In difficult times the rich get richer

[Wob]

We MUST change our priorities and start forcing our governments and our businesses to focus on renewable resources which have been available for centuries. We MUST stop living in fear and lining up for EVERY vaccine which alter the very fabric of life to become dependent on drugs and vaccines in order to survive. We MUST stop living as X religion believing that Y religion is wrong. We MUST stop raping the planet and giving nothing in return. We MUST remember the rules of our little blue\green planet or it will no longer support our lives here.

We are sitting at a tipping point which can still be reversed if we try and apply different ways of living to our lives. Rethink our priorities before it’s too late.

\end plea to humanity

Im just going to ignore EVERYTHING you said before what i've quoted because I simply believe you're ignorant. Yes you can believe in what you like but to completely ignore the facts is what makes you ignorant.

Renewable sources have been around for a while yes... but they've never been efficient enough to generate the power demanded, nor efficient enough for entrepreneurs to invest in. Right now there is a small profit margin available to investors but it is still small. Governments are encouraging renewable sources of energy. For example the British government will pay you 47pence per Killawatt (I believe, im not sure if it's killa or mega) in subsidies. To force people to do things like that would be communist with a degree of fascism -- You want a planned economy; go live in North Korea.

LMAO LMAO LMAO POINT NUMBER 2 MADE ME GIGGLE SO MUCH!
We're not really living in fear, we just want to prolong our life because we wish to... prolong our life. We like life and it's only instinct to like it. If we didn't then we'd die out simply because of natural selection. An animal that cares for life will inevitably live and successfully breed than a species that doesn't.

Still on point 2 -- Bullshit do vaccines actually change "the fabric of life". Vaccines just stimulate phagocytes, helper T, helper B cells, memory cells etc to prevent sickness. Vaccines stimulate the growth of normal, human cells. There is nothing inhuman about them, there is nothing different about them ergo they are not altered. Again, drugs and vaccines are not necessary but they are desired and whilst there is a desire for them there will be money made from them. You can not stop people making money in a consumer based civilisation.

Point 3.
The successful religions are only successful because of natural selection again (Unfortunatly). They are only successful because of what they say, that if you don't believe in this God or idea then you won't go to a paradise and you'll go to a hateful place. This idea of paradise and fear forced people to believe in them, how were they to know thousands of years ago? Obviously the less successful ones which said it doesn't matter if you don't believe in us, and if you do believe in us nothing special will happen will die out because there is no incentive or fear to pull/push people in.

You can not, therefore tell people to stop believing in something they believe in because that in itself is surely parallel to the ideas of a religion (don't believe in this or this will happen, do this or this will happen etc etc) Also fascism etc etc.


Point 4.
What rules?

---------- Post added 2010-12-17 at 09:02 PM ----------

is or was there not a youtube movie from a student who made a investigation into 9-11? he took all film material he could gather and found some really disturbing and odd facts on them.

right before a tower collapst the camera who was on another building shook like it was hit by a little earthquake ( possible a bigg bomb inside the WTC building )

while collapsing you could see little explosions at the corners of the WTC building right before that floor also collapst.

the ppl that made the WTC sad it was impossible for it to collapse from a airplain crash seeing it was build to withstand one? also the inferno the plane left behind wasn't hot enough to melt the steel of the frames.

USA sent F16 fighter jets into the air only to sent them right OPPOSITE of the location the had to go....

pentagon was hit by a plane yet FBI or CIA ect took all camera data and gave us 3 snapshots back after weeks showing nothing something bright and a explosion... there where atleast 15 camera's around that spot with 50 frames per second.

^ sad plane also had 2 engines with a weight of tonns! yet the didn't leave a dent on the walls? only a perfect round circle without any plane debree.

sorry to say this and i know ill be flamed but i strongly suspect the goverment's involvement in the 9-11 disaster...

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561 (ADD IN THE h t t p : / / BIT)

Watch this. All 3 hours of it. If you don't and continue you're belief you are ignorant.

It is well worth the watch because the facts and evidence in it are simply un-deniable. It really is incredible how easily the guy who made the video has invalidated the conspiracy theorists theories.

[NineSpine]

The biggest problem our government faces is that it's oversized. People get voted in with promises that never get kept. If there has to be a government they should be small and maintainable and the PEOPLE not the GOVERNMENT should be the ones keeping a watchful eye.

---------- Post added 2010-12-17 at 12:42 PM ----------

There's evidence to support your statement and anyone that thinks there isn't is probably too busy watching survivor and cheating on their wifes with their secretary. I won't confirm of deny my beliefs partly because the government didn't release a full report that family members believed. It appears they kept things out.

If you don't get the truth from the source, you have to leave room for other sources and other possibilities.

No, there isn't evidence to support his statement. Every single conspiracy theory about 9/11 has been thoroughly debunked numerous times.

[Gentile911]

Conspriacy nut is not the word to describe myself. Open minded is the word I choose. I choose that word because people hear the word "Conspiracy" and instantly descredit them because "conspiracy" isn't possible in any way, shape or form... am I right?

Careful, it's good to be openminded, but only if you're soberminded.

@ Wob

I do agree, a lot of renewable resources are not efficient enough.

"The successful religions are only successful because of natural selection again (Unfortunatly). They are only successful because of what they say, that if you don't believe in this God or idea then you won't go to a paradise and you'll go to a hateful place."

You're actually categorizing religions and building a straw man argument. Not all religions say this. Many religions are based upon works to achieve a paradise. A few even are not based upon works, but identity or heritage, and then even fewer are based upon favor which is not won by anything you do. Though I do think you have some good points on how fear controls people, I would say there are moments when fear is appropriate especially considering justice. Religion is not a question of fear, but really a question of justice and morality.

[Blitz1o1]

You're so open minded that you're not soberminded.

Oh? And what does a sober minder person look and act like? Pays taxes on times, never questions authority, works 9-5 every day of the week and is a happy little consumer?

[Khrispy]

Had a few good points, such as

We MUST stop living in fear and lining up for EVERY vaccine which alter the very fabric of life to become dependent on drugs and vaccines in order to survive. We MUST stop living as X religion believing that Y religion is wrong.

but the majority of it was bullshit. Iraq is not about oil, it is about the Government responding to an attack based solely on hate and since then it has just been under poor management and bad decisions. If we cared that much about oil, Obama wouldn't have put a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf after Bp fucked up.

Oh? And what does a sober minder person look and act like? Pays taxes on times, never questions authority, works 9-5 every day of the week and is a happy little consumer?

No, sober-minded just means nothing clouds your decisions

[Vongimi]

Oh? And what does a sober minder person look and act like? Pays taxes on times, never questions authority, works 9-5 every day of the week and is a happy little consumer?

You say that as if its a bad thing.... wtf? Questioning authority is one thing, but paying taxes on time and having a fulltime job? Thats simply being a hard working person working for what you want...

[Wob]

The thing is, when i say the successful religions, i mean the major ones such as Christianity and Islam for examples. The two of which combine a whopping 3.7 billion people (taking upper brackets from not very reliable sources). Considering most of the religious violence and insolence do actually come from these religions (no this isn't a generalisation that all muslims kill anyone, nor christians) I beg to differ with your "straw man argument" comment. It is perfectly valid.

Also you say that "not all religions say this" but that is what we're talking about. Religion X believing that religion Y is wrong. We're talking about religions disagreeing with each other and having conflicts which is all because of my original premises in my other post. The successful religions are the ones that install the fear/bribary of "if you dont believe in this God/idea, you're going somewhere bad, if you do believe in this God/idea you're going somewhere good"

Also, religion being about Justice and Morality is again, just another cover up for the complete joke that it is. Religions give orders on how people should live their lives so that they might get into paradise. It's a way of controlling the masses which, surely is immoral. To take away freedoms of people is moral? It's justice that women get stoned without trial? lolwut?

---------- Post added 2010-12-18 at 12:02 AM ----------

If we cared that much about oil, Obama wouldn't have put a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf after Bp fucked up.

Nor would you build/subsidise/plan huge windfarm projects

[Devilyaki]

I have honestly heard it was a control disfuction orginized by inter steller intellangence "aliens" to cause the super powers down fall, getting us ready for the enventual take over and slavery..

[Wob]

I have honestly heard it was a control disfuction orginized by inter steller intellangence "aliens" to cause the super powers down fall, getting us ready for the enventual take over and slavery..

You can hear it, but whether you heard it from credible sources doesn't make it true.

And it's an invalid argument because it's an appeal to authority

[NineSpine]

The thing is, when i say the successful religions, i mean the major ones such as Christianity and Islam for examples. The two of which combine a whopping 3.7 billion people (taking upper brackets from not very reliable sources). Considering most of the religious violence and insolence do actually come from these religions (no this isn't a generalisation that all muslims kill anyone, nor christians) I beg to differ with your "straw man argument" comment. It is perfectly valid.

Also you say that "not all religions say this" but that is what we're talking about. Religion X believing that religion Y is wrong. We're talking about religions disagreeing with each other and having conflicts which is all because of my original premises in my other post. The successful religions are the ones that install the fear/bribary of "if you dont believe in this God/idea, you're going somewhere bad, if you do believe in this God/idea you're going somewhere good"

Also, religion being about Justice and Morality is again, just another cover up for the complete joke that it is. Religions give orders on how people should live their lives so that they might get into paradise. It's a way of controlling the masses which, surely is immoral. To take away freedoms of people is moral? It's justice that women get stoned without trial? lolwut?

---------- Post added 2010-12-18 at 12:02 AM ----------



Nor would you build/subsidise/plan huge windfarm projects

As Sam Harris points out: The God of the Abraham gets slavery wrong. If you were going to make a list of morally reprehensible things, slavery would probably be near the top. How can a system of morality based on the notion that what God approves of is right and what he disapproves of is wrong, be superior to the ingrained morality we all share, if it doesn't even get SLAVERY right.

[Wob]

As Sam Harris points out: The God of the Abraham gets slavery wrong. If you were going to make a list of morally reprehensible things, slavery would probably be near the top. How can a system of morality based on the notion that what God approves of is right and what he disapproves of is wrong, be superior to the ingrained morality we all share, if it doesn't even get SLAVERY right.

Sorry, are you trying to argue against something i've said -- I can't tell

The God of the Abraham is the same God that Christians believe in right? The one who supposedly freed them from slavery? I don't understand your point at all. Sorry!

[NineSpine]

Sorry, are you trying to argue against something i've said -- I can't tell

The God of the Abraham is the same God that Christians believe in right? The one who supposedly freed them from slavery? I don't understand your point at all. Sorry!

I was elaborating your point. Yes, that's the Old Testament.

[Against the Modern World]

Renewable sources have been around for a while yes... but they've never been efficient enough to generate the power demanded, nor efficient enough for entrepreneurs to invest in. Right now there is a small profit margin available to investors but it is still small. Governments are encouraging renewable sources of energy. For example the British government will pay you 47pence per Killawatt (I believe, im not sure if it's killa or mega) in subsidies. To force people to do things like that would be communist with a degree of fascism -- You want a planned economy; go live in North Korea.

Planned economy isn't as bad, if it's the only thing between survival and demise. No oil=everything stops, if there's no substitution.

[Wob]

Planned economy isn't as bad, if it's the only thing between survival and demise. No oil=everything stops, if there's no substitution.

If planned economy isn't as bad as a free market economy, then it's better... how is having quotas on what you can make and what you can't make better than making what ever the heck you want?

Also that whole No oil = everything stops analogy could be applied to anything really...

No food = everything stops

No water = everything stops...

[bloodkin]

read just what you typed OP, you are a hypocrit. First you say you do not assume annything and fill us with your 'open mind' lies, and then you slowly try to manipulate us by giving us your version of the truth. (c wut i did there :P)

You are not a bit better then those so called bad corperations and goverments.

You may not trust the goverment that is at rule now, but they still keep your country peacefull (no mass anarchy or civil wars) and is trying to keep the economy stable. i'm not defending your goverment, every system has it's faults, but it also ensures that you live in better circumstances than anny 3rd world country. it is mostly the goverment that rlly make the diffrence, the most truely corrupt goverments are those of rlly poor country's.

(note: my english sin't that great, if you bash it, you aren't rlly looking smart, but friendly tips are apricated

[Against the Modern World]

If planned economy isn't as bad as a free market economy, then it's better... how is having quotas on what you can make and what you can't make better than making what ever the heck you want?

Because when resources are limited it's endangering survival of whole nation, but corporate fat cats would still think about their own wealth, while planned economy, for example supporting search for alternative enery sources from national budget can save the country? Try thinking in larger scale, and not about momentary profit.
If you don't know how owners of big business would act in desperate situation, play the goblin starting zone.

[Wob]

Because when resources are limited it's endangering survival of whole nation, but corporate fat cats would still think about their own wealth, while planned economy, for example supporting search for alternative enery sources from national budget can save the country? Try thinking in larger scale, and not about momentary profit.
If you don't know how owners of big business would act in desperate situation, play the goblin starting zone.

In a free market economy, no resource would ever be limited unless there is a world depletion (in which case the world would be struggling for survival assuming it was an essential resource. That in itself is another issue). That is simply because of the whole incentive to make money.

If Demand rises. Shortage. People willing to pay more so that they have a garunteed purchase.
Supply rises as people see the potential in the rising price (therefore profit to be made).
No shortage, infact a surplus because people no longer become desparate to buy said product/service at a high price and also because of competition.
Price falls to equilibrium.
Supply = demand.
No shortage, no surplus.

Countries are looking for alternative energy sources already.
Companies are also doing this (The big corporate fat cats) and do you know why? It's because there is money to be made there!

North Korea.
Facts from 1990 taken from wikipedia: 26.8% of all output is food. That's nothing and is proven by the numerous famines they have.

Now, what you are saying is that a planned economy stops the limiting of resources needed for the survival of a whole nation... but people are dying out there and if you don't realise that, but would rather slag off "corporate fat cats" whom actually make the world go round then shame on you.

[NineSpine]

In a free market economy, no resource would ever be limited unless there is a world depletion (in which case the world would be struggling for survival assuming it was an essential resource. That in itself is another issue). That is simply because of the whole incentive to make money.

If Demand rises. Shortage. People willing to pay more so that they have a garunteed purchase.
Supply rises as people see the potential in the rising price (therefore profit to be made).
No shortage, infact a surplus because people no longer become desparate to buy said product/service at a high price and also because of competition.
Price falls to equilibrium.
Supply = demand.
No shortage, no surplus.

Countries are looking for alternative energy sources already.
Companies are also doing this (The big corporate fat cats) and do you know why? It's because there is money to be made there!

North Korea.
Facts from 1990 taken from wikipedia: 26.8% of all output is food. That's nothing and is proven by the numerous famines they have.

Now, what you are saying is that a planned economy stops the limiting of resources needed for the survival of a whole nation... but people are dying out there and if you don't realise that, but would rather slag off "corporate fat cats" whom actually make the world go round then shame on you.

You are using Economic abstracts, which are entirely based on the "All other things being equal" maxim. They work in the classroom, but things become significantly more complex in real life, because economics is always forced to assume that people are typically rational actors who are reasonably well informed. The sad fact is that they aren't.

It's not that he is wrong and you are right, but your economic rationale is basically irrelevant, especially when you are dealing with a global economy. It's too dramatically oversimplified. All other things are not equal. All people are not rational actors. Most people have no idea what is going on.

A truly free market requires an absolutely informed population in order to function correctly. That is physically impossible. Nobody knows everything, and the modern consumer simply purchases too many items to be expected to be fully informed about them.

[Deleted]

You are using Economic abstracts, which are entirely based on the "All other things being equal" maxim. They work in the classroom, but things become significantly more complex in real life, because economics is always forced to assume that people are typically rational actors who are reasonably well informed. The sad fact is that they aren't.

A truly free market requires an absolutely informed population in order to function correctly. That is physically impossible. Nobody knows everything, and the modern consumer simply purchases too many items to be expected to be fully informed about them.

Keynsianism, the form of economics that the U.S. government currently follows is the one that has only been proven to work in classrooms. It is Keynsianism that assumes THE GOVERNMENT, of all things, knows what every market proponent will do.
Free markets assume people generally go for lowest price/best quality. Free markets and Prosperity go hand in hand, all evidence can be found in our history.

The economics crash of 1921 lasted a year, because the government favored freemarket economics. The great depression... well the name says all, was a result of Franklin D. Roosevelt's social programs and massive government stimulus/spending (Keynsianism).

The current depression of 2001 to ??? , also the philosophy of Keynes to blame.


Also at OP, only thing that Americans need to focus on is getting your government in control. They're raping your constitution to shreds. As a person living under the tyranny of the empire of EU, it really is sad to see the last shreds of liberty disappear in the United States.

[NineSpine]

Keynsianism, the form of economics that the U.S. government currently follows is the one that has only been proven to work in classrooms. It is Keynsianism that assumes THE GOVERNMENT, of all things, knows what every market proponent will do.
Free markets assume people generally go for lowest price/best quality. Free markets and Prosperity go hand in hand, all evidence can be found in our history.

The economics crash of 1921 lasted a year, because the government favored freemarket economics. The great depression... well the name says all, was a result of Franklin D. Roosevelt's social programs and massive government stimulus/spending (Keynsianism).

The current depression of 2001 to ??? , also the philosophy of Keynes to blame.


Also at OP, only thing that Americans need to focus on is getting your government in control. They're raping your constitution to shreds. As a person living under the tyranny of the empire of EU, it really is sad to see the last shreds of liberty disappear in the United States.

Radical free market economics is the very definition of "only been proven to work in classrooms". The notion of self-regulating free markets is based on insane assumptions and expectations. Markets can only operate according to free market principles when access to products is universal, all consumers are rational actors, and competition can easily enter and leave all markets.

None of those things are even close to true. Universal access to products is fundamentally impossible on a nation-wide scale, no consumers are truly rational actors because it's impossible for them to have all knowledge of every product they buy or for them to make decisions based solely on the merits of a product versus who has better advertising or reputation, and competition can only enter or leave markets easily in a handful of simple markets.

What your convenient little Austrian myth about the crash of the early 20s always leaves out is that the government was printing money like it was going out of style right after the crash. Once Coolidge came in, he continued that policy and had doubled the number of dollars in circulation. Furthermore, the government had invested massive amounts of money in war infrastructure during World War I that didn't start to catch up until the 20s. Factories that had been built with war money became extremely cheap, because there was an overabundance, resulting in a very easy way to jump right into the factory business and start creating jobs.

As far as 2001 goes, Keynes did not argue for trickle-down economics. Get real. You don't even seem to know what Keynesianism is besides treating it like a four letter word. Keynes' primary argument was that the government can mitigate harsh economic times by making money in the economy move. This been proven true time and time again, over and over, all over the world.

There has only been one significant example of a free market economy in modern history, and that is the absolute disaster in Chile.