What's Really Going On In The World - General

I recently found out a friend of a close family member is living off of unemployment benefits in a huge house, and rejects employment opportunities because they don't pay as well as the unemployment benefits. It pisses me off so much.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27129525]ITT slippery slopes and genuine hilarity, the true face of lolbertarianism. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] You realize the hazards of publicly selling raw milk, right? Of course not you need something to rage at. Look, I can post videos tooooooo!!! [url]http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/361307/october-06-2010/rawesome-foods-raid[/url][/QUOTE] The ridicule is more entertainment than anything else; eventual vindication on every point so far has been satisfying enough. Official reaction was far out of line with what was necessary. Were there requests made to post notices about the potential dangers of raw milk consumption? Why hasn't Whole Foods been raided for selling raw milk products? Why would the raid involve such a show of force that would normally be reserved for armed and violent known criminals? Which side is the slippery slope on? There is no middle ground when it comes to politics. A little personal responsibility would do this world a great deal of good instead of putting up with the sniveling, spineless, vote-pandering whores in office. Who says we even need them, anyway?

I'm tired of having to listen to all the dramatic noise that they play in the background on these kind of documentaries. Anyways some of it is alarming, some of it seems a bit ridiculous on NIAs part.

I believe that the government is slowly pulling away rights, but the collapse of America seems like an overstatement.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27127831] Also some stuff in this video is just retarded OH NO THEY'RE REGULATING OUR MILK HERPDERP[/QUOTE] Yea, and they shouldn't be. Most regulations are bad. When the FDA gets involved with organic foods they aren't doing it for safety they're doing it for money. If someone wants to drink raw milk then let them, you should know the milk is Raw and you accept the risks when you drink it. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] Furthermore, it's understandable if Rawesome foods didn't label the milk properly.

[QUOTE=miscreanity;27131806]The ridicule is more entertainment than anything else; eventual vindication on every point so far has been satisfying enough. Official reaction was far out of line with what was necessary. Were there requests made to post notices about the potential dangers of raw milk consumption? Why hasn't Whole Foods been raided for selling raw milk products? Why would the raid involve such a show of force that would normally be reserved for armed and violent known criminals? Which side is the slippery slope on? There is no middle ground when it comes to politics. A little personal responsibility would do this world a great deal of good instead of putting up with the sniveling, spineless, vote-pandering whores in office. Who says we even need them, anyway?[/QUOTE] I mean slippery slopes as logical fallacies, pretty much everything your argument is built on. One day they're telling vendors of public goods that they are required to pasteurize their milk, what next? COLLAPSE THAT'S WHAT. Also great job making a sweeping generalization of every individual in public office along with the millions of bureaucratic workers who depend on their careers for income as anyone else would. Oh they're all corrupt ffff good to see all this political efficacy you've got going on bro. And also I guess you like to characterize the police force of an entire nation by a few isolated cases. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=reedbo;27134087]Yea, and they shouldn't be. Most regulations are bad. When the FDA gets involved with organic foods they aren't doing it for safety they're doing it for money. If someone wants to drink raw milk then let them, you should know the milk is Raw and you accept the risks when you drink it. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] Furthermore, it's understandable if Rawesome foods didn't label the milk properly.[/QUOTE] Yeah because they make so much money off of telling people not to cover their meat in sawdust or put milk with e.coli on store shelves that are open to the entire public. Honestly this is ridiculous, representative government is the ONLY entity protecting your individual rights. Who else would? You honestly believe that we could have even reached this point in society without it? You think that it's not what protects your quality of life? Lol k.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27135477] Yeah because they make so much money off of telling people not to cover their meat in sawdust or put milk with e.coli on store shelves that are open to the entire public. Honestly this is ridiculous, representative government is the ONLY entity protecting your individual rights. Who else would? You honestly believe that we could have even reached this point in society without it? You think that it's not what protects your quality of life? Lol k.[/QUOTE] I know it sound conspiracy-ish but when the FDA regulates stupid shit like there could be no other reason for it than money. By keeping a person from selling something that lots of people wants then it makes those people have to buy from larger companies.

This is a great start for a new year... hearing that the world could collapse anytime soon. fuck :/

My predictions: New secret Government working up secretly, gets US Military on their side, pushes current US Government out, establishes new Government using the laws we had back in Constitution days, money becomes worthless without gold backing it up, therefore new currency established. Just sayin'.

We need our own country.

We're fine.

Watched the entire video, very informative and enlightening. I hope Canada isn't heading down the same path.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27135477]I mean slippery slopes as logical fallacies, pretty much everything your argument is built on. One day they're telling vendors of public goods that they are required to pasteurize their milk, what next? COLLAPSE THAT'S WHAT. Also great job making a sweeping generalization of every individual in public office along with the millions of bureaucratic workers who depend on their careers for income as anyone else would. Oh they're all corrupt ffff good to see all this political efficacy you've got going on bro. And also I guess you like to characterize the police force of an entire nation by a few isolated cases. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] Yeah because they make so much money off of telling people not to cover their meat in sawdust or put milk with e.coli on store shelves that are open to the entire public. Honestly this is ridiculous, representative government is the ONLY entity protecting your individual rights. Who else would? You honestly believe that we could have even reached this point in society without it? You think that it's not what protects your quality of life? Lol k.[/QUOTE] I'd be appreciative if you could enumerate the logical fallacies. This gets a little wordy, but hey, there's a lot to talk about. Notice that I never claimed the NIA viewpoint as my own, so perhaps I should clarify that the majority of what is presented in the videos I do consider accurate. Instead of a collapse, I think we'll see more of a multi-decade dissolution, both of the EU and US - fairly similar to the way Soviet Russia decayed. Sweeping generalizations at your service. I'll be sure to have a 49-page disclaimer of exempt cases drafted for your perusal as of next post if you still take offence to generalizations that are generally accurate. I could list individual politicians with positions that actually might have affected change prior to the most recent elections. Right now, the entire system could be full of Ron Paul clones and there would still be a systemic problem, albeit hope for some sane course of action would finally exist where there currently is virtually none. The blanket statements remain valid for the vast majority, so nitpicking is merely a sideshow. Public officials provide no service that could not be provided by the private sector at lower cost and with greater value. Here is an empirical result: [url]http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/custodian_negotiations_war_is_on/[/url] I have no sympathy whatsoever for people with inflated wages and benefits whom have become so accustomed to their style of living that they will protest and riot when threatened with cuts that have already sliced through productive private businesses with abandon. The same goes for public unions and the lobbying industry. Wealth is not created through paper-pushing; it is destroyed by those means. As put forth in my original post, I harbor no ill will toward a police force in principle. My issue concerns the governing bodies which put those forces in a place where they had no business being. What is your stance on this matter? I can make assumptions based on your replies, but an explicitly stated view gives the ability to debate specific points. We're not at the 'bro' level yet, we hardly know each other - keep it professional for now. Now for a few questions... Why was it right for a SWAT team to break down a door with force warranted for violent criminals? What hard evidence (video, audio, etc) was presented to produce a warrant, although under the Patriot Act, all that is needed is suspicion? Has there been anything done to rectify the situation, any reparations? What recourse does an individual have against that sort of intrusion? Why is the war on drugs still ongoing after it has proven counterproductive on multiple counts? Why do we still have military in the Middle East, around the world when the terrorist threat is supposedly at our borders? Why are we being forced to accept financial bailouts funded by taxpayers on epic scales, ad infinitum? Why is the US antagonizing its largest creditor, China to the point of destabilizing the bond market? If you live in New York City, the right to bear arms does not apply. For decades, civilians were potentially at the mercy of armed criminals freely able to threaten them with deadly force since the people had no way to defend themselves other than fists. Until the police force was increased by a significant amount, this was the case. Now, NYC is a heavily policed metropolis and there has since been an increase in documented cases of police harassment. The government protects the people until it no longer suits the government. Then, the government protects the government over the people. Therefore, I protect myself and those in my social structure as best I can because only #1 looks out for #1. Historically, no government has ever made good on its promises over the long run. We are at the tail end of the long run. This is where government is no longer afraid of its citizens and begins trampling them while telling us this is all for our own good. It's when we should all be screaming in horror as we flee. The concept of normalcy bias definitely applies. For a solid, objective analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, I suggest two books by Jared Diamond: Guns, Germs & Steel [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel[/url] and Collapse [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed[/url]. The Discovery Channel productions of the books are rather good as well. I look forward to your reply. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;27137326]We're fine.[/QUOTE] In the long run, definitely. The next decade is going to be a rough ride, though. The bankers and politicians have done a number and swept the problems under the rug in the hopes that they can pass the worst of them off to the next round of elected officials. Easy scapegoats. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Micr0;27137795]Watched the entire video, very informative and enlightening. I hope Canada isn't heading down the same path.[/QUOTE] The way the US is destroying its currency, the rest of the world doesn't have much choice but to follow. Some will weather the fall better than others. To my knowledge, Canada's potential oil in-ground should be sufficient to buffer the downturn somewhat. Along with other natural resources and increasing demand from developing nations, the losses from European and US demand should be fairly well offset. I am still concerned about the potential for a Canadian real estate crash in the near future. It remains to be seen whether the government will mirror the actions of its big cousin to the south. That could cause some strain. While the Canadian dollar did hit parity with the US dollar again this year, it did so rather weakly. From a purely currency exchange perspective, at least it won't be much better or worse than the US during most of 2011. Going into 2012 may see a strengthening Canadian currency relative to the US. No matter what the situation, it'd be wise to have some gold and silver physically available. At least a few ounces of gold and 100+ in silver. It might also be wise to keep enough paper cash on hand to cover bills for at least a few months if you have that much. The precious metal dealer sources I personally have done business with are: [url]http://www.blanchardonline.com/[/url] [url]http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/[/url] [url]http://www.kitco.com/[/url] I have not had direct dealings with Sprott; also a bit pricey, but have been told they are good: [url]https://www.sprottmoney.com/[/url] The only precious metal-backed account I trust: [url]http://goldmoney.com/index.html?gmrefcode=nn[/url] I do use GoldMoney and I am part of their affiliate program. Holding precious metals is simply protection of your current assets. The prices will rise for at least another year, but rather than looking at it as profiting, think of it as floating where you are when the floor drops out from under everyone else as their paper money rapidly loses value. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=KamenMoore;27136919]My predictions: New secret Government working up secretly, gets US Military on their side, pushes current US Government out, establishes new Government using the laws we had back in Constitution days, money becomes worthless without gold backing it up, therefore new currency established. Just sayin'.[/QUOTE] You never know... I'm sure there are still plenty of tricks up the banksters' & politicians' sleeves. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Amaurus;27137062]We need our own country.[/QUOTE] No need. Establish yourself as supranational and create leverage against government subjugation. A method for playing governments against each other has been developing for the past 50 years. A good starting point: [url]http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/maximize-your-freedom/[/url]

I have been blindly defending my country. I saw it as a great country, but I think I was wrong. Or at least I will be until the government learns that the Constitution exists.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;27138811]I have been blindly defending my country. I saw it as a great country, but I think I was wrong. Or at least I will be until the government learns that the Constitution exists.[/QUOTE] You're not wrong - every country has a peak, a period of greatness relative to its history. The Dutch, English, French, Germans, US... That era has passed like the 87th time a joke is told to the same audience. It may rise again, but not in the near future.

[QUOTE=miscreanity;27137946]I'd be appreciative if you could enumerate the logical fallacies. [B]I'll be sure to have a 49-page disclaimer of exempt cases drafted for your perusal as of next post if you still take offence to generalizations that are generally accurate. This argument is one big slippery slope, if government is expanding that must mean that it's inherently bad, I WANT to be taken advantage of as an individual consumer![/B] This gets a little wordy, but hey, there's a lot to talk about. Notice that I never claimed the NIA viewpoint as my own, so perhaps I should clarify that the majority of what is presented in the videos I do consider accurate. Instead of a collapse, I think we'll see more of a multi-decade dissolution, both of the EU and US - fairly similar to the way Soviet Russia decayed. [B]Government is slowly expanding, but it didn't start out totalitarian and it's actually gotten less corrupt, unless you think patronage, political machinery, and unlimited soft money from the private sector you love so much isn't corruption. Also, isn't the entire thing now about globalization? Economies reliant on one another? That's in a completely different direction than what you predict.[/B] Sweeping generalizations at your service. I'll be sure to have a 49-page disclaimer of exempt cases drafted for your perusal as of next post if you still take offence to generalizations that are generally accurate. I could list individual politicians with positions that actually might have affected change prior to the most recent elections. Right now, the entire system could be full of Ron Paul clones and there would still be a systemic problem, albeit hope for some sane course of action would finally exist where there currently is virtually none. The blanket statements remain valid for the vast majority, so nitpicking is merely a sideshow. [B]Wait so is your problem that there aren't enough radicals in office or that the changes aren't fast or drastic enough? Half of the things that come out of Ron Paul's mouth are ridiculous and would most likely cripple the country faster than what's happening now. Corruption stories get a lot of coverage except you forget that for every one corrupt representative there are 434 genuinely concerned with their constituencies and what they all think is best for the nation, as well as like I said the millions of bureaucratic workers who are in no way corrupt.[/B] Public officials provide no service that could not be provided by the private sector at lower cost and with greater value. Here is an empirical result: [url]http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/custodian_negotiations_war_is_on/[/url] [B]I don't have a problem with limited privatization, I have a problem with saying privatization is the answer to everything, because it's not. Custodians aren't the best example.[/B] I have no sympathy whatsoever for people with inflated wages and benefits whom have become so accustomed to their style of living that they will protest and riot when threatened with cuts that have already sliced through productive private businesses with abandon. The same goes for public unions and the lobbying industry. Wealth is not created through paper-pushing; it is destroyed by those means. [B]When the singular purpose of a society is to generate as much wealth as possible you might as well live in a failed state, control their government and abuse it in any way. I can tell you don't believe in a welfare state but also from what I can tell that's not what this movie is about, at all. Here, the division between rich and poor is only growing so I don't see what the big deal is anyway.[/B] As put forth in my original post, I harbor no ill will toward a police force in principle. My issue concerns the governing bodies which put those forces in a place where they had no business being. [B]Like I said those governing bodies controlled by a representative administration which is the ONLY possible entity that would be concerned with individual rights at all. What, do you want a private police now too?[/B] What is your stance on this matter? I can make assumptions based on your replies, but an explicitly stated view gives the ability to debate specific points. [B]I think this film is a load of fear mongering horse shit with people making a huge deal over nothing. Kind of like that Zeitgeist thing. Year by year no one can honestly tell that they've seriously felt a difference, only looking back over decades do you realize that there has been a significant change. I would be completely wrong to say that government hasn't expanded dramatically over the past 150 years. Just like you would be wrong to say that it's done more harm than good.[/B] We're not at the 'bro' level yet, we hardly know each other - keep it professional for now. [B]Right... buddy.[/B] Now for a few questions... Why was it right for a SWAT team to break down a door with force warranted for violent criminals? What hard evidence (video, audio, etc) was presented to produce a warrant, although under the Patriot Act, all that is needed is suspicion? Has there been anything done to rectify the situation, any reparations? What recourse does an individual have against that sort of intrusion? [B]There has to be more surrounding this than what was in the video, if not it should be causing serious public outrage. Also it's pretty funny that you mention police brutality only when the guy is white lol.[/B] Why is the war on drugs still ongoing after it has proven counterproductive on multiple counts? [B]I could make some sweeping generalizations here too! Maybe it's the socially conservative resurgence that's been happening over the past three decades. Maybe it's the corporate interests that have some level of influence over public policy. It might just actually be because hard drugs ruin lives and communities but that would be a stretch.[/B] Why do we still have military in the Middle East, around the world when the terrorist threat is supposedly at our borders? [B]military industrial complex[/B] Why are we being forced to accept financial bailouts funded by taxpayers on epic scales, ad infinitum? [B]If you don't like it start evading taxes otherwise be glad we aren't in a depression.[/B] Why is the US antagonizing its largest creditor, China to the point of destabilizing the bond market? [B]I'm not sure how we are antagonizing it because we're really dependent on what they produce.[/B] If you live in New York City, the right to bear arms does not apply. For decades, civilians were potentially at the mercy of armed criminals freely able to threaten them with deadly force since the people had no way to defend themselves other than fists. Until the police force was increased by a significant amount, this was the case. Now, NYC is a heavily policed metropolis and there has since been an increase in documented cases of police harassment. [B]State and City laws buddy, nothing they can do about it except dispute them in federal courts, just like Chicago's handgun ban a while back. But hey buddy I assume you are for states' rights so uh, sorry? Not only that but what warped reality do you live in where New York is more dangerous than it was thirty, forty years ago?[/B] The government protects the people until it no longer suits the government. Then, the government protects the government over the people. Therefore, I protect myself and those in my social structure as best I can because only #1 looks out for #1. [B]That might be the case if your government wasn't a representative government. But it is, so it's not.[/B] Historically, no government has ever made good on its promises over the long run. We are at the tail end of the long run. This is where government is no longer afraid of its citizens and begins trampling them while telling us this is all for our own good. It's when we should all be screaming in horror as we flee. The concept of normalcy bias definitely applies. [B]Really? Is that the part where now if any single public official says something incorrect or offensive that exact information is transferred instantly across the entire country, generating a ton of public opinion? Democrats just lost the most important piece of government in the country, were they not afraid of it? Yeah the government is no longer terrified of oil barons having more money than them I wouldn't say I miss those days too much. Not only that but I'm not sure why you assume that we are at the end of some long run, or even if you can tell me a major promise from government that hasn't allowed to happen over time.[/B] For a solid, objective analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, I suggest two books by Jared Diamond: Guns, Germs & Steel [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel[/url] and Collapse [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed[/url]. The Discovery Channel productions of the books are rather good as well. I look forward to your reply. [/QUOTE]It's not the greatest but it's all I've got. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=reedbo;27135996]I know it sound conspiracy-ish but when the FDA regulates stupid shit like there could be no other reason for it than money. By keeping a person from selling something that lots of people wants then it makes those people have to buy from larger companies.[/QUOTE] Your quality of life partially depends on enforcement of public policy by these agencies. I can't really say that there aren't problems in a bureaucracy but good luck if you can find a better way of addressing issues like... uh... avoiding bubonic plague or something.

Oh yeah, this guy. I remember when he was just another angry dude that made politically-backed vlogs and posted it up on YouTube. I see he upped his budget! Sure, he does make good points, but a lot of other stuff he says is really stretching it. Plus, in his older vlogs he demonstrates how he enjoys being a trolling jerk by agitating otherwise peaceful protesters.

more conspiracy bullshit

I guess its time to get the hell out of dodge, and move to somewhere better. China is gonna be the next big country in the world, with ever increasing freedoms and a consumer based economy. China is the place to be in the near future.

good thing my country is better :smug:

calm down guys....

[QUOTE=Swamphunter;27140078]Oh yeah, this guy. I remember when he was just another angry dude that made politically-backed vlogs and posted it up on YouTube. I see he upped his budget! Sure, he does make good points, but a lot of other stuff he says is really stretching it. Plus, in his older vlogs he demonstrates how he enjoys being a trolling jerk by agitating otherwise peaceful protesters.[/QUOTE] Who cares, why talk about him like he's an alien? I for one enjoyed his post, not that I follow his moral code or anything, just about what he included into his point. It was more enjoyable on the ears than your post. I think that the problems we see with a decline in culture should not really be made. You all bitch about 'hipster-dom' and shit, but in reality, each generation recently has had its fads as time progressed. Look at how hippies, beatniks.. and even black people were treated just a few decades ago. A decline in human life could be the only thing I could see deteriorating, only gradually in our society, and more rampant in other corporate-controlled countries in the world (which go unheard or unseen.)

I do agree by the way that the OP's video is OTT, in regards to "Collapse of Civilization". That won't happen but likely martial law will. When you look into the American Goverment it is extremely scary, you have to remember that the American Goverments center of economic finance is a central bank. Which MANY of you may not know was something that all of the founding fathers spoke up against, it was in strong part the reason for the American Revolutionary War to give America Independence from the Central Bank in Britian. many famous people for instance specifically spoke up against Central Banking system, but guess what one was put in place. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson "A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson People here believe it far-fetched or OTT or some sort of conspiracy aren't thinking straight, it's actually pretty simple a few rich people such as the Rothschild, doctrined a plan that caused a reccession back in the 80's I can't be asked go into details, the cause of which called in a all the borrowed money in the economy, but the economy didn't even have the required money to pay off the loans, and many independent banks collapsed. As a result this went to court and it was devised that a Central Bank be introduced to prevent such a recession from occuring again. As a result the Central Bank was introduced whoppee!! Breaking the constitution at the same time what a bonus. "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." - Rothschild What does the Central Bank do well, this entire system literally creates money out of thin air, if you look in the past we had gold reservers as the constituion states money was backed by gold, it was "legal tender" now it's nothing but paper, it's worth is only given by the amount actually in supply in the economy and the bank increases the money supply whenever it feels like it by simpling printing off more notes, but that isn't the issue what is, is Fraction Reserve Banking (FRB) in this system for instance $10bn of money is printed off , 10% or $1bn would be deposited in the bank whereas the other 90% ($9bn) is used as the basis for making loans. You would assume the $9bn is taken off the other $10bn but this isn't the case in fact $9bn is simply made out of thin air on top of the $10bn making $19bn essentially they just made $9bn out of thin air on top of the existing $10bn deposit. So essentially you're looking at a system made on debt, which can only lead to debt thereby we're simply slaves to the economy. If people actually gave in all their loans the economy would collapse to shit. So you can act like it's OTT but the system was overuled ages ago by people with money, check out documentaries even simple ones like Food Inc. Where it shows that most of those in the White House actually own business such as Food Industries that provide a huge portion of the nations GDP, these people literally buy their way into office and change the laws to suit themselves, and slowly slowly under the guise of reducing terrorism they'll remove the rights of every person, and hell you people are voluntarily allowing it, just look around at all the scare tactics they play, to make you assume terrorists are all over the place, now we have a constant eye looking on us at all times or as some would call "big brother" and they're just taking away your rights and you say go ahead. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety'." Espicially with the decline in oil which I assume we have reserves for only for 50 years, and hay everyone assumes we'll just go electric or hydroelectricty or hell even turbine power, well you people are dumb, everything from plastics to resins, to tires on cars requires oil, to almost every machine we use in mass production, not to mention our agriculture in which we irraguate lands with pesticides and chemicals in order to either grow crops faster or mantain them in a more sufficient manner, this action has literally caused the soil to need chemicals and has destoryed the natural refertilization of crops, and guess what those chemicals require at the basic level oil, so no oil no food. Seriously what do you think will happen when the Oil runs out why do you think we went to Iraq anyway Saudi Arabia has the last reserves, aside from the Arctic which is impossible to dig for oil on because the place is constantly shifting and melting (in part due to us) and Oil rigs on the sea are far to costly and yet yield so little output, so the net energy of getting the oil voids the actual return in oil. So good luck with that guys I'm going to Mars.

I totally agree. The central banking system has historically shown to simply make situations worse and cause economic downturn. For example, the Panic of 1819. And its a good thing Andrew Jackson realized this and let the US bank's charter expire in 1836.

Or how about looking at who profits the involvement of wars? [img]http://www.bunksplace.com/adirondackmurray.jpg[/img] [i][b]"Oh hey, look, at the end of every war it seems specific banks become increasingly more effective and powerful! That's just by sheer luck!" -1800's Anonymous[/b][/i] [editline]2nd January 2011[/editline] Check out how much George W. Bush changed while he was President. [img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3202019799_dc409fd2c4.jpg[/img] All that stress being mister president.

War profiteering is as old as organized warfare. In WW2 the entire country pulled itself out of depression because of factory jobs opening. In Vietnam, Bell Helicopter went from near bankrupt to the largest helicopter retailer in the US because of the need for helicopters.

Human beings have been smoking tobacco for thousands of years. Since the introduction of a single kind of tobacco product (Cigarettes), Cancer has become common among heavy users-- I think people should as a whole use pipes more often, it'd be curious to see if cancer levels decreased as a result.

As an example of Chinese economic growth would be the Chong Qing municipality. There is a rapidly growing middle class in the city of 12 million, and city officials have stated that in the next 50 years, they want to make one of the largest municipalities in the world into one giant city. They have already begun buying agricultural land and replacing it with bustling commercial or industrial parks. An entire province made into a single city, and you know China would do it too. [editline]2nd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MovingSalad;27141594]Human beings have been smoking tobacco for thousands of years. Since the introduction of a single kind of tobacco product (Cigarettes), Cancer has become common among heavy users-- I think people should as a whole use pipes more often, it'd be curious to see if cancer levels decreased as a result.[/QUOTE] The only reason Cigarettes are dangerous as they are is because the Tobacco corporations decided to put something around 5000 dangerous chemicals to make them more addictive so that consumers buy more of their cigarettes, and at the same time it causes cancer. Cigars are something like 30% less dangerous than Cigarettes because they only contain a fraction of the chemicals inside Cigarettes.

Do you think the prospect of china taking over the world is imminent? China and India are becomming large international factors. do you have more freedoms in japan, or China, or the USA, or Europe? Which part of the world allows you to make more personal choice over your actions in a war free environment? Which culture supports it most? Is it successful?

China definitely cannot take over the world, nor can any nation on Earth. Yes, you do have more freedom in western countries however with China going in the global spotlight more often with greater effects, they will be pressured into increasing freedoms in order to avoid global scrutiny.