Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps not (and I never said that), but it is obvious, from this thread (and others) that some (many) people think it is (or should be) true. Especially those who favor "one world government". It isn't one world, and probably never will be.
I'm with you. Humans are humans, and one feature of our species is that we divide and separate ourselves from others, no matter what the excuse.
"One World Government" is a term that is used to describe a hypothetical governing system in which a single government has sovereignty over the entire world. In other words, there would be no separate national governments, except perhaps in the context of local administration. Under a One World Government, there would be no such things as Americans or Japanese or Nigerians or Saudi Arabians; there would just be . . . whatever a citizen of Earth would be called. (Earthers? Terrans? I have no idea.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
And that poster thinks posters here want that? I don’t know a single person who would be for that.
I usually associate that kind of thinking with conspiracy theorists.
There was even one idiot on one of these threads once who apparently once thought the name "One World Trade Center" was indicative of a push for a one world government.
I asked him what then was the significance of the other buildings; you know, Two, Three, and Four World Trade Center. He didn't respond. Wonder why.
I usually associate that kind of thinking with conspiracy theorists.
There was even one idiot on one of these threads once who apparently once thought the name "One World Trade Center" was indicative of a push for a one world government.
I asked him what then was the significance of the other buildings; you know, Two, Three, and Four World Trade Center. He didn't respond. Wonder why.
Can you really feel sorry for any woman too damn stupid to move to Saudi Arabia and NOT expect to be completely screwed over like this?
I don't know why American women keep repeating this behavior. Marrying a man from one of those backward religion-is-government countries, where women are second class citizens without full rights, and then moving to that country & having kids with that man who is of that world.
If I were her, I'd leave and come back to America or go to some other western democracy and leave that backward world behind. There's nothing, short of kidnapping, she can do, if she has done all that can be done legally at this point.
I usually associate that kind of thinking with conspiracy theorists.
There was even one idiot on one of these threads once who apparently once thought the name "One World Trade Center" was indicative of a push for a one world government.
I asked him what then was the significance of the other buildings; you know, Two, Three, and Four World Trade Center. He didn't respond. Wonder why.
Sounds like one of those wacko conspiracy theories that people find on the "internets." (Looking for tin foil hat.... )
So you think if he “controlled her better” she’d have been granted custody? Don’t you understand her being “too Western” WAS the ex and his lawyers argument for why he should get custody?? It wasn’t brought up because the courts started looking through her social media, it’s because husband and his lawyer said “Look how western she is, Mr. husband is far better choice to raise child in traditional ways.”
In American court a woman might lose custody cause dad and his lawyer might say she’s too focused on dating, or she drinks, or whatever...when the husband wins custody people don’t post about how the husband failed her. This story is no different than any story any day in any family court. The only thing that’s triggering people to find it different than any other custody scenario is the use of the word westernized in the custody ruling.
My eldest brother worked many contracts in Saudi Arabia, The Kingdom, over a twenty year period. It's The Kingdom. Whatever his royal highness wants is what is going to happen. If you move there, you really need to figure that out.
My eldest brother worked many contracts in Saudi Arabia, The Kingdom, over a twenty year period. It's The Kingdom. Whatever his royal highness wants is what is going to happen. If you move there, you really need to figure that out.
Another poster familiar with it said even a mother who was a Saudi citizen would have lost custody too most likely, because women are in charge of very young boys but then the father takes over in raising them. So maybe it didn’t make much difference that she was American. Custody in divorce cases is certainly not as women centric as here.
Also women lose custody battles in divorce cases here too. It’s a custody battle not news.
Cause a father would never be granted custody after a divorce in Kansas? I don’t get that.
On Native American tribal lands if mom were not Native American and dad was, dad would most likely get custody too. This is not really different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
