The fact that impressionable minds will simply repeat what they see is evidenced in this very thread.   Don't spread unfounded filth.  Someone else will just go home and say "I heard Obama is..."  and its frustrating to a guy like me who actually does his own research.   That has been my point all along.


GET INVOLVED IN OTHER THINGS BESIDES CONSPIRACIES.   The primaries have been pretty exciting with the facts alone!   Don't make up or pass along the garbage and clutter it all up.  That's just careless.