Is it bannable to say that we should exterminate North Korea?
I love how people on here say how dumb religion is, but I love how much faith we have in the economic system, we sit here everyday and assume by some magical hand it will all be ok, most of us don't even question it's workings we just assume it works and that's it.
This video shows a sad truth of how as a nation rights are being stripped down (no pun intended) left and right, and it's pretty darn scary.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q[/url]
Why do you think there's so much hatred between race, religion and shit like that, the media loves keeping us figthing amongst ourselves it's like George Carlin "keep us fighting amongst ourselves so they can run off with all the fucking money" I mean just look at half the stuff people say on here such as Muslims all of them are terroists, and everyone on here everytime I here people saying stuff like "Islam is evil" I mean think for yourselves people do some research, god damn. It's like hearing hitler talk about how evil jews were, and indoctrinating his nation to blindly hate the shit out of them, and guess what they also literally believed Jews were some sort of evil mutated human beings and guess what the holocaust happened, this society thrives on the ignorance and stupidity of those bellow it.
Sadly in my opinion the only system that will ever work is one were every person sustains his own living, i.e has a plot of land and farms his own crops etc a system that focuses on this need for constant growth but with limited resources is bound to collapse as there will come a time were finite resources and infinite demand will collide (as such I assume it will when oil runs dry as shit in 50 years.)
I would say the states with stay the same or lower slightly
The War on Drugs:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy-y-uamSiE[/media]
[editline]2nd January 2011[/editline]
I'm not worried about oil running out, we've found alternatives as energy sources have dried up. It will be fixed.
This guy is way too "cloak and dagger" with his silent hill music and blood oozing over liberty.
I hate people who use scare tactics to try and make a point.
I think buying gold and silver is a good idea either way so where exactly would i go to do that?
[QUOTE=FuckaNinja;27142279]I think buying gold and silver is a good idea either way so where exactly would i go to do that?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://cgi.ebay.com/Pokemon-Red-Gold-and-Silver-Version-Game-Boy-1998-/170583683812?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item27b79472e4[/url]
It comes with red
I would like to have a steady education.
But I'am now learning in a private academy on an unstable amount of money, and being taught by unrealistic standards, methods, and being taught things that will likely provide no sustenance. There is no mean, it's either get a bad education or a bad education. I would like a private tutor and be left to study in the field of my choosing, but both my parents and my local government do not approve.
I would like to be the disseminate of information amongst the people around me.
But they are too wrapped up in themselves, gossip, jersey shore, apple electronics, or other unhealthy habbits to care. Plus because of the fact that I'm "different", they don't even show respect towards me.
I would like to help.
Yet I am to young to be respected in any fashion. And those around me do not help in moving forwards our reputation. The only way to make a movement or join a movement is to unite, which is something our generation cannot achieve in it's current mindset.
I would like to leave.
Yet I can't, even if I were to claim asylum.
I, and many others, are the definition of looming helplessness.
They didn't really do that good in the first place, so I don't think they can get worse
More than 1 hour is too much but I'm pretty sure things are changing for the worse right now.
what was that flash frame at about 1:00:40? I can't seem to pause it at the right time
Nevermind, found out shortly after
Does anyone have one of these about the UK?
It is a sad truth but thats what wars are all about, they firstly want to create this mystic enemy figure (Like Hitler did with the Jews) using propoganda and scare tactics, hell look in your history book at the Red Scare in America where American Officials pretended to be Communists and letter-bombed an General they had everyone fooled into believeing every Communist was some evil terrorist, is that not the same as how they indoctrinate you to assume any Muslim is a terrorist.
They'll make everyone assume they're under attack at all times, an enemy figure will allow the goverment to get away with anything, if they want to go to war they can and have, all they have to tell people is there are some Weapons Of Mass Destruction, plus if they want to reduce rights all they have to do is say it's for your own safety and people won't even argue they'll allow them to take away there rights.
Anyone who thinks Iraq a backwards weak nation was any threat to the USA is an idiot, it was clear they went into get the Oil Reserves, which I may note are some of the last left in the world.
People now think they're pulling out, Oh my god haha, well let me telling you something they built an series of embassy buildings which are the size of Vatican City, yes becaue you do build something that large scale just to leave. They need to hold that oil, they only wanted to continue a war because the goverment reaps mass profits from the war, because it forces people to take out loans in mass scale from the Central Banking system, it was the same reason to go into a lot of wars. Mass profits for our banking system.
It's pretty scary shit, because there is no defintion to a "Terrorist" but the goverment can freely throw around the term at any person who they deem a threat to their goverment, i.e in this video a Ron Paul supporter was detained as he was a "Terrorist", and nobody will argue because if anyone here's the word "Terrorist" now they assume the person deserves to be detained or has done something extremely wrong, when in fact they're probably just another innocent civilian doing jack shit.
[QUOTE=Dominic0904;27148362]what was that flash frame at about 1:00:40? I can't seem to pause it at the right time
Nevermind, found out shortly after[/QUOTE]
If it's what I think you're talking about, it is the next frame where he shows the treasury accepting donations. I'm pretty sure it's just in there on accident, because it just flashes for a second.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27127831]Tough shit bro.
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
More like people will whine about anything they can these days.
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
Also some stuff in this video is just retarded OH NO THEY'RE REGULATING OUR MILK HERPDERP[/QUOTE]
You want to know what the problem with regulating the food is, it isn't something to joke about. Like I said large numbers of people in power own Food Corperations, look up Food Inc. The Documentary and learn a little, you'll soon find out why these people don't want you producing your own stuff. While at first regulating Milk sounds silly and a menial crime, on the surface it shows a much scarier image of whats going on.
Plus these people are doing this because they want to keep things under control, they are just trying to fight for self-preservation, like I said once those Oil Reserves go every economy is going to collapse. It's not like Britian is an exception it too has a Central Bank which is run by the same methods of debt which like I said was something the founding fathers of America spoke so furiously against and was in part why they had an American Revoultionary War.
Oh look, a fear mongering video that treats the "this sign has sharp edges" picture as if it were real.
That was an obvious joke, and the creator was aware of it, seriously you people need to pull your finger out and realise there's a difference between fear mongering and actual shit thats going on.
[QUOTE=Drax-Quin;27150240]You want to know what the problem with regulating the food is, it isn't something to joke about. Like I said large numbers of people in power own Food Corperations, look up Food Inc. The Documentary and learn a little, you'll soon find out why these people don't want you producing your own stuff. While at first regulating Milk sounds silly and a menial crime, on the surface it shows a much scarier image of whats going on.
[/QUOTE]Yeah it's all just a scary conspiracy then is it? Fine, go milk a cow, and then drink what's in the bucket. Enjoy.
Haha lol, america dies because they sell iPhone.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;27139650]It's not the greatest but it's all I've got.
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
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.[/QUOTE]
No apologies: I'm delighted to receive a thorough, intelligent rebuttal. In fact, I even used to think along much the same lines as yourself. Being part of a government organization and running your own business tends to alter the perspective, though.
No government starts out totalitarian, but they all shift toward it. Historically, larger government = gradual decline. There have been no examples to disprove this, nor have there been any where government shrank or stayed within its means. You could reasonably equate this to giving a child free reign in a candy store - he'll devour sweets until his teeth rot out and diabetes puts him into a coma, all while becoming obese.
The actions that have been taken since late 2007 were the wrong ones, first of all. If the majority shared Ron Paul's views, the government would have been more inclined to follow the path Volcker took in the late 1970s of raising interest rates to dissuade out-of-control credit expansion. Instead, we have monetary expansion through conversion of credit (expectations of future production) into existing money - the monetization of abstract assets. If the credit disparity were to be reduced, there would be short-term difficulties globally, but we would have been through the worst of it by now. Instead, we still have explosive commodity prices along with periodic shortages that are increasing in frequency. Those are dangerous signals which highlight inherent systemic instability, not just in one nation but in the global economy. There are massive financial ties around the world, the vast majority of it based on future expectations and therefore unable to be claimed should any of those obligations be called upon for immediate payment.
Rather than take the most direct course of action, we have now been saddled with an even greater increase of these future expectations. The purposeful "imagineering" of money into existence in order to replace the credit for unrealized production allows the system to continue functioning as it has to a certain extent - the average person will not notice a huge difference in how his life proceeds. Riots will be forestalled, shortages won't occur and the banker/politician arena will progress with business as usual.
There was nothing mentioned about corruption, although I'll get to that. The motivation for the aforementioned actions was fear. If the situation were to get out of control, there is potential for massive social upheaval on the scale seen in South America over the past few decades. Major public resistance to government and banking led to financial offices being destroyed by civilians, worker overthrows of manufacturing facilities and regular murders of political officials. Things have settled somewhat in the past few years and most of South America now has now shifted to capitalistic free markets and business methods. Though I have to say from some personal experience, there is still a strong draw toward the socialistic ideal that government provide for everone's well-being even though that was what led to the initial mayhem. Again, fear has been the reason for government action over the past two years. The corruption has occurred at the banks and for other reasons elucidated below.
Concerning government employees, having been one I can say that there are very few bad people. They are simply motivated by retirement and benefits instead of the people and justice. Self-interest is more powerful than false altruism. Any that can adhere to a self-sacrificial ideal for the long-haul will become a threat to the status quo and be summarily dealt with either directly or through subversive means - passed over for promotion, discredited, etc. There are dozens of ways to make people disappear without killing them. All that needs be done is to make life as difficult as possible so the majority of his resources need to be spent defensively. Case in point: Julian Assange and Wikileaks in general. The accusations are not even worth discussing. The techniques of attack are: dismantling of income sources, ridiculing the work done by the organization, discrediting and marginalizing the public personality associated with the situation. How much conversation is there now regarding Wikileaks by the media or people in general?
The storm has blown over for now, but the structure of Wikileaks is such that it is amorphous and feeds into certain aspirations in media, certain business sectors and non-US beholden entities. The first major salvo was boosted mostly by the video of civilians being slaughtered, but was otherwise droll. Future releases will have the type of impact that history will remember much more clearly. I believe this is by design, otherwise there would be no further purpose for Wikileaks.
I digress.
Custodian or janitorial performance in a free market is a microcosm that represents the whole. Humanity exhibits patterns that form cycles and these are fractal in nature - the details may change, but the outline and story is the same. If you cannot currently imagine a privatized, truly free economy sans government intervention or even without government at all, that doesn't matter. Ideas take time to percolate through society until reaching critical mass. One of the best examples I've been privy to is the notion that, after explaining the concept of representative democracy to a medieval serf who is working on a noble's property, he would likely think the idea was rubbish, as anything different would seemingly cause a collapse of order. While that may be true, the disorder would be short-lived; the American revolution being an excellent example. Relative stability returned almost immediately after independence was won. Although there was plenty of discord and volatility, the world did not end and one of the greatest nations ever to have existed quickly rose over the course of only a few generations. The problem is that the checks and balances set in place to prevent decay were eventually circumvented and we are now seeing the end-stage results.
Blindly suggesting that something is not possible is harkening back to the dark ages and representative of propagating uncertainty. While you are free to your decisions and opinions, others are as well. You are also free to propose your arguments and back them up. Freedom of speech at its finest. Take care to protect that freedom and be cautious with the difference between discerning a symptom of decay from a cause that will lead to eradication of said freedom.
It may as well be said that a society existing only to destroy wealth cannot be considered a state at all, for there will be nothing but waste left.
As for the welfare state, no I do not believe it is a good thing at all. Government has no place running a social support structure when it can't handle its own issues. The disincentives to progress coming from welfare are so great that it isn't even worth debating, yet the common mindset is that it helps the poor. I've personally seen these "poor" living better than many who work daily and struggle to survive.
The increase in wealth disparity is an illusion based on notional account balance - the more zeros in an account, the greater the share of cumulative wealth. The banks have accrued a near-complete majority share through collusion with government, obtaining favorable legislation in exchange for bestowing political power (political power being a farce as compared with the power wielded by entities controlling the wealth). Eradicating the wealth base of the majority to a point of destitution is a delicate balancing act, as suppression will only last so long as there is still some room for upward mobility from the bottom. Eventually, the situation will reach a boiling point as a sufficient quantity of the lower echelons become disenfranchised and gain the desire to improve their standing; if they see no progress in their own lives, they will seek to improve - after exhausting the means to improve through the established system, the last resort is violence. The bankers and politicians know this and will take steps to protect themselves and their way of life - it is no different than you or I trying to protect ourselves, only on a different scale and through different means.
There have always been and always will be inequalities. Fighting this is foolish and futile. There are those with greater abilities in certain regards than others. A great artist is not likely to be a great chemist; a mathematician might not be an elegant dancer; a proficient physician could be a poor physicist. Why should someone lousy at wealth creation be given the wealth that comes from someone who is good at it? What gives anyone the right to take from one person and give to another? What gives government that right, especially if it hasn't been earned?
I disagree with a representative administration on the grounds that any administration will eventually fail to cater to the desires of its constituent population, and the further removed from the individual, the more rapidly the interest of the governing body will disregard the individual to suit its own needs. This harkens back to the privatization of janitorial services mentioned above.
It is fear mongering, no disagreement there. Was 9/11 a fear tactic? How about the response to it, where anyone not waving an American flag was unpatriotic and a terrorist? What about the statements that the bailouts averted a financial system collapse? We've arrived at a stage of modern [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism]McCarthyism[/url]. Sadly, entertainment and fear mongering are the primary means by which to garner attention in the current over-stimulated population.
There will never be more change than can be tolerated until the force required to shift the balance is overwhelming. The rapidity of change accelerated after the dot-com disaster from 2000-2001 and was kicked into high gear by the September 11th, 2001 attacks. Another level of acceleration was triggered at the end of 2007 with the mortgage-backed security market falling apart. The balance of power is overwhelmingly shifting away from the individual, to an increasingly irresponsible governing body - across the board from America to Europe. Political struggles involve pushing for more control all the time and, if there is resistance, the attempt is made again either in a different way or at a later time. This is very similar to mating rituals among any variety of sexually reproducing animals wherein the male makes repeated attempts at mounting the female even as the female rebuffs the male until such aggressive and persistent effort overcomes her willingness to resist. Yes, the same behavior occurs with humans...
I guess that would mean that once government succeeds in fucking the people, the end result is society's painfully orgasmic release? Bad mental image.
I'll leave the more harm than good argument alone for now, aside from a question: have things improved because of government, or despite it?
Buddy works - lol.
There's always more to the story, which is where journalism can get creative through embellishment or omission. It certainly should be causing outrage, but how many people do you think will be familiar with this if you were to ask 100 in your neighborhood?
Yes, yes and yes. I'd also add the jobs (mostly government, along with equipment supplied largely by the MIC) that would be lost and the cost of having to support those individuals without drug-related confiscations that are already going to support other facets of government-incurred expenses. You're on the right track in that there is no single thing that is keeping it going and therefore no realistic way to stop it. The one key component that allows it to continue is public perception and mindset which is geared toward its continuation. Should enough opposition form, it might become possible to cease the efforts, but it would come at huge cost economically.
Military Industrial Complex - Bingo. Government-sponsored, corporate-lobbied (by companies that gain from destruction), bank-financed and public-allowed. Again, the mindset allows it. Wait until energy resources become significantly scarce and the real wars start over that, above and beyond Iraq.
I don't need to evade taxes, as they are a sham in the first place, along with the mindset that we should pay our fair share for the priviledge of having a few freedoms that can be taken away at a politician's whim. In the same manner that major corporations pay virtually no tax anywhere (corporate taxes are viewed as an expense of doing business in a geopolitical location), an individual has even more flexibility to legally structure his assets for elimination of taxation with far more security and freedom. For an example, just look at [url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/google-tax-cut/]Google's tax strategy[/url].
China is one of the largest US debt holders, mostly in the form of US Treasury bonds. By devaluing the US currency, these bonds lose their value. This would be the same as keeping your money in a savings account and paying, not earning, 10% interest for keeping your money there. In the other direction, China has many trading partners with the US is becoming a smaller component of them, while not even considering the country's domestic population rapidly entering an industrial consumer stage wherein demand will rise from within. With all the talk of China headed for a fall, you might think otherwise. Just as the US is no longer on the rise, but will not fall straight down, China is on the rise but will not peak instantly. Trading in markets will certainly tell you that nothing ever goes up or down in a straight line, but the long-term trend will dominate all the minor gyrations.
I should've stated that I was talking about NYC from the 1970s through the early 1990s. My concern is regarding persistent calls for a federal ban on individual gun ownership while using areas that have banned them as examples of reduced crime while conveniently disregarding the fact that the police force is heavily expanded. When this occurs, a mindset of submission is cultivated in relation to authorities. This is a critical difference from an attitude of general respect for the people around you because of the assumption that any among them might have a weapon for defense and be willing to use it for that purpose. It also allows those in power to reach for more power.
I also consider the notion of "state" rights to be a distortion of the concept - rights are granted to individuals as they are distinctly separate and indivisible. States are corporate in structure such that they are created through contract agreed upon by individuals. By this reason, the options granted to a state are outlined by that contract and there is nothing that can inherently be granted. Humans are not conceived by contract and thus are not subject to that type of agreement for existence.
If, as in the US, less than 10% of the eligible population votes, then the government is only representative of that 10%. Ergo any democracy with less than a full participation of its eligible voting population is not a valid representative democracy. The resulting type of structure is prone to improper use of the resources that are presupposed as property of the people in entirety, not just the voting population. Democracy is another ideal which has been focused on, particularly in the United States, to the detriment of the fact that a properly functioning representative democratic republic depends upon an educated and fully participating voting population in order to operate the way it was intended (i.e. preventing any one party of special interest from obtaining majority control and overruling the majority).
As it stands now, the educational system in most western cultures primarily trains students for technical functions. Overspecialization is pervasive and prevents too much cross-culture idea exchange which is shown to lead to concepts and ideas that might be dangerous to the state. This is a principle taken from Nazi Germany and applied across state-run education systems around the world, including a distorted and limited study of history that lacks presentation of competing ideas for the causes of many historical events.
Judged by their actions instead of their rhetoric, democracts and republicans are the same. Regarding oil barons, refer to the point about special interests gaining power over the majority through government. My reasoning for decline is through observation of events and studying economic history of the past 2500+ years. Economic reasons spurred many of the earliest discoveries such as number systems and written language. Without understanding economics, the games played by bankers and politicians easily fly over the head of most people, allowing a fleecing of their savings. Western economies have been on the decline since the early 2000s and it is plain to see that in the cyclic patterns over periods of decades to centuries as well as by recognizing situational similarities among previous civilizations that have risen and fallen. This is by no means a new event; as I've mentioned, it is only different in magnitude.
No conspiracy is necessary, only an understanding of how individuals react on their own and as in groups which all are inclined to protect their own interests. That's where all of this stems from. The [url=http://www.mises.org/]Austrian style of economic study[/url] is a branch that focuses on this and provides a steady reason for events that have occurred recently as well as a roadmap for the near future.
Thinking like a banker/politician is different than thinking like a bussinessman/entrepreneur. The former seeks to increase its share of existing power and wealth to a destructive result while the latter constantly seeks to improve and expand within its means so long as resources remain available. Caught in the middle are the citizens/subjects and the consumers/employees. A government has to take from its constituents to exist and keep them placated. A business has to commit to voluntary exchange both in order to keep its workforce and its customers. Which do think cultivates a cycle of improvement?
On a final note, I think that Africa or South America may be the first to progress closest to a truly free economy without government. That's another topic entirely.
It's been a pleasure to share this. If you find anything to be questionable or would like examples, ask away.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
