PDA

View Full Version : The real illuminati revealed. Developers will get a LOT from these PLEASE WATCH



Gibbwake
19th Jul 2008, 21:02
I am what you call, an "info warrior" I dedicate my online life to getting information out about the illuminati, or the globalists, elties, whatever you want to call them and the crimes they are committing to bring us closer to their one world government. They do this by offering the solutions to the problems they create, known as the Hegelian dialectic.

I wish that the developers of this game would check out these documentaries. I have to credit the original creators of Deus Ex, which woke me up to some of the real themes of the elites. Not all of it was real obviously in the first game, but it got very close and made me do my own research. PLEASE check out these movies, at least one if you have the time, developers:


Esoteric Agenda
http://www.stumbleupon.com/thumb/512/15443512.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6030443037963555139

There is an Esoteric Agenda behind every facet of life that was once believed to be disconnected. There is an Elite faction guiding almost every political, economic, social, corporate and even anti-establishment organizations. This film uses the hard work and research of many professionals in every field to expose this agenda and put the future of this planet back into the hands of the people. One of those rare pieces which covers much of the "The Big Picture." Run time: 2 hours and 6 minutes


End Game: Blueprint for Global Enslavement
http://www.endgamethemovie.com/images/frontcoverlarge.jpghttp://www.endgamethemovie.com/images/backcoverlarge.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

High Quality WMV legal (permission is given to spread it) torrent with 20+ seeders. http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3858797/Endgame-Blueprint.For.Global.Enslavement%5B2007%5DAlex.Jones%5BEng%5D-Pr.3858797.TPB.torrent

For the New World Order, a world government is just the beginning. Once in place they can engage their plan to exterminate 80% of the world's population, while enabling the "elites" to live forever with the aid of advanced technology. For the first time, crusading filmmaker ALEX JONES reveals their secret plan for humanity's extermination: Operation ENDGAME.

Jones chronicles the history of the global elite's bloody rise to power and reveals how they have funded dictators and financed the bloodiest wars—creating order out of chaos to pave the way for the first true world empire.

* Watch as Jones and his team track the elusive Bilderberg Group to Ottawa and Istanbul to document their secret summits, allowing you to witness global kingpins setting the world's agenda and instigating World War III.
* Learn about the formation of the North America transportation control grid, which will end U.S. sovereignty forever.
* Discover how the practitioners of the pseudo-science eugenics have taken control of governments worldwide as a means to carry out depopulation.
* View the progress of the coming collapse of the United States and the formation of the North American Union.


Never before has a documentary assembled all the pieces of the globalists' dark agenda. Endgame's compelling look at past atrocities committed by those attempting to steer the future delivers information that the controlling media has meticulously censored for over 60 years. It fully reveals the elite's program to dominate the earth and carry out the wicked plan in all of human history.

Endgame is not conspiracy theory, it is documented fact in the elite's own words.

Ring Of Power - Empire Of The City
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x169/the911fields/RingOfPowerDVDcover.jpg

Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549
Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4430543376785758889

Legal Torrent, no copyright: http://tinyurl.com/6n3eem

The city of London, Vatican city + Washington DC are 3 independant states within states wich composes the empire of the city. The first is financial control, the the second is religious control and third is military control. Together they make the very unholy trinity.

Many people realize that this mystifying situation, in which an alleged democratic and self-governing nation is actually controlled against the will of the people. Once identified, there appears to be a clear indication that there exists a very powerful and occult organization which plans and directs world affairs.

If you've ever wondered why we can find a guy in a hole in the middle of the dessert but we cant arrest drug lords who earn Billions of dollars annually or why the national debt annually gets larger despite the economy doubling or tripling in size, the answer lies here.

Run Time: 5 hrs (WORTH IT - Gibb)

Global Warming or Global Governance
http://www.globalwarmingglobalgovernance.com/images/Glbl-Wrmr-Glbl-Govern4x7web.jpg

(This one seems out of place, but it shows the world government / illuminati infrastructure in incredible detail)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073

If you were to ask ten people on the street if mankind was causing global warming, at least eight out of ten would say yes. After all, Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth allegedly provides incontrovertible evidence that this is the case. Both presidential candidates are committed to passing economically devastating legislation that will do little to nothing to stop global warming. Contrary to what is heard in the media, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the warming we are experiencing is natural, with maybe a small amount contributed by man’s activities. Nor is there any scientific consensus. 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating there is "no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide is causing...catastrophic" warming. The debate is still raging within the scientific community. In this DVD, Sovereignty International has put together interviews of respected climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so.

The Order Of Death
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/3411/orderofdeathdarksecretsle9.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4583149687541115475

This new film delves deeply into the history of the Grove where powerful men make decisions that affect the world but are completely hidden from public scrutiny. The Order of Death details how the Grove has been the backdrop for some of the most earthshattering events in human history including the development of the Starwars program and the Manhattan Project.

This is the second version of The Order of Death, with extra footage added.

The Order of Death picks up where Dark Secrets leaves off. This new work exposes the connections between the Bohemian Club and Skull and Bones and other occult secret societies. Jones explores the roots of the Grove and its links to occult networks dating back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.

Oym
19th Jul 2008, 21:10
That's interesting , I have my own opinion about this , but I'll take a look .

Thanks .

Gibbwake
19th Jul 2008, 21:19
That's interesting , I have my own opinion about this , but I'll take a look .

Thanks .

Please do, thank you!

Oym
19th Jul 2008, 21:31
You're welcome , I'll see what I can unearth from this .

But I already believe in some kind of conspiracy .

Dead-Eye
19th Jul 2008, 21:32
Someone already posted this... It's better if you think of it as a political thriller.

Edit: although it's still cool.

Gibbwake
19th Jul 2008, 21:38
Someone already posted this... It's better if you think of it as a political thriller.

I seriously doubt someone posted Ring Of Power. You are in for the thrill of your life after you watch that.

Oym
19th Jul 2008, 21:41
It doesn't really matter if someone already posted it ..

I guess that some folks don't really know about all of this ..

Do I feel concerned ? :scratch: :D

Bluey71
19th Jul 2008, 22:00
Interesting.

In a vague sort of way I was aware of people talking about this stuff going on. As for DX3, I agree, if the devs could get a line into this and thread it throughout the game, regardless if its true or not, would be awesome.

Tsumaru
19th Jul 2008, 23:55
I don't buy into these hype books. Whether or not there is some truth behind a number of conspiracies, the whole over-hyped over-exaggerated books and videos that supposed 'uncoverers of the truth' release tend to be filled with absolute rubbish. Just because it sounds convincing at first glance, doesn't mean it's anything but pure drivel. *cough*LooseChange*cough*

Gibbwake
20th Jul 2008, 00:08
I don't buy into these hype books. Whether or not there is some truth behind a number of conspiracies, the whole over-hyped over-exaggerated books and videos that supposed 'uncoverers of the truth' release tend to be filled with absolute rubbish. Just because it sounds convincing at first glance, doesn't mean it's anything but pure drivel. *cough*LooseChange*cough*

I didnt link loose change - and these arent books, theyre free documentaries. Please watch one! Any of them will blow you away.

iWait
20th Jul 2008, 00:09
Looks like Alex Jones is making some money.

The European (the most widely known) Illuminati died awhile ago.
It's the UN conspiring with Xenu we should be worrying about, not this.

CarloGervasi
20th Jul 2008, 00:12
If there is a conspiracy, I can assure you it's nothing like these videos/books, and I can really assure you that poor little Alex Jones doesn't know anything about it. Come on, really now. This stuff sounds like it came from a comic book. Anytime you hear a story about a group of unnamed evil guys wanting to take over the world and everything it "because they're evil!", you know it's time to step away from the conversation. The groups that put these together are usually the same groups that swear up and down that the Earth is secretly ruled by a society of subterranean, shape-shifting lizard men, just to put things into perspective.

Gibbwake
20th Jul 2008, 00:24
If there is a conspiracy, I can assure you it's nothing like these videos/books, and I can really assure you that poor little Alex Jones doesn't know anything about it. Come on, really now. This stuff sounds like it came from a comic book. Anytime you hear a story about a group of unnamed evil guys wanting to take over the world and everything it "because they're evil!", you know it's time to step away from the conversation. The groups that put these together are usually the same groups that swear up and down that the Earth is secretly ruled by a society of subterranean, shape-shifting lizard men, just to put things into perspective.

No lizard people stuff, Ive heard that and think its bunk. I want you to do me a favor and watch Ring of Power and tell me if you think its bunk after the first half. What do you have to lose? Check it out, its great.

Oym
20th Jul 2008, 00:26
I don't specially believe in Illuminati , MJ12 or stuff like that , I think it's easier than that to define .

I believe that multinational companies have the ultimate power on earth , beyond governments and others fragments of power that just help them to get bigger and bigger ..

As a consequence , thanks to money and power , these companies can exercise a pressure on anything , anyone they want , anytime ..

That would explain a lot of things in my opinion . Gathered , the most powerful directors compagnies could form these so-called gatherings of biggest and most powerful men on earth , stuff like that , which could be also called by some : the Illuminati .. Anyway , in all cases we have :

Strengthen governments ( which has everything to gain for making an alliance with big compagnies ) and corporations , for weaken individuals .. And that's how I think the world runs .

Gibbwake
20th Jul 2008, 00:29
Looks like Alex Jones is making some money.

The European (the most widely known) Illuminati died awhile ago.
It's the UN conspiring with Xenu we should be worrying about, not this.

Yes, the original illuminati did die off, but the Rhodes Milner group is more of a reincarnation of the group with some of the same family names involved. Its very real, and going on right now. Bill Clintons mentor wrote a tell all book about it, he wants the people to know about it. He thinks a world government run by these tyrants is a good thing though, but for the normal citizen it is not - only the ones high on the pyramid. Anyway, they broke the presses for the book because of the inner information it reveals. Here it is http://www.bravenewbookstore.com/product_info.php?products_id=255

As for Alex Jones making money - everyone of his movies are available for free online. He could have them taken down at any time. He has said to spread his movies for free though. Check out endgame and I promise you that you will want to show it to a family member. Id recommend the torrent because its much higher than the cropped google video one. Here is a direct link to it as well (do a save as): http://nw0.info/files/Documentaries/Alex%20Jones%20Documentary%20Films/Endgame%20Blueprint%20for%20Global%20Enslavement/Endgame-Blueprint.For.Global.Enslavement[2007]Alex.Jones.wmv

or http://tinyurl.com/5ro6kx

CarloGervasi
20th Jul 2008, 00:33
What do you have to lose?

My time.

AaronJ
20th Jul 2008, 00:33
Ehhhhh, boring.

Tsumaru
20th Jul 2008, 01:20
What do you have to lose?

My time and my bandwidth.


I didnt link loose change - and these arent books, theyre free documentaries. Please watch one! Any of them will blow you away.

No, you didn't link Loose Change. But you're posting in the exact same way as the people who spout off that rubbish do. "It will blow you away! What do you have to lose?" Thus, by association, I assume your "free documentaries" are equally rubbishy.

Also, last I checked, a free documentary was a video, and I *did* say "books and videos". >_>

Gibbwake
20th Jul 2008, 01:59
My time and my bandwidth.



No, you didn't link Loose Change. But you're posting in the exact same way as the people who spout off that rubbish do. "It will blow you away! What do you have to lose?" Thus, by association, I assume your "free documentaries" are equally rubbishy.

Also, last I checked, a free documentary was a video, and I *did* say "books and videos". >_>

What? Thats hilarious. I posted it "in the exact same way" so its rubbish? Thats the worst excuse ive heard yet not to learn something. If you can name one thing wrong in any of those ill let you off, but now you just have to watch one. ;)

BTW I didnt link any books besides Quigleys, so I dont know what youre talking about with that.

Dead-Eye
20th Jul 2008, 02:08
I'm not knocking this stuff but Endgame sucks because there's no solution posted at the end of the video.

Also I could care less that OMG people are selfish and the government is not my friend. People are going to do what people have been doing from the dawn of time. Everything that has a beginning has an end. Imperfect people will do imperfect things fact of life. :)

HouseOfPain
20th Jul 2008, 05:52
Half way through Ring of Power.

Just amazing.

I really Don't know what too think

SemiAnonymous
20th Jul 2008, 06:53
tagged for later. I'll watch it when I've got time.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
20th Jul 2008, 09:32
Interesting stuff, but kind of old news really and nothing that hasn't been discussed before many times over, is it? :)
Different groups, different names, different conspiracy theories etc... its all fun to read. Maybe the devs will use some of it in Deus Ex 3, who knows? :cool:

I don't take any of this stuff too seriously, except perhaps news on the latest escapades of the Bilderberg group.... ;)

Romeo
20th Jul 2008, 09:41
The video's own logic defies itself. It's evidence fights with itself, throwing blame between America and Isreal. I find it simply doesn't work in the end.

minus0ne
20th Jul 2008, 09:53
What? Thats hilarious. I posted it "in the exact same way" so its rubbish? Thats the worst excuse ive heard yet not to learn something. If you can name one thing wrong in any of those ill let you off, but now you just have to watch one. ;)
If by "learn" you mean digress into the paranoid fantasies of one Alex Jones :p I'm not going to waste time watching that crap (10 minutes of Loose Change was enough time wasted), but I'll recommend the work of Adam Curtis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis), who actually knows what he's talking about and has won several big awards for his exposés. The last century was shaped by ideologies and ideologues, not some conspiracy masterplan.

Gibbwake
20th Jul 2008, 16:39
If by "learn" you mean digress into the paranoid fantasies of one Alex Jones :p I'm not going to waste time watching that crap (10 minutes of Loose Change was enough time wasted), but I'll recommend the work of Adam Curtis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis), who actually knows what he's talking about and has won several big awards for his exposés. The last century was shaped by ideologies and ideologues, not some conspiracy masterplan.

Adam Curtis has done some GREAT WORK! I am with you there. You dont have to watch the Alex Jones movies though, but theres nothing in endgame that isnt factually correct. Id recommend one of the other ones if you cant stand the guy though. I think his energy is effective and needed to fight this kind of threat.

edit: Alex Jones didnt do Loose Change - fyi


The video's own logic defies itself. It's evidence fights with itself, throwing blame between America and Isreal. I find it simply doesn't work in the end.

What I got from the video in regards to blame is that there are criminal elements, unknown to most of the good people in government that are intertwined at the top. As Caroll Quigley said (Clintons college professor and adviser) there are circles within circles, rings within rings. The body doesnt know why its doing it, its compartmentalized taking orders from the top so they can get paid and feed their families.

HouseOfPain
20th Jul 2008, 17:18
Adam Curtis has done some GREAT WORK! I am with you there. You dont have to watch the Alex Jones movies though, but theres nothing in endgame that isnt factually correct. Id recommend one of the other ones if you cant stand the guy though. I think his energy is effective and needed to fight this kind of threat.

edit: Alex Jones didnt do Loose Change - fyi



What I got from the video in regards to blame is that there are criminal elements, unknown to most of the good people in government that are intertwined at the top. As Caroll Quigley said (Clintons college professor and adviser) there are circles within circles, rings within rings. The body doesnt know why its doing it, its compartmentalized taking orders from the top so they can get paid and feed their families.

What I dont get with all these movies is WHAT to do.

WHAT do we do?

Gibbwake
20th Jul 2008, 18:18
What I dont get with all these movies is WHAT to do.

WHAT do we do?

Do what you think is right, be your own leader. The way I see it, we need to have more people that know whats up! Thats why I try to post these movies and others in places like this. Theres a bookstore in my town that is up on all of this, they have 20 dedicated dvd burners cranking out movies like this and they give them out for free.

Oym
20th Jul 2008, 19:57
Considering there is really conspiracy ( which you believe in or not , that's not the question ) he's true on one point :

Knowledge is the first step to action . To act without knowledge is dangerous and unwise . We must know our enemy before we think of what to do .

If more people were aware of such things , it'd be a good start , unfortunately it's not the case .

HouseOfPain
20th Jul 2008, 20:11
But should we like go to Washington D.C. and like kill people?

(The feds will be all over this Thread XD)

Oym
20th Jul 2008, 20:22
I don't really get your post but you're not forced to believe everything said in these documentaries anyway , you still have your brain and can have your own point of view :D

So let's take what seems the most interesting and let's get rid of the rest . This work can only be done by you , for you .

jcp28
20th Jul 2008, 20:28
God, I don't know where to begin. There are a number of problems with those videos.

All that crap about 31,000 scientists saying global warming is not human caused are probably a lot smaller than the number of scientists that do think that humans are largely responsible.

Another thing, they would NOT want to start WWIII. It would be ultimately counterproductive and bad for business. No, makes no sense at all.



I think multinational coporations have much more power than they should have, but there really isn't some cabal of men ruling the world from behind the scenes.

Oym
20th Jul 2008, 20:38
In my opinion , all directors of big companies and richest men ARE the ruler of the world , they don't control behind the scenes , they control by money , which brings power and everything it needs .

As you could be bought easily for a high amount of money , it's the same principle with the society . Having a lot of money means everything in our world .

Do you think it's an accident if today we realize how powerful are big companies ? So powerful that they could build easily an empire with everyone under its order ? So powerful that they could easily put us in danger with food or airwaves ?

No one realizes this , but they DO have the power , and governments don't do a damm thing to stop them , question is why ? ( Beyond what we are told ) .

Oym
20th Jul 2008, 20:43
Let's take Microsoft for example , they are so powerful that they are almost completely alone on the market , they are so powerful that no one can equal them and will probably ever join them , they are so powerful that they can monitor us as they wish , anytime from our comptuters in the whole world . And guess what , they help governments in improving surveillance via internet . How surprising ..

And do we do about it ?

Nothing , because we don't know it ..

gh0s7
20th Jul 2008, 21:50
Nothing , because we don't WANT TO know it ..

Easier for the common citizen to live a happy illusion than face the cold hard facts.

Microsoft, arguably, dominates the market, but they're not alone.
The problem with multinationals (and huge-ridiculously-over-the-top companies) goes both ways; if one reaches its point, like Microsoft, is largely influenced/driven by the human ambition. However, that also means that there will always be others trying to take Microsoft's place.

Personally, I don't really believe that the big cheeses of Microsoft can keep it on the top forever; it's inevitable that they pass through a bad time and go down a few pegs, allowing other companies to rise (but perhaps not to reach a dominating position).

And that's the same reason a dictatorship (or any other means of oppression) will always have "its days counted" (as a figure of speech), because someone else wants it too. :nut:

If anybody wants or is expecting a revolution, then it might be better to sit down, because, as History demonstrates, it's necessary for the masses to hit the bottom first. ;)

Oym
20th Jul 2008, 22:26
Microsoft is not alone , but technically they almost are .. Apple seems to be the only company annoying them , but how do we know for sure that apple is not in fact allied with microsoft ?

And no one will battle them , for now , because it's far too expensive to invest in this area of the global market , have you ever heard of microsoft's process in avoiding any new companies for new investments ? It's right in my economic's book .

Microsoft may not be on top for ever , but when the time will come , it will just be replaced by another company , or the same under a new name , as big and as powerful .. In other terms , no change .

Most of the people doesn't live in happy delusion , they're just confused about what they hear everyday and what they could think and imagine on their own . If brainwashing is effective in one way , we can also use it in the other way ..

So , globally yes on many marquets there's competition , but on others there's not **** , and this is where the biggest companies usually are . This is where the danger is . As long as competition is present , there will be a solution for fixing their potential mistakes , as for the rest I wish I could say the same thing ..

Understand that the biggest companies are made to hold their positions , and it's not about one or two compagnies , it's about several companies all directed by a single one , a powerful one .. I study economics , so I know of what I'm talking about .

And that's why there's no competition . How do you want to settle competion when the big fishes can erase you or buy you out in a heartbeat ? And when they can interact with the government which is SUPPOSED to regulate their actions ?

So , keep in mind that this whole orguanisation is based on what you just said :

And that's the same reason a dictatorship (or any other means of oppression) will always have "its days counted"

So they can change the rules of your quote . Most of the people wants power , but not everyone gets it . That's the same principle .

HouseOfPain
21st Jul 2008, 00:45
Microsoft is not alone , but technically they almost are .. Apple seems to be the only company annoying them , but how do we know for sure that apple is not in fact allied with microsoft ?

And no one will battle them , for now , because it's far too expensive to invest in this area of the global market , have you ever heard of microsoft's process in avoiding any new companies for new investments ? It's right in my economic's book .

Microsoft may not be on top for ever , but when the time will come , it will just be replaced by another company , or the same under a new name , as big and as powerful .. In other terms , no change .

Most of the people doesn't live in happy delusion , they're just confused about what they hear everyday and what they could think and imagine on their own . If brainwashing is effective in one way , we can also use it in the other way ..

So , globally yes on many marquets there's competition , but on others there's not **** , and this is where the biggest companies usually are . This is where the danger is . As long as competition is present , there will be a solution for fixing their potential mistakes , as for the rest I wish I could say the same thing ..

Understand that the biggest companies are made to hold their positions , and it's not about one or two compagnies , it's about several companies all directed by a single one , a powerful one .. I study economics , so I know of what I'm talking about .

And that's why there's no competition . How do you want to settle competion when the big fishes can erase you or buy you out in a heartbeat ? And when they can interact with the government which is SUPPOSED to regulate their actions ?

So , keep in mind that this whole orguanisation is based on what you just said :

And that's the same reason a dictatorship (or any other means of oppression) will always have "its days counted"

So they can change the rules of your quote . Most of the people wants power , but not everyone gets it . That's the same principle .

At one point it was Net(scape or zero) that posed a threat to Microsoft because they basically invented the Internet.

Microsoft replied with Internet Explorer.. and the rest is history.

Oym
21st Jul 2008, 07:38
Which brings us to what I just said .

In one way or another , Microsoft is all powerful , and this is not only by accident .

Kevyne-Shandris
21st Jul 2008, 09:08
How about content a little more down to Earth?

For those who aren't aware of this MJ12 conspiracy connection, you may want to read about it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Forrestal

Would really liked Forrestal's story weaved into DX3+, as it'll go well with the DX, especially considering the Vandenberg AFB/Area 51 missions. If for anything continuity with the original series.

Tsumaru
21st Jul 2008, 14:12
My time and my bandwidth.



No, you didn't link Loose Change. But you're posting in the exact same way as the people who spout off that rubbish do. "It will blow you away! What do you have to lose?" Thus, by association, I assume your "free documentaries" are equally rubbishy.

Also, last I checked, a free documentary was a video, and I *did* say "books and videos". >_>What? Thats hilarious. I posted it "in the exact same way" so its rubbish? Thats the worst excuse ive heard yet not to learn something. If you can name one thing wrong in any of those ill let you off, but now you just have to watch one. ;)

BTW I didnt link any books besides Quigleys, so I dont know what youre talking about with that.

The fact you can't decipher the inclusion of "books" with "videos" purely as a sweeping statement about all conspiracy nuts rather than the specifics of what you yourself have posted puts your ability to rationalise under serious question. This coupled with the fact you clearly are a conspiracy nut yourself puts any direction of interest of my learning far away from whatever you claim to "know". Whether you consider this to be just as bad an excuse or not is ultimately irrelevant to me, for I have a better question for you.

As it's clearly obvious it is not possible for a single mortal human to learn everything there is to learn, we must prioritise. For you to say "that's the worst excuse not to learn" is invalid; I have made no comments about a lack of interest in learning. Just a lack of interest in this crap. Suppose that the time spent watching these absurd videos would be studying for my degree; surely, then, that would be time better spent.

So here's the real deal. I will watch all of those videos, and find three things wrong in [i]each[i], if - and only if - you first complete a tertiary degree with honours in any subject from any course at any institution. Which has a far more beneficial time:reward ratio than watching your 'documentaries'. Either that or you give me a "better excuse not to learn", and maybe I'll just "let you off the hook" for our little deal. So what do you say?

iWait
21st Jul 2008, 19:45
Ok, first off just because he doesn't charge for the videos doesn't mean he isn't making any money off of them.

Next, I watched the Global Warming one, retarded, it's not a conspiracy to control governments but an ingenious tool for making money.

Let's see....
-90% of the scientists who proposed Global Warming were the same scientists who caused the "Ice Age Apocalypse" scare back in the 80's.
-Al Gore owns a large amount of stock in "Green" companies.
-Al Gore openly promotes "Green" companies.
-95% of Americans know about the Global Warming theory directly or indirectly from Al Gore and his slideshow campaigns/movie.

Al Gore claims that through ice core drilling scientists found the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere from 30,000 years ago to now, and through the PPM of CO2 they made a record of the Global Average Temperature dating back 30,000 years. This is impossible, It only takes into account CO2, not methane, snow coverage, water vapor concentration, solar activity, water salinity/density, water temperature, cloud coverage, atmosphere density, and millions of other known and unknown factors.

Ever since screaming "YEEEEEHAWWWWW!" Al Gore has been shunned by the Democrats, and since global warming became well known the Democrats have taken on a "pro-green" image, and have gained more support.

FrankCSIS
21st Jul 2008, 21:01
The last century was shaped by ideologies and ideologues, not some conspiracy masterplan.

I'm in absolute agreement. What we have today is not the work of a few elitists who seem to believe the world was handed to them but quite simply the logical evolution of over 10 000 years of organised societies and institutional living.

There are certainly people out there in position of power, be it by monetary or authority means, who like to think they are shaping the world, and some of them probably are, but their individual efforts only amount to a fraction of the factual events that take place. The society we live in today was already shaped and destined to be a few thousand years ago and every passing generation of lawmakers and ideologues adds their own little tidbit to it.

For instance, your mention of a one-world government is nothing but the natural evolution of democracy, a system we seem to believe is the perfection incarnate, and we are all collectively responsible for it. Democracy alone is far more dangerous than a one-man dictatorship because, as we can see today, it leads to an institutional dictatorship that never stops and cannot be overthrown by a simple coup, if at all. There are no heads to cut to put a stop to it, as the system always re-spawns new candidates. It's not an elite group of people that put presidential candidates in power the way we portray it in fiction, it's the system itself that picks its candidate, on all sides, and wins no matter what.

This may sound a bit lunatic but I honestly believe democracy became an entity of its own that takes decisions regardless of the people in place. It runs both chambers, the supreme court and the medias. (medias being shaped by ratings, the economical equivalent to democracy, producing only what the people as a collectivity want to see, in other words, what democracy wants). It has a powerful image and spreads across the globe like wildfire, taking in a few countries at a time, even if it's a system that doesn't suit the people it rules. It's being enforced by wars when necessary and even managed somehow to go hand in hand with liberty, even though democracy has absolutely nothing to do with liberty.Of course once the whole world lives under an institutional guidance it becomes far easier to put it all under a single banner, and most of the people, when the time comes, will vote on the issue and agree. Countries are begging to become part of the EU, and most of their citizens are in agreement. Once again, this was not the plan of some dudes in an underground facility but our collective work as a society. By giving away our liberty one at a time in the name of both security and democracy, and by dissociating ourselves from public disobedience.

A few of you mentioned economics, but so not to drag this I'll just make the obvious parallel with the liberal economy. What we have today is not capitalism, it's a mutated version of a liberal economy, the economical equivalent to democracy. We vote with our buck, some people say, and we are all collectively and willingly putting our money in the pockets of a few. Our economical leaders who supposedly own the world are only in place because we continue to give them our money every day, and I'm certainly no exception to that. I like the stuff that I buy and have enjoyed it throughout my life so far without a bit of regrets. We have the government we deserve, and the economy we deserve. All hail democracy! ;)

I think I've ranted for way too long, but to make it short, while everything in those videos might be factual, I'm not one bit surprised by the turn of events, and I think the documentaries are giving far too much credit to the so-called shapers of the world. This being said, I agree those documentaries are interesting source material for the next game!

Tsumaru
22nd Jul 2008, 00:03
While I am not of the mind that global warming is half of what Al Gore or other crazy greenies say it is; I think you are underestimating the value and use of ice cores, iWait.


An ice core is a core sample from the accumulation of snow and ice over many years that have re-crystallized and have trapped air bubbles from previous time periods. The composition of these ice cores, especially the presence of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, provides a picture of the climate at the time.

Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in local temperature reconstruction after certain assumptions. In addition to the isotope concentration, the air bubbles trapped in the ice cores allow for measurement of the atmospheric concentrations of trace gases, including greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Obviously there are a few things there to take note of - "after certain assumptions", the fact it's only a local temperature, and whatnot. But I think ice cores do show more than you might first think.




Democracy alone is far more dangerous than a one-man dictatorship because, as we can see today, it leads to an institutional dictatorship that never stops and cannot be overthrown by a simple coup, if at all. There are no heads to cut to put a stop to it, as the system always re-spawns new candidates.
Obviously the coup of a one-man dictatorship replaces the beheaded dictator with the leader of the coup. This is hardly a more effective system of government selection. Your beef should be with corruption and the stupidity of voters, not with democracy itself. Down in Australia, our system works perfectly well thankyou very much.

HouseOfPain
22nd Jul 2008, 00:19
So am I crazy if I 'believe' in global warming?

FrankCSIS
22nd Jul 2008, 01:41
Hey I'm not saying dictatorship is anything good, don't get me wrong there. Some tyrants weren't half bad but the end result of that system is always crappy. All I'm saying is the institutional dictatorship of democracy is a lot more subtle and therefor dangerous.

Nah my beef is still with the system itself, and while Australia is truly a great country your democracy isn't in any better shape than our Canadian one or the American's, the most developed and pure in theory but with a really ****ty outcome in reality. Stupidity of voters or not, if the system itself filters, picks and pre-approves the candidates for us to choose for in the first place it renders everything else irrelevant, no matter how perfectly balanced the chambers, houses and courts are. You're doing alright, and so are we, but the long-term outcome is pretty catastrophic for anyone who enjoys liberty, not democracy.

I think Ron Paul is a pretty amusing example of this. I'm not a huge fan of some of his positions, but he's a bit of a renegade out there to defend the constitution. The institutions, from his own party to the medias, liberal AND conservative, made sure to exclude and outcast him as much as possible from the Republican race. Some might see it as a wide conspiracy involving hundreds of men in position of power, but the way I see it it was just a logical outcome and everyone acted on their own free will about it. Anderson Cooper, who I cannot possibly respect now, made it unbelievably obvious to cut Paul off on every occasion he could during a national debate, and didn't even ask him more than one direct question, while letting McCain ramble on and on and on sometimes for ten minutes straight about how he was a footsoldier of the Reagan revolution. Best political team on television my ass, couldn't even host what resembled a fair debate. They wanted the race to be between McCain and Romney and didn't even hide their intentions.

Anyway, my point was just that I really don't see a worldwide conspiracy of Illuminati or whatever, just a long evolution and chain of events that led us to this point and continues on down the road for a pretty long time. In a way, I'm a bit sad to be here when it starts to go downhill, and would probably prefer to see how it'll end up when **** really hits the fan.

Tsumaru
22nd Jul 2008, 03:18
So am I crazy if I 'believe' in global warming?
Read closer. I never said the world isn't warming up - what I said was that I don't believe global warming is half of what Al Gore or crazy greenies claim it to be. Which only says that you are crazy if you are a "crazy greeny". Which is really an obvious conclusion. You're a dog if you're a dog, duh. As for what defines a crazy greeny - I think we can extrapolate that it would be someone who has views to the equivalence of Al Gore in extremity, lack of solid scientific basis, and hype.


Stupidity of voters or not, if the system itself filters, picks and pre-approves the candidates for us to choose for in the first place it renders everything else irrelevant, no matter how perfectly balanced the chambers, houses and courts are. You're doing alright, and so are we, but the long-term outcome is pretty catastrophic for anyone who enjoys liberty, not democracy.
I may not like Kevin Rudd or have voted for him - but him as PM is hardly a catastrophic outcome. Or at least, not yet - and even if it does turn out bad, it's yet to be seen if that was a predictable outcome which could have been prevented by an alleged better system. We may have our fair share of things we disapprove of from our government; but no system is perfect. This isn't a utopia and it never will be. I am yet to see anything proposed which is in the slightest remotely better than what we have right now.

iWait
22nd Jul 2008, 04:42
Ice core drilling does produce a lot of information, but it is still impossible to find the global temperature of the time by analyzing CO2 bubbles trapped in the ice, which is exactly what Al Gore and several of his scientists said they did.

Tsumaru
22nd Jul 2008, 04:49
Well yeah, one localised ice core won't give global temperatures. But it can give an indication of temperature change of the area, and if compared to other areas you may be able to get some impression of the variation in global climate.

iWait
22nd Jul 2008, 05:11
First off they only drilled in Antartica and (I think) Alaska.

But you seem to be misunderstanding me, what I meant to point out is that the scientists say they use CO2 bubbles trapped in the ice to find the global temperature, which is pure BS.

Here's the official site (Not a rickroll): http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

I should point out that 2 years ago my school presented "An Inconvenient Truth" and Global Warming as fact, and then required all the good little children to do the "Companion Packet" that you can download at the site. If you read the questions you can clearly see some Cold War-Style child corruption going on there.

Tsumaru
22nd Jul 2008, 08:31
So your issue isn't that they can't actually find the temperature - just that the way they claim to determine it is false?

Meh. A minor point of concern to me. It casts some doubt on the reliability of their sources, but I'm sure there are far larger screwups. Such as the leap from one (maybe two) localised core(s) to assessments of the entire global climate over the past X number of centuries.

FrankCSIS
22nd Jul 2008, 15:42
I may not like Kevin Rudd or have voted for him - but him as PM is hardly a catastrophic outcome. Or at least, not yet

That's not my point. The problematic doesn't come from the person in place, but from the long-term monopoly of the system itself or the institution. There are hardly any changes from PM's to PM's outside of press relationship and the image that comes out of the office. The only thing that's changed from presidents to presidents in the US for at least the last 50 years was the foreign policy, something that doesn't remotely affects the institution. Whether you believe it was a good change or not, not since the New Deal has there been any significant changes in the actual politics of the country, and that's also true of Canada's New Deal. President Bush, of all people, tried to change the pensions, the medicare and the immigration policies and was shut down by his own party as well as the Dems. His plan might have been bad, but the fact that somewhat liberal changes came from a conservative president and was shut down by all once again further proves my point. The institution itself wouldn't allow that change, and Bush returned to foreign politics with his tail between his legs.

Laws are being passed at an alarming rate because the efficiency of a government is judged by the amount of legislations they can pass within a term, instead of the core politics or internal doctrines they could build upon. Every democratic country so far, since I've been following politics, has always proven to be more of the same with a new packaging throughout every election, with a slight progression towards the absolute domination of democracy and the concentration of authority within the hands of a few. The EU, once again, is an excellent example of this, and could never be achieved without democracy. Anyone's who ever tried to take and unite Europe by force eventually failed, but the institutional domination is doing just that and people are jumping right into it.

This is what I'm talking about when I forecast a catastrophic long-term outcome for liberty lovers, not Kevin Rudd being elected this time around or Obama becoming president next year.

jcp28
22nd Jul 2008, 16:02
Frank

I totally agree with you on the immigration issue. Bush tried to find a line down the middle, and the reactionaries and others helped to shut down his plan. But the rest.....well he promised to be a united not a divider, and look what's happened to this country in the past 8 years! Granted, the Republicans attacked Clinton, but they hated him at least in part because he was more able to find a middle ground more than any president before or since in the past 40-50 years. Bush...well, his social security plan sucked and it was rightosuly defeated. Either way, the trends in Americna poltics I find quite troubling.

But relating, on your main point of the institution domination, there does seem to be a lack of willingness to change. I've got to go now. But I know of another website where people love to have discussions like this, as a little side note.

Kevyne-Shandris
22nd Jul 2008, 16:39
First off they only drilled in Antartica and (I think) Alaska.

But you seem to be misunderstanding me, what I meant to point out is that the scientists say they use CO2 bubbles trapped in the ice to find the global temperature, which is pure BS.

Some more sites of interest...

http://icecap.us/index.php

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

Not everyone believes this junk science about global warming (especially when I remember the "next Ice Age" that was predicted in the 70s). Until there's more evidence -- which can only be acquired overtime -- will we ever know if the climate change is natural or manmade. Until then, your guess is as good as mine!

Tsumaru
23rd Jul 2008, 01:14
That's not my point. The problematic doesn't come from the person in place, but from the long-term monopoly of the system itself or the institution. There are hardly any changes from PM's to PM's outside of press relationship and the image that comes out of the office. The only thing that's changed from presidents to presidents in the US for at least the last 50 years was the foreign policy, something that doesn't remotely affects the institution. Whether you believe it was a good change or not, not since the New Deal has there been any significant changes in the actual politics of the country, and that's also true of Canada's New Deal. President Bush, of all people, tried to change the pensions, the medicare and the immigration policies and was shut down by his own party as well as the Dems. His plan might have been bad, but the fact that somewhat liberal changes came from a conservative president and was shut down by all once again further proves my point. The institution itself wouldn't allow that change, and Bush returned to foreign politics with his tail between his legs.
That's great for America - but we simply don't have that problem in Australia. Your entire spiel about how "the system shuts the pm/president down" has not, and does not, occur in Australia.

Furthermore, I don't even understand your criticism. If what he's trying to institute is a bad change, why do we WANT the rest of the politicians to be powerless to stop him? That's what a democracy is - shared power. The president is not meant to be a dictator. If his reform is a horrible idea, I would want him to be shut down. Better that than them letting him go through with it on principle. Show me a legislation which was beneficial and shut down, and then I'll pay you some mind. But of course, you need to show me that it was shut down due to the evils of democracy; and not the evils of America. Because as long as Australia and other democracies don't have those pitfalls - your entire argument collapses and all you are proving is the flawed American democracy.


Laws are being passed at an alarming rate because the efficiency of a government is judged by the amount of legislations they can pass within a term, instead of the core politics or internal doctrines they could build upon. Every democratic country so far, since I've been following politics, has always proven to be more of the same with a new packaging throughout every election, with a slight progression towards the absolute domination of democracy and the concentration of authority within the hands of a few.
Again, I simply don't see any of this in Australian politics.


The EU is probably the best argument you have, but I'm completely unaware of its significance. I confess complete ignorance to European politics. I assume the problem is that every country which is a part of the EU is underpowered compared to whoever is in power for the EU on the whole. So kind of like a larger version of state/territorial/provincial governments to federal government; where a premier is nothing compared to the prime minister.
As I said though, I don't follow European politics and I don't know the workings of the EU. But I would have assumed there were safeguards in place to avoid any domination by the EU on the whole. In Australia, for example, each state is pretty much left to their own devices and the federal government only institutes federal changes, very rarely intervening in states.
But rather than making vague references to the terrors of the EU, you will have to elaborate on what the actual problem is. Because I see no problem with a united Europe on its own grounds. So the question, once again, is whether democracy itself is flawed - or whether it's the stupidity of the citizens and corruption which are the problems.

And yet if you maintain it's the former, I once again ask you to propose a better system. It's useless to ***** and moan about all the problems with every system if you are unable to offer a solution.

FrankCSIS
23rd Jul 2008, 03:49
The president being shut down was just one example that I brought up, simply to bring light on the fact that even once elected the person in place has nothing to say as far as internal policies are concerned. State governors or provincial prime ministers in Canada were shut down as well, and sometimes the entire house of commons was shut down by bureaucrats or the senate. When our PM and MP's wanted to reform the senate they had to bring it forward to, well oh well, the senate for its approval. Yet another internal policy shut down. I already gave you several cases where elected officials were stopped by the institution, how about you give me an example of an actual internal reform that was successfully implemented within an old democracy. Anything else than another legislation to add up to the immense pile of things the average joe can no longer do.

My example of the EU, and my second beef with democracy is its natural aspiration to growth and concentration. Much like an empire, it englobes everything in its vicinity and concentrates its authority within the most powerful center of the time. A lot of economists and political commentators praised the EU for its balance in power while in reality it's far from being the case. France is broke and stuck in an absolute gridlock of bureaucracy, Germany's not doing too bad but is still heavily undermined by the two world wars, Italy is in a constant state of political instability, Spain and Greece are only the shadow of what they used to be, and the other countries are either too small to really matter or had to beg to join in. In fact the only country that played hard to get, and still refuses to adopt the currency, is the only remaining old empire that is still just as powerful as it once was, and is the one holding on to the big stick.

But I digress, even that is irrelevant. Right now there are some gridlocks in place to ensure a relative balance of authority, emphasis on relative, but other mechanics are being built and pushed every day to englobe and concentrate. It started with the unique currency, right now it's the European constitution, and later down the road it will be something else. Once this union is complete, instead of 20 or 30 or 50 presidents and prime ministers we'll have one, with a bunch of regional governors or whatever that will argue on and on but will most likely be stuck in a permanent institutional deadlock. We both seem to dislike the concentration of authority and power and yet you "see no problem with a united Europe on its own grounds"? Where does the expansion stop is what I'd like to know.

I guess you have more faith in the regional or provincial authorities than I do. Both Canada and America started as various different colonies and with the union in the US and the Dominion in Canada all colonies were promised they were to keep their independence as far as local politics were concerned. A hundred years of history has demonstrated that as time passes the federal government ends up controlling most of the jurisdictions and when the time comes to vote on the issue the people generally agree with this.

Again, it's not that I dislike democracy on principle, it's the inevitable growth and concentration that annoys me, as well as the impossibility of change, good or bad, because of the institutional deadlocks put in place by the very nature of democracy. It seems in fact that the more democratic a system is, America being the absolutely purest and most advanced democracy there is, the lesser the possibility of reforms there is and the less space for local authority. You asked me of a system that would work? We already had one, or at least America did. Jefferson firmly believed in the independence and authority of the states, and was reluctant to growth. Own your land and own your work was the perfect model for every citizens. Small but strong states in a united but diversified country. No large army but local forces and training for all. Everybody seems to laugh at America for allowing people to own guns but I'm a lot more amused by citizens who accept to give the monopoly of weapons and violence to their leaders and authority figures.

The only problem with this system is that it only lasted for about 50-60 years. Eventually growth got in the way and people agreed to give up their authenticity and local rights in exchange for further unification that promised to save on the costs and solve the problems but turned out to do none.

I think the only reason you fail to see the various threats here is because of your geographical condition. Australia has no where to grow or expand to. I mean at best you guys could swallow or be swallowed by New Zealand. There are no North American, South American, African or European Union for you to worry about. You'll only get swallowed, if ever, when an organisation like the UN manages to get everyone under the same large worldwide parliament, and I bet at the time your PM will convince you it's the logical, peaceful and normal thing to do. In the meantime, you're a bunch of cool folks minding their own business on your secluded island, something my ancenstors were promised 400 years ago when they left Europe for the New World. Boy did we get screwed up over time. You want me to believe 200 years of stupid voters did this? Nah man, it's the very nature of this system that did it. Once again, it's not that I dislike it on principle, but what was supposed to be "power to the people" turned out to be "power to the system", undermining our individual voices in favor of a so-called majority voice. All I'm saying is, it's not the perfect rainbow system we portray it to be, and I really preferred this continent when it was the Land of the Free, not the Land of Democracy.

iWait
23rd Jul 2008, 04:27
TL;DR

Though personally I believe an organized, governed anarchy could work well.

FrankCSIS
23rd Jul 2008, 14:39
Well here's the TL;DR version:

Democracy works with small isolated colonies, small both in geographical size as well as population. The more people within the system and the bigger the land, the less important your individual voice becomes and the more place the system itself actually takes until it eventually controls everything by itself, regardless of the people we vote for.

I kind of see your point after all Tsumaru, it's the perfect system for Australia. Just be sure to keep it up while the rest of the world concentrates its authority in the hands of even fewer and the Unions grow to impossible sizes.

Romeo
23rd Jul 2008, 14:42
TL;DR

Though personally I believe an organized, governed anarchy could work well.

Always thought that myself. As long as the people were organized, we wouldn't really need one person in charge. Still, I'm sure it sounds nicer on paper than in practice. As well, we're all veering a wee bit off course, and we should probably try and get back to topic...

Anton69
23rd Jul 2008, 17:36
Hi guys! I'm first time here.

Im a huge fan of DeusEx)

The things you talk about here are very intresting (sorry but didn't read all posts cause there is a lot of info here)..

But you should understand that developers of DeusEx were aware of all these orders and other stuff - DX is just a game, nothing is real there, but a lot of things mentioned in the game are connected with contemporary beliefs or real facts. In Russia we are tought theories of world conspiransy on philosophy and hostory lessons in universities) Illuminaty, Templars, Масоны (dont know how to write it in english) - it's all real orders.

A lot of good info is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories


There is Michael Moore and other great and amusing guys who are trying to tell the truth)) you can watch ZEITGEIST movie on youtube - it's quite a fair work about religion, power and conspiracy.

But we all shoul understand that we cant really read on wiki or watch in internet or dvd truth about such organizations (if they are realy exist). We will newer know the truth. Poor guys who are making this movies and writing books just want to make profit) If there is a SECRET order, than it's secret and people do not make dvds about how secret it is)))

I really love Deus Ex for its plot and atmosphere. Mixing real facts, fiction and beliefs, modern ideas is very cool. JC is Jesus Christ and the name "DEUS EX" refers to the latin deus ex machina which helps to revel not only the sense of the game, but the composition of the plot. It's really a piece of art, not just a game))

p.s. sorry, my english is not perferct, so dont judge me for this)

iWait
23rd Jul 2008, 20:28
I personally hate Michael Moore, especially after he made "Bowling For Columbine", frickin' retarded. The second amendment is there for a reason, and just because you can walk into a store and buy a shotgun doesn't prove anything. Even if we did ban all guns you would still be able to buy them illegally for an extra $50 at your local creepy trench-coat-wearing guy who believes that the FBI and Xenu are hunting him down.

HouseOfPain
23rd Jul 2008, 20:40
I agree and disagree alot with michael moore.

His views on Medicine and such are pretty similar with mine,

although I believe in the second amendment; without question.

iWait
23rd Jul 2008, 20:58
It's kinda sad how people's view of guns have shifted from a commonplace item to evil monstrous objects that will force your children to shoot themselves.

Oh, I was watching the news and I noticed that they always referred to Nuclear Power Plants as "Nukes", which happens to also be what they call Nuclear Warheads. Kinda odd don't you think?

Tsumaru
23rd Jul 2008, 23:29
I know you guys love your second amendment and everything, but the statistics are there and easy enough to find. Gun violence is ridiculously prevalent in America, compared to other countries with prohibitions on guns. And frankly, I just don't understand why you have this mentality it is necessary. The reason it was put into the Bill of Rights is because people feared that they would lose political leverage and the ability to oppose the government without being able to riot and shoot guns at people - ie, any political opposition would be met by the standing army who would have no problem dealing with people forbidden to bear arms (such as the situation you would often see in China). These were fears of the times and should be seen to be ridiculously archaic today.

Not to mention the rights guaranteed by the second amendment seem dubious to me anyway.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Where exactly in selling guns to individuals en masse do you end up with a "well regulated militia" anyway?



Well here's the TL;DR version:

Democracy works with small isolated colonies, small both in geographical size as well as population. The more people within the system and the bigger the land, the less important your individual voice becomes and the more place the system itself actually takes until it eventually controls everything by itself, regardless of the people we vote for.

I kind of see your point after all Tsumaru, it's the perfect system for Australia. Just be sure to keep it up while the rest of the world concentrates its authority in the hands of even fewer and the Unions grow to impossible sizes.
I think you're probably right. You touched on this on your longer post too (which I did read) - I think the issue with my misunderstanding is purely geographical. Australia isn't really at threat of becoming part of anything larger or under control of anyone other than ourself any time soon. In fact, we'd be going away from that. Right now we're still a constitutional monarchy under the Queen which means the Governor General and whatnot have that greater level of influence - but I suspect that in the near future we will see another referendum (last one was 1999) to become a Republic, and this time it will probably pass. That will be an even more formalised and official cutting away from other nations. And obviously there will probably always be the alliances with the US and England, but we'll be looking at ourselves as even more independant I suspect.

Considering also our smaller population, funding for electoral campaigns can be a lot smaller. This means our candidates are going to get hooked up to less big corporate sponsors demanding less. As I understand it, America has a lot of "pleasing the sponsors" in their politics. We don't really get that a whole lot over here. Oh sure we have our fair share of corruption and injustices, but the level of it all is a lot smaller because - quite simply - we are a lot smaller. So I think yes, maybe there are issues for democracy in larger continenets with closely-knit nations - but it's just something I can't comprehend on quite the level you see it as. Obviously every political system requires certain conditions for it to work well. I personally believe in democracy quite strongly, but democracy simply won't work in underdeveloped third world countries either. They need strong rule where radical change can come about in an instant. Sadly, this often means they need a dictator for stability and growth. The problem then being... well, how do we know it'll be a good dictator who wants stability and growth?

The only other criticism I have of your post is your alleged "solution". I don't see isolated states with no central defense or authority as working. For one thing, local armies can only defend against local armies. If China decided to walk into America, you'd probably be in a bit of trouble. Who is to say that as soon as you start breaking up the states, they won't decide to go all isolationist. "Bah, we don't need Texas. Let them deal with their own problems." How will you maintain unification in case of a greater threat with nobody above the states able to keep it there and take charge of defense when necessary? Furthermore, federal government often institutes good change. In the late 1900s, you had states which still allowed slavery and promoted racism. You required constant pressure from a federal government to finally abolish that (and even now the mentality is still there in the southern states, isn't it?). Oh, sure, your system might be great for liberty - of the average anglo Christian white man. But federal government often provides stability and ensures liberty and justice on a greater level when the states simply won't do it right themselves. It's impossible to predict all the ramifications of trying to institute a system like that today - but it just seems to me like you're going backwards, and it can only end badly.

FrankCSIS
24th Jul 2008, 00:21
I think our Canadian gun control system is a pretty neat balance. Licenses are required and take some time to obtain but are still available to all, except for the obvious cases like serious mental conditions or prisoners. The end result is more gun per capita than the US and yet one of the lowest gun crime record.


local armies can only defend against local armies

I'd probably prefer a national army if it weren't so damn tempting to deploy it every time we feel like it. The US went from isolationist to "holy **** let's build bases everywhere" in a matter of months. I guess all I'm saying is this country was supposed to be a republic, not an empire, but it's rapid growth obviously got in the way. Mix that with a liberal economy that thrives on expansion and the end result is, well, what we have today, and possibly worse. The weakened American economy is making it even more of a fertile ground for the long-awaited full-on North American union. When the dust from 9/11 will have finally fallen completely we'll be discussing the abolition of the border, probably helped by the construction of high speed trains linking our countries, encouraged by high gas prices. It's all coming together nicely, if slowly.

There's probably a more realistic balance to be achieved than what I mentioned in my previous and ridiculously long post, but I'm not sure what that would be. All I know is we have long overgrown democracy's crowd capacity and I don't like the meaning of it for the little guy. The last hope of being heard rested in public disobedience, and that was replaced by the courts, another branch of the democratic institution.

jcp28
24th Jul 2008, 02:33
I know you guys love your second amendment and everything, but the statistics are there and easy enough to find.

Here we go again about statistics. What about Switzerland then, which has lower crime rates than America? The thing is, American society itself is a lot more violent in other countries. You don't need to add that many more guns into the equation to really change that.

To put it this way, I would rather have a gun for protection because I think there's a fair chance that some drug addict could break in at any time and start screaming threats. Unfortunately, without a gun, I would be at the mercy of some crazed dude who may shoot me if I even look at him wrong. Or maybe they're not so crazy and they just try to pull a gun, but I or someone with me will have one first.

I have no clue what you consider to be "bad neighborhoods" in Australia or if you have the sort of ethnic problems we do in our cities, but it sure seems here that people who commit gun crimes that want to do whatever either feel they have the right to be violent or they just can't take it anymore. That's really generalizing, though. It would take a friggin essay to really describe what it's like. I would think drug abuse is lower as well, but I could be wrong.

Either way, I suppose when you live in a country with high gun restictions, it's easy to look at other countries like the US that don't as somehow backwards in a sense(assuming you're like some Europeans I know). I might feel the same way, depending on where I live.

iWait
24th Jul 2008, 03:02
Well America banned cocaine, and they've been very aggressive in getting rid of it, and guess which country has the highest amount of cocaine users in the world? AMERICA!

If they banned guns this is what would happen: All of the law-abiding citizens install an ADT system in their houses, and one day a thief who bought a gun illegally (and don't tell me he wouldn't be able to get one) decides to break in, the alarm goes off, the dad goes downstairs with a baseball bat, he gets shot, the mother like the brainwashed progressive she is goes downstairs, and gets shot, the thief spends 3 minutes taking what he wants, leaves, and 6 minutes later the police arrive. WOOOHOOO GUN CONTROL YEAHHHH

We have millions of illegals pouring over our borders bringing in drugs, illegal fireworks, and illegal weapons. If we were to ban guns or strictly regulate them the citizens who still wish to have a gun would buy one from a local dealer or the drug cartels, who are already rich because we made cocaine illegal.

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 04:02
Well America banned cocaine, and they've been very aggressive in getting rid of it, and guess which country has the highest amount of cocaine users in the world? AMERICA!

Because of economics. Even the CIA traded the junk, when it's the underground currency.

But the government can't have zombies that won't work, so they ban illicit drugs. It's good that it is banned, but the side affect is when folks need narcotics for pain control, they often have to face serious hurdles in getting it. Then those in need are punished, while the dope fiends continue their downward spiral.

Hopefully in the future medicine will develop a pain med without the addictive and sedative qualities, so this will all be history.

Tsumaru
24th Jul 2008, 04:20
So let me get this straight. On a frequent basis in America, "crazed drug addicts" and "firearm-wielding thieves" break into houses, and are promptly SHOT by the owners? So you might say that a significant portion of the gun-related crimes in America are in fact self-defense? Because of these people who just bust into houses and start popping off rounds? And you're saying this is such a regular occurance?



I have no clue what you consider to be "bad neighborhoods" in Australia or if you have the sort of ethnic problems we do in our cities
Most likely less common than certain cities in America, but ethnic violence is not unseen. In 2005 there were 'Cronulla riots' where you basically got 5000+ white Australians protesting against Middle Easterns (particularly Lebanese). The entire event became relatively violent, spanning a few nights...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronulla_riots
You know how many people were killed? None. There were physical attacks, but most of them involved only baseball bats and so forth - occasionally knives. Later there were guns and molotov cocktails found stockpiled, but who is to say how far the situation could have escalated if guns were legal and so easily acquired.


By no means am I saying the sudden institution of a full prohibition is a good idea. As I understand it, the FBI don't even know how many people legally own guns. But your entire system is a terrible mess and makes no effort to minimise violence. I'm not saying it's "backwards" to have legal guns - I just disagree that it can be in any way beneficial or necessary. It would be backwards to suddenly say "no guns" and hope it works out for the best. A more effective and harmonious solution is not easy to design, and even harder to implement for obvious reasons. Half the problem is the entire mentality. You are sitting here telling me that without a gun, you will fear for your lives. I understand that there are neighbourhoods where violence at this level is a very real threat - but it certainly cannot be nationwide.



Here we go again about statistics. What about Switzerland then, which has lower crime rates than America? The thing is, American society itself is a lot more violent in other countries. You don't need to add that many more guns into the equation to really change that.
Switzerland can be an appeal to a more RATIONAL following of the Second Amendment. As I understand it, all Swiss citizens join the national guard, and most of the guns owned are their military arms which they are allowed to take home. This IS a well regulated militia where they have the right to bear arms. Selling .50cal machineguns on a street corner in Texas is not the same thing by any measure.

And yes, you're right, American society is more violent. And that is half the problem. But it's the entire mentality, including people who are not themselves violent, but feel that everyone else is and that they are at a terrible risk. It's not enough to say "we're violent, so we need guns". That actually is backwards. I realise that if you take away guns, the 'bad guys' will always just find something else to kill with. And not to mention they will still be able to get guns illegally anyway. But that doesn't justify mass selling of guns legally - especially when convicted criminals can get their hands on a gun through legal means (I believe there is a statistic on that somewhere as well). And a whole host of other problems:

Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification. According to the Middle East Intelligence Report, for example, a Hezbollah member was arrested in November 2000, after a nine-month investigation by the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Ali Boumelhem was later convicted on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. Federal agents had observed Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to Michigan gun shows and buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was prohibited from legally purchasing guns as gun stores because he was a convicted felon. Additional cases involve a Pakistani national with an expired (1988) student visa; a Lebanese native and Hamas member with numerous felony convictions; and a supporter of the Irish Republican Army. (USA Today, Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Americans for Gun Safety)

Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone.

As I said, by no means is the sudden decision to outlaw guns a good idea - it would be a logistical nightmare to actually create safety through that. But I don't buy into this "guns save lives" notion, and the fact you are all growing up and being educated to believe that guns are a good thing is, in fact, far sadder than those of us who believe the opposite. I know the saying - "guns don't kill people; people kill people" but the fact of the matter is, it's harder to kill a person without a gun. And this entire chain of logic "there is violence, but instead of stopping violence, let's just arm the victims and see if they can save themselves" just promotes more violence.

iWait
24th Jul 2008, 05:06
And YOUR logic is that if we take away guns it'll be harder for them to kill people?

Right now, if I wanted to buy weed, it would take me about 2 hours of my time, if I wanted to buy a gun legally it would take ONE WEEK of background checks to get it-longer if it's a pistol and even longer if I intend to carry it.

Have you ever heard of Compton? 95% of all guns in Compton are either illegal, stolen, or illegally modified. Gun restrictions would have no affect, why? Because they're criminals, and the cops sure as hell aren't gonna raid a gang safe-house.

And the Cronulla Riots? YOU SAID THEY HAD GUNS STOCKPILED, which means they had access to guns, and decided to not use them. If guns were legal and easily acquired the only difference would be that there would be more guns stockpiled. It was their conscious decision not to use those guns. It wouldn't matter if they had more guns, as they already made the decision not to use ANY of their guns.

SO, what would you do? Ban guns, giving your military and police access to firearms only? WHAT GOOD WOULD THAT DO?? It would only make it a little bit harder for criminals to get guns, and even if you managed to be completely gun free what would change?
A husband catches his wife cheating on him in his own house, runs up the stairs, grabs his pistol, shoots his wife, then offs himself.
OMGNOGUNS VERSION
A husband catches his wife cheating on him in his own house,takes his knife from his coat, stabs his wife 3 times, leaving her to bleed to death, then stabs himself in the ******* throat, taking a full minute to die.

OH AND BTW CONVICTED CRIMINALS CAN'T LEGALLY OWN GUNS

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 05:15
Most likely less common than certain cities in America, but ethnic violence is not unseen. In 2005 there were 'Cronulla riots' where you basically got 5000+ white Australians protesting against Middle Easterns (particularly Lebanese). The entire event became relatively violent, spanning a few nights...

And ethnic violence has a root in ignorance, as ignorant as what has happened here to artificially cause a "politicially correct" stink...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2V6K0mezuU

Keep telling folks you're not related to "this is good for you" and even the target audience can and does revolt.


As I said, by no means is the sudden decision to outlaw guns a good idea - it would be a logistical nightmare to actually create safety through that. But I don't buy into this "guns save lives" notion, and the fact you are all growing up and being educated to believe that guns are a good thing is, in fact, far sadder than those of us who believe the opposite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlUaZlyct5M

I'd take my 10gauge shotgun with magnum loads and .45 any day, thank you!

BTW, why are folks playing games that uses weapons that can kill? Once the cat's out of the bag (which in the US, from the start of the first immigrants 400 years ago), everyone has to fend for themselves. Cops are a new idea for population control and civil order so city folks can get along. But outside the city, you're on your own -- and no, that Rambo knife isn't going to do much good against a .45.

iWait
24th Jul 2008, 05:50
How are guns a bad thing?

Hmmmmmm......... what does a gun do that could make it bad?

1. It uses an endothermic reaction to cause rapid expansion of gases inside the barrel.
2. The gases push on the bullet.
3. The bullet is guided down grooving in the barrel, making it spin.
4. The gun just made a piece of metal go supersonic.

None of those are bad, especially since almost all countries have relied on guns at some point for food.

Now, when somebody breaks into my house i'd much rather be able to send a peice of metal through the guy's skull at will for the next 10 minutes it takes the police to get to my house than sit there with a baseball bat, him likely armed with a knife or gun himself, putting me in a dangerous situation. I'd probably either get injured, killed, or he would run and I wouldn't be able to do **** about it





WOW This thread is off track.

Red
24th Jul 2008, 06:39
organized, governed anarchy

You do realize that this is an oxymoron?

Tsumaru
24th Jul 2008, 06:47
Your logic hurts my brain. If guns aren't bad inherently, and thus by extension it is fine for people to have them, I demand the right to own a nuclear weapon capable of destruction on a global scale. After all, nuclear weapons - just like guns - are not in themselves inherently bad, right?


None of those are bad, especially since almost all countries have relied on guns at some point for food.
I thought it was quite clear nobody was trying to insinuate the fundamental nature of a gun is evil. It is a tool, just like any other tool. The fact you can make no argument against the true discussion - legality of the possession of firearms by civilians and the ease of which they can be acquired in America - leads me to believe you have nothing beyond your upbringing and this ingrained notion that it is good to have guns to fuel your posts. Try to come up with something a little better thought-out next time.


OH AND BTW CONVICTED CRIMINALS CAN'T LEGALLY OWN GUNS
You're absolutely right - which is why it's so concerning that they do Thankyou for proving my point with your excessive use of capitals and the inability to express anything valuable which adds to the discussion. *rolls eyes*

In the 46 states that compile data, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other
prohibited buyers obtained guns because of inadequate records. (That does
not include those with domestic violence, illegal alien, or mental disability
disqualifications in which there are often no records in the database.)
http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/96/AGSF_Broken_records_Report.pdf
http://www.vpc.org/studies/reliefone.htm


And the Cronulla Riots? YOU SAID THEY HAD GUNS STOCKPILED, which means they had access to guns, and decided to not use them. If guns were legal and easily acquired the only difference would be that there would be more guns stockpiled. It was their conscious decision not to use those guns. It wouldn't matter if they had more guns, as they already made the decision not to use ANY of their guns.
One stockpile was found with only A FEW guns - mostly molotov cocktails. And the fact that it was found may have PROHIBITED them from using it as was intended. If it was found during the day, and they were planning to make use of them at night, then finding them stockpiled does not preclude the possibility of intention to use. Just that they were not available on the previous day for use (many people went interstate to take part in these riots).
Also, if guns were legal and easily acquired, you wouldn't have more guns stockpiled - you would have someone who decided NOT to stockpile. You would have someone who instead of stabbing an innocent person in the back three times, instead chose to shoot him. And then you would have no stockpiled weapons, and you would have a nice little shootout. One of the things which apparently are oh-so-common in America from the stories you're all telling me.


Scadvid - did anything you post actually have any relevance to the rest of the discussion? I just don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to say. o_O





organized, governed anarchyYou do realize that this is an oxymoron?
I knew I forgot to post something earlier on. Red is right. Anarchy is defined as the total lack of authority, government, law and order. To organise and govern anarchy is just to create a normal governed political system again.

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 08:22
Scadvid - did anything you post actually have any relevance to the rest of the discussion? I just don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to say. o_O

If you didn't understand it, you don't understand the whole debate.

The links I posted was to illustrate two-fold what happens with people unrelated/stupid/idiotic/got some new idea, come crashing down on a society content with it's way of life. In that case it was the Confederate battle flag and it's heritage, which the unrelated/stupid/idiotic/got some new idea PC types wanted to change for their selfish persuits. They didn't even care about the Black Confederates and THEIR heritage. They believed skin color trumps all (because they're brainwashed to believe the revisionist history about the battle flag). The second link is to answer the quote about how firearms are used for defense and how it takes root in the fabric of the society, and is iconic of it.

Foreigners don't understand the US society. What works in Europe or even Australia works in their society. It won't in the USA. Americans are different. We've been pioneers for 400 years, and even our Constitution guarantees our citizens to bear arms to protect itself from the State. Our War between the States showed also, why each citizen should ALWAYS defend their right to own firearms, too.

Anton69
24th Jul 2008, 08:39
In Russia nobody can buy a gun - only police and special organizations of course. If you want to hunt, you can buy a rifle, but you must collect a lot of documents to do this, it's pretty hard to get a license. But with this license you can buy only rifle - you cant buy kalashnikov or m-16 or magnum or any gun at all.

Among my friends and their parents I know that no one have a gun at home. Of course you can say that Russia is nevertheless a dangerous country - yes it is, crime rate here is rather high. But the amount of fire arm death is extremely low (comparing to America). I dont say that one system is good or another is bad. Of course it's mentally different societies.

But I think that the idea of having a gun at home for protecting yourself from governmet or other stuff.. it's kinda old and senseless. We don't have guns at home and don't worry or feel bad about it)

Tsumaru
24th Jul 2008, 08:39
"We're better than you" is hardly a convincing argument, nor is "keep your nose out of our business". That whole philosophy can just as easily be applied to any nation where human rights abuse or any injustice takes place. Should Hitler not have been stopped when he started persecuting Jews, just because he had a majority support from the German public?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Of course, gun legalisation is hardly a humans right abuse - but just because I'm not American doesn't mean I don't get an opinion. What were you saying about ignorance and ethnic violence earlier? Because your entire point of view reeks of racial discrimination right here.

Oh, as for your links, I didn't watch them. I opened both and skimmed through the description and first few seconds, and then closed them because you had no attached information as to why you linked me in the first place. Posting videos without elaboration and then accusing me of "not understanding the debate" (which clearly has nothing to do with confederate flags or a Hank Williams Jr song) is not a very good tactic and, in my opinion, just makes you look like you have no real rational argument.

Also I would appreciate it if you don't insinuate I'm "stupid/idiotic" just because I'm not American and have a view different to yours.

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 09:21
Among my friends and their parents I know that no one have a gun at home. Of course you can say that Russia is nevertheless a dangerous country - yes it is, crime rate here is rather high. But the amount of fire arm death is extremely low (comparing to America). I dont say that one system is good or another is bad. Of course it's mentally different societies.

But Russia was the USSR before, and it was possible because the Tsar defenders couldn't defend their government, as they didn't have the guarantees the US Constitution offers Americans.

You are conditioned in your country to live the way you do. Americans are conditioned to live the way we do. If that means grandma has a shotgun, as well as that thug, so be it. Grandma would just make Swiss cheese out of the thug.

The point is in the US we understand guns are part of our culture (how do you think these videogames were made? They weren't made in the USSR in 1985, they were made out in California and such, in that heavy gun infested environment. Just isn't the same having knife fights along with spitballs, right?). Some weapons are banned because they really have little use for civilians to use (like full automatics; or cop killing "dum dums"), but as illustrated in the VMI shootings even with an assault rifle ban (semi-automatics even) it won't stop these mass killings. What would've if is Joe Smoo in that room dropped that killer after the first round fired (much like any cop would do, if he was there at the moment).

In essence, some communities even enacted that EVERY resident (short of the mentally ill and those who object) must own a weapon. Classic example is Kennesaw, GA.

Guns are just part of our culture, rooted deep even into our psyche.

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 09:31
"We're better than you" is hardly a convincing argument, nor is "keep your nose out of our business". That whole philosophy can just as easily be applied to any nation where human rights abuse or any injustice takes place. Should Hitler not have been stopped when he started persecuting Jews, just because he had a majority support from the German public?

Good time for Godwin's law, as this train wreak went beyond it's purpose.

Tsumaru
24th Jul 2008, 09:45
I was originally going to say "Saddam have been stopped" but I figured there was more support for WWII than Iraq. But feel free to substitute it with any genocidal figure, and the point still remains. Godwin's Law says nothing about the validity of such a reference, only that the probability increases over time.

But if you insist.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/regarding_mussolini.png

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 10:17
I was originally going to say "Saddam have been stopped" but I figured there was more support for WWII than Iraq.

No point in defending whatever decision, mentioning Hitler to illustrate a point more graphically is why Godwin's Law exists.

What you do in your backyard is your business, but keep your politics on your shores (because if they're not, you'll understand up close and personal how and why firearms are so loved by Americans -- no Commies; no anarchists; and no foreigners interferring in US national affairs need apply).

Tsumaru
24th Jul 2008, 10:34
The beauty of free speech (or do you not love the First Amendment as much as the Second?) is that I can say whatever the hell I want and nobody can stop me. Frankly, I find your threats to be rather amusing. Somebody takes the internet way too seriously.

Cr4sh
24th Jul 2008, 11:34
I'm half through esoteric agenda, and I have to say, if this is the truth, I'm fine with it. I do not believe in any Gaya-ish stuff, but I see, that earth is massively overpopulated. I do not know, how long our planet may stand our industrialisation, but someday our ecosystem WILL collapse and humanity WILL be at least nearly completely wiped out.

And anyone who tells me that we can decrease population without radical methods - let's say in the next century - to 10% of todays population I cannot believe. I think i.e. Chinas one-child-politics is a step in the right direction. In the end, in 1000 years, if there are still humans alive, who will care who died and who survived at the beginning of the 22nd century? Okay, it will be their ancestors, but they will look at us just the way we look at medieval 'working class'. We do not really care, whether there were thousands of people starving or freezing to death back then, do we? And the same thing it will be with our present days and people. Maybe the 'illuminati', if they are real, will even be heroes for decreasing the world's population, who knows?


Originally Posted by Tsumaru View Post
Should Hitler not have been stopped when he started persecuting Jews, just because he had a majority support from the German public?

Hey, you miss a point there. My ancestors (I'm German... and, like most people in Germany, no fascist) did perhaps have a faint idea about that there were POW-camps and about what was going on there, but do YOU (I speak to Americans) run to Bush because CIA or whoever transports political prisoners to other countries to torture them there, because it is illegal in America? I would doubt it.
Of course, Holocaust and the 3rd Reich was a time Germany would be glad not to have been gone through, but that's the way it goes.: If a country is in economic recess times (and germany was due to destruction in the 1st WW, reparations and the invasion in the Ruhrgebiet by french troups, which is our biggest industrial center after the war) the people will stream to the political extremeright and left sides to show their dissatisfaction and because these political groups promise to make everything better.

There were only VERY few people in National-socialistic Germany who thought of themselves to be a nazi. They just lived their lives, went to work, went to opera etc. I do not know whether the movie "Der Untergang" (The Downfall) was shown in English-speaking countries, but there you always see, that the opinion of Hitler (or the government) and the opinion of the population were not at all the same. There were few radical elements, and sadly they were on top of society.

(So, sorry, for my bad english, as I said,, I'm German)

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 11:39
The beauty of free speech (or do you not love the First Amendment as much as the Second?) is that I can say whatever the hell I want and nobody can stop me. Frankly, I find your threats to be rather amusing. Somebody takes the internet way too seriously.

The First Amendment applies...

1. To US citizens.
2. The State can't impede individual speech (except in cases like shouting fire in a theater; and selling pornography openly).
2. To address grievances with the government exercising that right.

Nowhere is there a thing called "Free speech".

To refresh you of the original meaning of the First amendment...


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now since the gun debate was brought up, this is the Second amendment...


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The original purpose for bearing arms in that situation was to have a ready-made militia in times of trouble, to stop tyrants both foreign and domestic. Today we have a federalized military, which techically violates this amendment.

And to continue forth on this a tad further, the Tenth amendment...


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Unlike in your native Australia, the federal system the US employs isn't total (socialism nada). States have rights to govern their own affairs, and those not governed by the States, individually.

The whole basis for the War between the States was because of the high tariffs against Southern exports (who exported cotton, especially to mills in England), that was cruel and unusual (40% markup). Because the South was being choked by this unfair tax (American Revolution 1776 anyone??), they regarded Lincoln as a tyrant and succeed from the Union (much like the rebels told King George III to kiss off).

To this day, over 150 years since the Webster-Young debates have Southerners have affirmed States rights.

That's a little history lesson for you, but foreigners should really stick to business in their own backyards, not try to dictate the mores of another country's society.

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 11:48
Frankly, I find your threats to be rather amusing. Somebody takes the internet way too seriously.

Ah, that wasn't a threat, it's a promise. Any foreigner wanting to dictate the mores of this country will find the biting end of more than a bullet.

No internet about it.

Tsumaru
24th Jul 2008, 12:58
I don't see how me expressing my own personal opinion on gun laws is in any way "dictating the mores of another country". All I did was respond to the comment that "the second amendment is there for a reason" and suggest that the original reasoning seems to be archaic and outdated - unnecessary for today's America. Then the discussion evolved into one about the very nature of gun laws and why they may/may not be necessary. I refuse to be made to feel as if I have in any way done anything wrong by expressing my opinions. And frankly, I find your overall tone to be discriminatory, intolerant, and completely unnecessary. Thus I say to you - go screw yourself, and your "promises".


Nowhere is there a thing called "Free speech".
No, but there is a thing called "freedom of speech". And thus if I have freedom of speech, I am free to speak - and thus I speak freely. And those words, they would be free speech then. Yes?

Now, I'm really quite tired of this rubbish. It's deteriorated to the point where it's just you ego tripping all over the place, *****ing and moaning and telling me about how I'm not allowed an opinion. Apparently it was too hard for you to let it lie when you first decided to ignore everything I said and just invoke Godwin's Law. You had to go throw in more hypocritical bs, and it's really just become a yawnfest now. Feel free to continue as you are, but you've sent me right to sleep now, and I can't be bothered replying to the same old rubbish.



My ancestors (I'm German... and, like most people in Germany, no fascist) ... There were only VERY few people in National-socialistic Germany who thought of themselves to be a nazi. They just lived their lives, went to work, went to opera etc. I do not know whether the movie "Der Untergang" (The Downfall) was shown in English-speaking countries, but there you always see, that the opinion of Hitler (or the government) and the opinion of the population were not at all the same. There were few radical elements, and sadly they were on top of society.
I'm an Australian, bred and born here, but my grandmother was an Austrian who lived in Germany a portion of her life (until moving to Australia after the war), and my grandfather was a German (who fought in the war, part of the Luftwaffe - not by choice). I know full well that not all Germans were (and certainly not are) fascist Jew-hating Nazis. Sadly, however, Hitler came to power due to his magnificent public speaking ability - and he DID gain public support. TREMENDOUS public support. As you said, people jump to extremes to express their dissastisfaction - but they were also looking for someone to blame. Hitler gave them someone. He made everything the fault of the Jews, as well as the Treaty of Versailles, and brought pride back into the German people. I think in retrospect many of the people back then would be surprised at what ran through their heads, and if it weren't for Hitler, many wouldn't have shown any such beliefs or attitudes at all - but at the time, he did draw a lot of public support.

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 13:36
I don't see how me expressing my own personal opinion on gun laws is in any way "dictating the mores of another country".

That's how it's always starts. One man hollering at the wind meets other hollers and you get this hogwash...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan

Stay out of other national internal affairs, no matter how "we know what's good for you" about it. We don't bother your internal affairs, you stay out of ours. Fair compromise.


All I did was respond to the comment that "the second amendment is there for a reason" and suggest that the original reasoning seems to be archaic and outdated - unnecessary for today's America.

No, you responded llike you expect the US Constitution and the first amendment to applied to you. It applies to US citizens only. Citizens who have to take up the responsibility to defend it in a crisis, too. Foreigners have zero impact on our rights (and why we oppose World court sanctions of American troops and other interests, as it becomes a political kangaroo court. Remember Breaker Morant??).

It's one thing if Americans were debating this subject, as we share the same experience and culture. But when foreigners apply their lenses on our way of life -- and ignorant of our experience and culture -- the discussion goes nowhere, as you can't apply your own standards on our experience/culture/society/mores. What works in your neck of the woods won't in this country. We share some values, but culturely we're as far apart as the British are to Americans.


Then the discussion evolved into one about the very nature of gun laws and why they may/may not be necessary. I refuse to be made to feel as if I have in any way done anything wrong by expressing my opinions. And frankly, I find your overall tone to be discriminatory, intolerant, and completely unnecessary. Thus I say to you - go screw yourself, and your "promises".

If you dislike the tone of my message, THINK, how it is to read the same.

Don't pull that victim card now. Face the consequences of having "Free speech" by facing the same candor in return.

Tsumaru
24th Jul 2008, 13:40
*yawn*

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 13:51
*yawn*

*All mouth, no guts.*

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, I'm Far Right politically.

Enjoy...

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X

HouseOfPain
24th Jul 2008, 13:53
You two should consider getting married. :rolleyes:

Kevyne-Shandris
24th Jul 2008, 13:55
You two should consider getting married. :rolleyes:

What is with you and marriage??? lololol

Tsumaru
24th Jul 2008, 13:58
We've got about the same age maturity-wise it seems, but I feel like the physical and intellectual gap is too vast for marriage. She's too old, I'm too smart.

HouseOfPain
24th Jul 2008, 14:04
:D

Although we havent really strayed too far off topic lets not make this hell for our new sexy moderators? :cool:

EDIT: Tsumaru, egotistical much? :P I would consider Scadvid to be an incredibly intelligent person, at least far more intelligent than the average dumbass.

HouseOfPain
25th Jul 2008, 05:57
So is this thread just a test now to see h fast Romeo and DX can react?

;D

DXeXodus
25th Jul 2008, 06:06
1.....2......3......4......
Closed

You dirty people.





And hey presto.. Open

Now get on topic people

Kevyne-Shandris
25th Jul 2008, 06:11
And unfortunately, people turn to Wikipedia because they feel too lazy to find other sources(though they may not necessarily know good search terms either)

Sad thing is one can't just throw a link down from Encyclopedia Britannica or QED or from the 100000000000001 journals out there. Copyrights and all get in the way.

I regard Wikipedia a necessary evil for the internet since it's a copyright free resource (well linking and such), but for true research? I give you one name to Google -- ScienceApologist. That's the nuttery involved in making "science" at Wikipedia. Not that facts are questioned, but when politics are introduced ahead of facts itself, the sausage becomes an ego laden cesspool, instead (e.g., "I KNOW what science is, as I'm so-so college student/lecturer, and no, your cites aren't good enough for me [despite they are peer reviewed by smarter folks than himself!]").

Seen so many good researchers just sick of the internet encyclopedias and flat out leave it behind (especially specific history buffs who are solidly experts in their fields -- and consulted by institutions and even the media), because the "edit warring" mentality of these encyclopedias. It's not the best and solid facts that "wins", it's who's more politically connected. Had an invite to join Wiki's competition, only to find months later the same guy revolting (and I didn't necessary agree with what he revolted for, you really don't need to be a Ph.D to edit some material, especially history articles), but he's one of the few experts in the field and the loss is shameful. Knowledge lost over stupid egos and pettiness.

All this infighting over stupid articles. Then folks wonder why wars and mayhem continue??

jcp28
25th Jul 2008, 16:42
Indeed. And to stay on topic, I can see some conspiracy nut inserting some citation from some crappy source that is regarded as some tinfoil publication or a outlet for journalists who want "to uncover the truth".,

Kevyne-Shandris
25th Jul 2008, 17:07
Indeed. And to stay on topic, I can see some conspiracy nut inserting some citation from some crappy source that is regarded as some tinfoil publication or a outlet for journalists who want "to uncover the truth".,

That's the danger of freedom. With it we lose control.

Those that scream the loudest, like what I illustrated above, tend to be control freaks as well. They trade what they consider as "junk science", with their own version of the "truth" (because XYZ said so).

Ever heard of Halton Arp? Probably not, but guys like him who buck the status quo, are hammered cold by these control freaks. He rocks their boat; he shines the light on the dirty secrets of the science Establishment, and in return they hound him to no end. The pettiness is so much, they took his telescope away (pure playground stupidity, by supposely learnt and mature scientists). Folks need to read his books, they will make you question what the hell has happened to science in the last 40 years. It's so childish, truly, childish how egos get in the way.

Gatekeeping, Jcp, gatekeeping. Wikipedia tries to do what the editors and referees do at journals. Not so much as to keep the quackery out, but to protect careers. That dude is trying to make a name for himself as a "science skeptic" and using Wikipedia as his base of operations. Then, the emperor with no clothes, has the audacity to criticize others "about promoting themselves".

Freedom would allow folks to read both sides of an issue. Gatekeepers only want one side to be known. Knowledge is power, and knowledge protects careers. In Arp's case, if the Big Bang is found to be faulty, a lot of academics will need to find new jobs -- their whole life has been of persuing and protecting a theory, if it's wrong, they lost face. In that world of academia, it's a downfall. Arp faced some of these guys, who flat out in the most playground manner, told him their true interest (and it's not science for science sake, it to protect some backsides).

That's what they don't teach kids about science, either.

We are only feed what the powers-that-be want us to know. Question the answers, expect a backlash from the power.

jcp28
25th Jul 2008, 17:35
That's the danger of freedom. With it we lose control.

Those that scream the loudest, like what I illustrated above, tend to be control freaks as well. They trade what they consider as "junk science", with their own version of the "truth" (because XYZ said so).

Ever heard of Halton Arp? Probably not, but guys like him who buck the status quo, are hammered cold by these control freaks. He rocks their boat; he shines the light on the dirty secrets of the science Establishment, and in return they hound him to no end. The pettiness is so much, they took his telescope away (pure playground stupidity, by supposely learnt and mature scientists). Folks need to read his books, they will make you question what the hell has happened to science in the last 40 years. It's so childish, truly, childish how egos get in the way.

Gatekeeping, Jcp, gatekeeping. Wikipedia tries to do what the editors and referees do at journals. Not so much as to keep the quackery out, but to protect careers. That dude is trying to make a name for himself as a "science skeptic" and using Wikipedia as his base of operations. Then, the emperor with no clothes, has the audacity to criticize others "about promoting themselves".

Freedom would allow folks to read both sides of an issue. Gatekeepers only want one side to be known. Knowledge is power, and knowledge protects careers. In Arp's case, if the Big Bang is found to be faulty, a lot of academics will need to find new jobs -- their whole life has been of persuing and protecting a theory, if it's wrong, they lost face. In that world of academia, it's a downfall. Arp faced some of these guys, who flat out in the most playground manner, told him their true interest (and it's not science for science sake, it to protect some backsides).

That's what they don't teach kids about science, either.

We are only feed what the powers-that-be want us to know. Question the answers, expect a backlash from the power.

I don't deny you have some point. But I think you missed what I was saying. I'm saying that there's certain nutty people who probably edit Wikipedia articles that put down sources that are obviously fringe and written by a small group of people that spend way more time than they need to telling everybody "We're being ruled from behind the scenes!" Or "The government is covering up proof of existence of aliens" Which is sort of true when it comes to Roswell, but this certainly doesn't apply all over. Do you mean to say that there's actually some of these people who have a point?

As I say, I think you were going on abotu people getting shut down by "authority" But thanks for mentioning this Arp guy though(who reminds me of AARP for some reason) I'm well aware of these science gatekeepers and their understanding that knowledge is power. It's pretty damn sad to see people who don't like to accept new theories become childish. Of course, Arp might be as nutty as a lot of people. I'll have to look him up though.

Kevyne-Shandris
25th Jul 2008, 18:15
I'm saying that gatekeepers are throughout science, not so much to protect it itself (from quackery and nutcase ideas -- as they still slip through, it's claimed 2+% of published data is of that sort, or influenced to the extent that it's not objective [e.g., tobacco funding "research"]), it's to protect careers.

These gatekeepers keep certain knowledge from their warehouses, not so much because it's crazy, but because it rocks the boat and QUESTIONS the answers these warehouses like to distribute. For example, Arp has an interesting hypothesis (intrinsic redshift, and quantized light) that questions that light we seem to think is some 15 billion light years away may not be. He's found that quasars (you know these bundles of massive energy that is suppose to be billions upon billions of light-years away?) seem remarkably close to near and also far galaxies, and proposes that these nuclei were ejected from them (can still see bands connecting them to their host galaxies). This is direct observational evidence. DIRECT OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. The Establishment rejects this hypothesis wholesale outright. It's so petty, that they flat out will reject his papers. No discussion, it doesn't even exist to them.

That's not how science is suppose to work. Call for papers, and duke it out among peers. But gatekeepers are keeping it out, because it questions the Standard Cosmological Model (the "Big Bang" theory). That very model folks like Sagan and Hawkings and Dawkins (science "mega stars") and whoever in the halls of astrophysics thrive on, and built their careers upon.

So in the end, you and me won't even know about it (unless we so happen to find it buried somewhere -- I lucked up by searching about redshifts one night [and guess who wanted to delete the intrinsic redshift article at Wikipedia, again???]). Then if you mention someone like Arp, you can just hear the ScienceApologists crackling like fools. They're scared of the knowledge, as it'll turn all that they pigeon-holed their accessory theories onto (like Dark matter/Dark energy and a host of other fudge factors that's propping the "Big Bang" up) upside down.

I want science to be, well, science. Let them duke it out, and let the best theory win the day. Not prop careers at the expense of science itself. Mega stars like any star in the universe dies out, but science must go on.

El_Bel
4th Aug 2008, 21:00
Thank you for the interesting conversation Scadvid and Tsumaru!!!! :)

Abram730
12th Oct 2008, 03:24
God, I don't know where to begin. There are a number of problems with those videos.

All that crap about 31,000 scientists saying global warming is not human caused are probably a lot smaller than the number of scientists that do think that humans are largely responsible.

Another thing, they would NOT want to start WWIII. It would be ultimately counterproductive and bad for business. No, makes no sense at all.



I think multinational coporations have much more power than they should have, but there really isn't some cabal of men ruling the world from behind the scenes.

Oil corps like Exxon employ a lot of scientists who dispute global warming.

I see people put on TV who claim to be scientists and yet are clearly PR guys. Then they'll be right back after a message from their sponsor.

See Commercials are to get people to buy things, and ads from oil corps are about? An oil scientist watch his kid drink a milk shake and gets an idea. They aren't selling something... they are paying for something.

Positive news coverage.. we want our "scientist on your show" or we will take our ad budget else where.

~Psychotic~
12th Oct 2008, 04:43
Information Warrior? Lol, I preferred the name Information Hoarder and it's what I call myself. I find out pretty much everything there is to know about what I am interested in at the time (and most are lore for video games, I like reading video game lore).

hippy fascist
14th Oct 2008, 09:30
Just a quick thought.

Secret societies that control the earth and the flow of information, and yet some spotty fat kid in his mom's basement happens to be the one to discover their plot...

okay...

If you tell me the government hides things from the general populous on a daily basis, I will believe you. IT's obvious, due to the overall stupidity of the populous they HAVE to hide things from you

The second you mention "secret societies" however I will get bored and switch off.

Why?

Because if they truly are an all powerful secret society, you'd only ever here about them if they wanted you to. You think these people can con the entire world into thinking they don't exist, only to have some dumb schmuck leave a paper trail. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.

I have no doubt that some form of secret society may exist, but I know one thing. I'll never know their name or their agenda. BECAUSE IN ORDER TO BE POWERFUL ENOUGH TO EFFECT GLOBAL CONTROL THEY'D HAVE TO BE SMART ENOUGH TO COVER THEIR TRACKS.

Besides, if they are as powerful as you claim, you would not be sitting here. You'd have been executed within hours of posting this...:rolleyes:

INFO WARRIOR??????

Delusional fantasist more like.

pewbeng
14th Oct 2008, 10:13
Besides, if they are as powerful as you claim, you would not be sitting here. You'd have been executed within hours of posting this...:rolleyes:


Yea.. Because letting him live and talk instead doesn't contribute to your scepticism.

Here, take that tinfoil hat.

Kahlell
20th Dec 2008, 02:46
I am what you call, an "info warrior" I dedicate my online life to getting information out about the illuminati, or the globalists, elites, whatever you want to call them and the crimes they are committing to bring us closer to their one world government. They do this by offering the solutions to the problems they create, known as the Hegelian dialectic.


I would just ask that you view the issue from both sides, not just Alex Jones'. I am specifically talking about the Illuminati, if you do enough searching, you will soon realize they are quite different than what the majority perception of them is.

emsed2000
14th Jan 2009, 05:51
I would just ask that you view the issue from both sides, not just Alex Jones'. I am specifically talking about the Illuminati, if you do enough searching, you will soon realize they are quite different than what the majority perception of them is.

Indeed. :-)

Deus_Ex_Machina
15th Jan 2009, 21:52
If you want to watch a documentary that isn't laughable, check this one out :

ZEITGEIST : ADDENDUM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

El_Bel
15th Jan 2009, 22:58
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Zeitgeist??!!??!!??!!??!!??!!??!!!???!!! :lol: Not laughable!! :lol:

hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha

http://205.158.108.67/stuff/ROFL.jpg

....

Sorry it was spontaneous...

Deus_Ex_Machina
15th Jan 2009, 23:50
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Zeitgeist??!!??!!??!!??!!??!!??!!!???!!! :lol: Not laughable!! :lol:

hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaha

http://205.158.108.67/stuff/ROFL.jpg

....

Sorry it was spontaneous...

:(


Well, you are entitled to your opinion...

mj12_agent13
27th Jan 2009, 02:22
If you want to know the true conspiracy of the modern age it is the C.F.R. and the banking cartel that runs it. The federal reserve bank and the Council on Foreign Relations are the true manipulators of this world we live in. They quite openly control the money supply, government, media and corporations. Do a little research and you can see that they do this blatently. They don't need to hide because most people are too concerned with their own insignificant lives to worry about them!

G-Mania_07
2nd Feb 2009, 05:33
I believe that all this banter and arguing is now contrary to the point. Whether all this information is true or not it offers valuable insight and information on possiblities and its sad to see arguing about the irrelivant information the truth is that people one way or anoughter no matter who's doing it or why not just citizens of The United States but people all over the world are lossing their rights and i feel that is a serious concern. All this information doesn't have to be correct or false the fact is it is putting it idea in peoples heads enlightening and informing them of what is happening to them. Whether people outwordly show this or not you'd be surprised how many of these "Stupid People" know exactly whats going on around them but ignorance is much simpler than knowing everything thats happening yet feeling powerless. I guess my point is that you shouldn't underestimate anything from anyone.

imported_Daniel_Smith
6th Feb 2009, 10:33
The lack of truth and REAL information makes you "suitable" to be contolled. Plus one even more scarrying thing - the abscence of knowing what to do with information...

That is what today's "true democracy". Every single peron living in such a "democratic" country votes for this, votes for that... And there's still huge amoint of people who thinks that they make their chois on their own...

All the voters, truly free by all means (lol, right?), are guided to make a "right' choise by such a simple but very effective tools like giving you bullsh** instead of real information and limitaion of variants of choises. For example what is presidential votaion? Making a choise from a TWO VARIANTS? THREE? Or maybe even FOUR?

Is THAT a freedom, liberty and democracy? ))

Its democracy.. in theory. people doesn't now what to do, what to choose. They are misguided by disinformation of being brought to "radicalist ideology". What do the candidates propagate in theis "advertisment'? "Lets change all this crap and make this crap insted of old" "Lets end this freaking corrupt authority and formatr our's one" "Lets kill them all coz they are not like us" "Let this" "Let that"...

This is all nothing more but an attention distraction in order to bring and keep alive our's eternal lack of information and knowledge what to do with it because we never really know what is truth and what is not.
And even if one of us had known - the system wolud have eaten him.

-------------------
And for the conclusion i'd like to say that we have to be very careful with such a kind of information witch posted in the head of this topic... It operates the extremities, which is always has little to do with the real situation. No doubt theese videos have some good info which inspires us to think, but it is also full of cheap political-style thing being brought to people by shouting "hey! look at that!! are you fools? we live in a HORRIBLE AWFUL DIABOLIC WORLD and we are all being manipulated by MEAN EVIL EVIL EVIL dictators whitch do this just fo fun...".
"All your base are belong to us!"

Part - truth, part - crap.
And this is an example of distracting from our "clear straight analysis" of our living environment. Who knows, maybe theese "exposing masterpieces" are just another tools of the "Another absolutistic mean world's governing bunch of Illuminatus black warlocks". "Oooooouuuwww SPOOOKKYYY".

Human being seeking for truth never shouts that he knows "an exact answer", he just continues to ask questions... and never allows him to be convinced in a certain "explanation"... Coz then it means - "THEY" already have you brainwhed.

El_Bel
6th Feb 2009, 11:23
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, so these people can rule the world but they have left hints left and right because they want info warriors after their arse. Oh and the could not give Alex Jones cancer and make it seam like he died from natural causes because uhm.. eeeer... whatever they are evil!!