Your Thoughts.

[blackbird]

I'm also member a large flemish game forum, where such cases are discussed. Most of the people says that is total bullshit, some other people believe the theories. One of the references is David Icke. He claims that there are some aliens on earth and some people are reptiles or have some kind of reptile DNA. I don't think he believes in the evolution theory.
I believe that the people who have the most money, have the most power. It doesn't surprise me that some people has shares in almost all companies of a section, like the medecins section. I mean that they can influence almost any company if the have the money and thus the shares. I see it more like pyramid where some companies are the daughtercompanies of another company and etc until only one or a few companies remain. Fortunately there are some laws about a monopoly. I fear that in every country the very rich industrials can bribe some politicians and influence them.
It's being said that the richest man like rockefeller and rothshild are part of the illuminati (the conspiracy order) and even that they worship the devil.
The same people who believe in the conspiracy theory believe also that the US government is responsible for attacks of 9/11 and are even saying that there were bombs in the WTC-building ad giving the US government a reason to war with some middle east countries.

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

Kinda going off topic, so you can feel free to do whatever to this post you want, but how can those people believe the earth is flat? We have actual footage of the Earth from the moon, a giant circle that spins, we have proven longitude distortion, the fact that when you go halfway around the world from the U.S you reach China and if you keep going you come back. I'm just astonished... :eek:

[DarkAsmodeous]

...You've called my theory bullshit? Its classical liberalism, and I'm afraid I'd like a better arguement. The example of bribing politicians... that's using fore to get an advantage no one else has, the problem with force regulating a standard is that it circumvents the bottom up process of discovery needed to evolve new solutions and institutions. When a monopoly in a market begins to exist, the people have no power to force anyone else to do anything not based on contract. And when their existence becomes too costly, then those feeling hte cost begin to seek substitutes, its basic economics. Try to not politicize the issue, because I'm not advocating the status quo, our mockery of a political system is not part of what I've advocated.

[Seniosh]

About taxes, people enter into a contract with their government. The people agree to give up certain freedoms, and obey the laws of the country. In return, the governent agrees to not abuse that power. "

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

In short, the government has the right to tax us because the government was created by our will, to protect us. If we were unhappy with this state of affairs, or thought it an unnecessary use of force, we would overthrow the government. We willingly pay taxes, because we decide what to do with those taxes.

About the assumption of knowlege, i assure you, the government is not by any means a perfect organization that only makes correct decisions. Sometimes, they're just plain wrong. Sometimes they're corrupt. But through it all, i think the education system is pretty decent. They obviously consulted experienced teachers when they created the curriculum, and it covers quite a bit of material. Who would YOU suggest determine our education? How shall we know what is and isn't false? The government is mostly trustworthy, because WE pay their salaries, and WE elect them. Checks and balances.

IATE
Those people were joking. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonsk...tCurEv.htm look at the current events page!

It's basically making fun of people who don't believe science. It's also quite entertaining

[DarkAsmodeous]

We don't pay the government. They take our money. If we refuse, they use guns to lock us away. Fact.

Who do I reccomend determine what should be taught? As I said, no man, let the bottom up process run.

Sovereignty declares me the property of the United States, I am a citizen at birth and am from then on obligated to obey the decisions of the men in washington. Read some articles on the privitization of government, you'd be fascinated.

[Seniosh]

So you suggest we are a hoard of slaves to our government, paying taxes only to avoid being jailed? That's preposterous. We pay taxes because we get services such as schools, roads, fire departments, and police in return for them. Out of 1 person asked why they pay taxes, 2 agreed that taxes are neccessary and that they pay them not because of force, but to get the services and whatnot.

If the majority of my country REALLY wanted no taxes, we'd elect politicians who would give us NO taxes. Really now, ask a few adults why they really pay taxes. It's not out of fear, its because we happen to like the services the state provides.

Letting schools determine the education is not the best way to run schools at all. As i said, what's to determine that everyone gets taught on an equal footing? What if some evangelical christian runs the only school near my house, and he decides that the theory of education and the big bang shouldn't be taught? Well then i don't get to learn either of those theories, and i have to pay for it.

Yup, you were born here, and if you don't like it, move somewhere else. 2/3 majority rules in this country, and apparantly 2/3 of the represented population agrees with what i'm saying. (probably much much higher than 2/3)

To use your own argument, i LIKE having a government to provide services, and i DO NOT WANT it to be torn apart, restructured, and entirely privatized. You by your own morality, cannot change the government, because to do so would be to go against the will of the people of the United States of America, and we have a constitutional right to collectively choose our government.

you have one idea of what's right, and by your own definition, you cannot tell me it is the truth, and you cannot force the rest of the United States to accept it either. A good example of one country to try and force an economic and political system on their people was the U.S.S.R. Look what happened to them. Let the people pay their taxes, and don't expect them to be outraged while they pay them. I myself have made the mistake many a time of expecting people to have a certain reaction to something, but when you actually make a point of asking someone what they think, it turns out the majority does not agree.

I expect my neighbor to give his wood to build a shelter for the poor, and i will donate my wood as well. In return, i will get wood as well when i need it. It's actually similar to car insurance

[DarkAsmodeous]

You've stopped being respectful, I'm done here.

I love my country a great deal, I must say that your :bitching: about leaving is offensive, rude, uncalled for, and completely out of line with america's founding principles.

[Seniosh]

I meant no disrespect, but it's the truth. If you dislike something about this country, you are in no way barred from leaving it, unless the recieving country has a problem. Our founding principles are that the majority rules. Thus, if you are not part of the majority, the easiest solution is to move away from the country, to somewhere that supports your views. It would be unconstitutional to change the government because 1% of the population wants it to be so.

Really now, there's a difference between stating a point bluntly and disrespect. I personally find that stating the simple truth, which in this case is that if you disagree with the american government that the easiest thing is to move away, is preferable to subtly implying it.

If i stated it a bit TOO bluntly, or you percieved malice, i apologize,

Sovereignty declares me the property of the United States, I am a citizen at birth and am from then on obligated to obey the decisions of the men in washington.

i was simply making the point that you are NOT the property of the united states, because you could move to another country if you so wished. I said nothing about your patriotism, only that most people would likely disagree with your opinions

It is not our principle to force you to leave, it is our principle to LET you

[DarkAsmodeous]

Majority rule is, in actuallity, one of the issues that Jefferson felt very strongly about dissallowing, by guaranteing certain rights and limiting government the majority can no longer ues the government to pursue their ends by force. We are no longer living under the government of our founding fathers, lincoln destroyed that when he gathered power for the executive branch (power that has never stopped growing). What you equate with american and right, those radicals who in fact did leave and do something about it (when there was still land to do so with...) would call heartless, cruel, immoral, and wrong.

[Seniosh]

The wars in the legislation are proof that the power of the executive branch is not absolute. There is a term restriction of 2 terms, which limits power. Everything has to be approved by a 2/3rds majority, which means that many things get blocked. The president now has to get congress's approval to go to war, which wasn't the case in lincoln's time. The congress is now trying to end the war against the president's wishes, and they can succeed if they get enough of a vote.

Don't confuse the republicans controlling the house and senate with the executive branch controlling everything. If there was a legislature that really opposed GWB, he would be paralyzed. He does what he does because he is supported by the republican party.

Of course this isn't the government of our forefathers. It's rediculous to try to go back to what was good 200 years ago. We can't just use the old government, we have to adapt it and change it. When the government was first created, the judicial branch had absolutely no power, but then in the 1800s, Justice Marshal (i think) had the brilliant idea of declaring laws unconstitutional, and thus is a large check on the president.

What you equate with american and right, those radicals who in fact did leave and do something about it (when there was still land to do so with...) would call heartless, cruel, immoral, and wrong.

Not quite sure what you're saying. Are you trying to say that the radicals of yesteryear would call our current government the things listed? I can't argue that they said those things, i just can't see how our government could be considered heartless, cruel, immoral, or wrong.

Plus if majority doesn't rule, how do you propose to decide things? limit too much and you have a country that can't adapt to changes