Support Tiny Timism!

[Chip]

Will you support ALL of the Seven Celebrations of Christmas found at this post:Tiny Timism?

 

[Pandora]

not number #6

in a perfect world yes, but this world is not perfect and if we gave up ours in hopes others would give up theirs, they wouldnt and then they would have absolute power over us.

 

[Chip]

At this early stage of the season, the score is Tiny Tim 1, Scrooge 0.

Go Tiny go, go Tiny go, go Tiny go!

 

[BigRob]

At this early stage of the season, the score is Tiny Tim 1, Scrooge 0.

Go Tiny go, go Tiny go, go Tiny go!

6 and 7 are outrageous.

 

[Pandora]

Oh Geez I never got past 6

I just looked at 7

that is worse than 6

chip are you in the US?

 

[Chip]

Oh Geez I never got past 6

I just looked at 7

that is worse than 6

chip are you in the US?

Of course I'm an American living in the U.S.

Your perhaps unintentional implied point though is well taken: Americans any more are soooo heartless.

As for number six, if we don't destroy all WMDs, some Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, even a Vladimir Putin will someday most assuredly trigger WWIII, after which the matter would be rendered irrelevant with the demise of the human race. Best is to empower the U.N. to order all countries to turn in their WMDs to the U.N. ... telling any leader who refuses that he is likely to then receive a very quick and stealthy visit from James Bond. That should do the trick.

With regard to number seven, like it or not, the one world government is inevitable. And actually it will be a good thing, everyone united in currency and all makes trade easier and expedites decisions and stuff. But most importantly, it reduces the occurence of famine and war and crime. It's just the right thing to do. Now I know there are people who live in xenophobic fear, fear, fear, all the time, every day, who are basically too anti-social to ever cooperate internationally. But they'll just have to come along with the vast majority, kicking and screaming most probably.

 

[BigRob]

As for number six, if we don't destroy all WMDs, some Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, even a Vladimir Putin will someday most assuredly trigger WWIII, after which the matter would be rendered irrelevant with the demise of the human race.

That does not mean that at all.

Best is to empower the U.N. to order all countries to turn in their WMDs to the U.N. ... telling any leader who refuses that he is likely to then receive a very quick and stealthy visit from James Bond. That should do the trick.

What do you do about secret weapons programs? The IAEA has already proved to be incompetent in monitoring. You yourself above cite Putin as a possible problem, what will convince Russia to give up their bombs? The structure itself of the United Nations prevents this from ever occurring. The big 5, if you will, of nuclear powers are the 5 members of the Security Council, who all possess the veto.

With regard to number seven, like it or not, the one world government is inevitable. And actually it will be a good thing, everyone united in currency and all makes trade easier and expedites decisions and stuff. But most importantly, it reduces the occurence of famine and war and crime. It's just the right thing to do. Now I know there are people who live in xenophobic fear, fear, fear, all the time, every day, who are basically too anti-social to ever cooperate internationally. But they'll just have to come along with the vast majority, kicking and screaming most probably.

A world government does not reduce the amount of famine, war, or crime. Look at it on a local level, warring factions in Africa are suddenly going to put down their weapons simply because there is a world government? I think not. If you make a world government it simply means the world is a single state, but even within states we see wars and famine.

What would this "world government" look like in your mind? A world government simply means that what India and China decide is what goes, who on Earth do you think is going to buy into that?

 

[Pandora]

Of course I'm an American living in the U.S.

Your perhaps unintentional implied point though is well taken: Americans any more are soooo heartless.

As for number six, if we don't destroy all WMDs, some Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, even a Vladimir Putin will someday most assuredly trigger WWIII, after which the matter would be rendered irrelevant with the demise of the human race. Best is to empower the U.N. to order all countries to turn in their WMDs to the U.N. ... telling any leader who refuses that he is likely to then receive a very quick and stealthy visit from James Bond. That should do the trick.

With regard to number seven, like it or not, the one world government is inevitable. And actually it will be a good thing, everyone united in currency and all makes trade easier and expedites decisions and stuff. But most importantly, it reduces the occurence of famine and war and crime. It's just the right thing to do. Now I know there are people who live in xenophobic fear, fear, fear, all the time, every day, who are basically too anti-social to ever cooperate internationally. But they'll just have to come along with the vast majority, kicking and screaming most probably.

The UN is run by a group of crazed idiots, more currupt than a dozen chicago politicians, it would be stupid beyond words to let the UN rule over the USA

and if we were to get rid of every single weapon we have that would only make us totally weak to those who would not want to hold our hands in unity.

I honestly dont think I could say 6 is more stupid than 7 or visa versa but they are both perhaps equally stupid.

I asked if you were in the US because it seems that people who are already being lead by the nose by the UN want the rest of us to do it also.

Do you not care at all for your constitution? if you dont why dont you go move to one of those countries that already bows to the UN?

why must the US follow every other idiot country out there for some to be happy instead of letting the US be the US

 

[Chip]

First of all, I wish there weren't two threads on this topic, but this BBS format required that the thread be posted before the poll, and then unbeknownst to me gave me only 5 minutes to post a poll with the thread. By the time I overcame the ridiculously small number of poll answer characters allowed per choice, 5 minutes had barely elapsed. If the site administrators could combine the two threads with the poll into one thread without losing ANY content, that would be great. But my guess is that can't be done.

***

Now, regarding the initial post and the seven items ...

... the point is that it requires that we give in order to get.

Items 1, 3 and 4 are generally favored by social conservatives and opposed by social liberals.

Items 5, 6 and 7 are generally favored by social liberals and opposed by social conservatives.

Item 2, the death penalty, was once like items 1, 3 and 4, but nowadays both social liberals and social conservatives favor the death penalty, with but a handful of old-guard liberals and new-guard WWJD conservatives opposing it.

I puposely assembled a list of items that each side would want and each side wouldn't want, to see what people would do.

Would people let go of their neuroses to champion their more humane and progressive causes ... or would fear rule the day.

So far it is clear that the fear of fear itself is the ruler with most of you.

I'm seeing a ton of "what I couldn't accept" and little of "I favor these".

Indeed, though only one of you has voted in the poll (in favor of Scrooge) (yes, I'm the lone Tiny Tim voter), your posts indicate there's no way you could vote for all seven, even for a few weeks, even to gain what many of you would consider important gains in vital matters.

The holidays are about peace on earth ... but peace on the outside between people must begin with peace on the inside ... and peace on the inside is incompatible with the paranoia that must first be relenquished ... paranoia which I believe to be manifested in some of your fear-based posts.

Love means letting go of fear ... or at least that's what Jampolsky says.

Whether that is true or not, it does take trust to move forward ... and fear only holds us back.

I believe most of the fear associated with reticence to give in order to get is manufactured in the minds of the fearful, and does not for a moment reflect the realities outside those minds.

In order to get, you will have to give.

In order to trust, you will have to let go of fear.

The message during the holiday season is to give trust a chance.

Peace.

 

[BigRob]

First of all, I wish there weren't two threads on this topic, but this BBS format required that the thread be posted before the poll, and then unbeknownst to me gave me only 5 minutes to post a poll with the thread. By the time I overcame the ridiculously small number of poll answer characters allowed per choice, 5 minutes had barely elapsed. If the site administrators could combine the two threads with the poll into one thread without losing ANY content, that would be great. But my guess is that can't be done.

***

Now, regarding the initial post and the seven items ...

... the point is that it requires that we give in order to get.

Items 1, 3 and 4 are generally favored by social conservatives and opposed by social liberals.

Items 5, 6 and 7 are generally favored by social liberals and opposed by social conservatives.

Item 2, the death penalty, was once like items 1, 3 and 4, but nowadays both social liberals and social conservatives favor the death penalty, with but a handful of old-guard liberals and new-guard WWJD conservatives opposing it.

I puposely assembled a list of items that each side would want and each side wouldn't want, to see what people would do.

Would people let go of their neuroses to champion their more humane and progressive causes ... or would fear rule the day.

So far it is clear that the fear of fear itself is the ruler with most of you.

I'm seeing a ton of "what I couldn't accept" and little of "I favor these".

Indeed, though only one of you has voted in the poll (in favor of Scrooge) (yes, I'm the lone Tiny Tim voter), your posts indicate there's no way you could vote for all seven, even for a few weeks, even to gain what many of you would consider important gains in vital matters.

The holidays are about peace on earth ... but peace on the outside between people must begin with peace on the inside ... and peace on the inside is incompatible with the paranoia that must first be relenquished ... paranoia which I believe to be manifested in some of your fear-based posts.

Love means letting go of fear ... or at least that's what Jampolsky says.

Whether that is true or not, it does take trust to move forward ... and fear only holds us back.

I believe most of the fear associated with reticence to give in order to get is manufactured in the minds of the fearful, and does not for a moment reflect the realities outside those minds.

In order to get, you will have to give.

In order to trust, you will have to let go of fear.

The message during the holiday season is to give trust a chance.

Peace.

I am sorry but your solution to world problems is "give love a chance." The sentiment is nice and all, but simply not practical.

I also am not sure how it is out of "fear" that someone does not want a world government.

 

[Chip]

What the hell -- Scrooge is winning?!

How can three people have voted for Scrooge???

Is that what the world's come to -- fear, fear, fear and hate hate hate???

C'mon people, do the right thing and vote for Tiny Tim before the year's over.

Indeed, if you vote for Tiny Tim, the world will change into a wonderful place right before your eyes ... and if you do so now and tell two people to do the same and instruct them in turn to tell another two people to do the same ... the economy will turn around and prosperity will be right around the corner ... ... .