Whoa there pilgrim! I may not be all that eloquent, but I'm not just making stuff up either.
mkilly wrote:wages: don't believe everything that you see, just because they wrote it into a movie. like that retarded Spare Change about 9/11. I know how convincing it is that because it's written down, or on a screen, it must be true, but be skeptical when you watch things, especially things putting out such an extraordinarily minority viewpoint.
I understand your point and agree. Its not like I think it is all 100% spot on the truth, but I think it is all very possible and certainly worth discussion.
mkilly wrote:there were enough votes for ratification, and also Ohio was a state. the Federal Reserve is a quasi-non-governmental organization, or QUANGO, as it devotes any profit to the government, its most powerful members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and its board is basically like any other federal-level department. also, the US Mint prints our money, on paper made by the Crane Paper Company (who have a lot of great stationery, btw).
Why is "appointed by the.." good? Sure seems like it would be better if the people were simply able to vote for these positions. Maybe that wasn't possible in the past, but it is now, especially if government was made smaller.
mkilly wrote:if WW2 was made simply to make money, you're alleging that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the German invasions of Poland, Austria, Belgium, France, etc., the bombing of the UK, were all fabricated, based on what you saw in a free movie online.
Sorry I let it sound like that. The points made in the video were that Roosevelt made decisions that encouraged Japan to attack us AND that he was warned that there were Japanese ships coming towards Hawaii days before Pearl Harbor. So it is not that WW2 was faked, but our involvement was to make money. Maybe Roosevelt knew the war would help the people finish their progression out of the depression but needed to be involuntarily entered into the war for the people to accept it. I definitely do not have the political science knowledge you do, but I can accept the possibility that real motives are not necessary recorded by history books.
mkilly wrote:your dad would probably be pretty disappointed that you misspelled his alma mater (which, I presume, is Johns Hopkins... I don't think there exists a John Hopkins university). also unless I missed something AIDS isn't cured. where the hell did you pluck this 165 figure for your IQ. why is it the fault of the government and not your own fault, or maybe the fault of genetics, that you don't have your father's ambition. we haven't had a presidential assassination in quite a while, and to suppose that you're important enough that anyone would care to kill you is pretty egotistical.
No excuse for misspelling the university.
He "worked on a cure for AIDS", not that it has happened yet.
In school (I don't know, around the 4th grade; yes I realize that is an old stat), I was given an IQ test (granted, it was in Arkansas) that involved various skill tests (problem solving, pattern matching-type exercises, math, and so on; if memory serves, the tests lasted around an hour). Afterwards, the number was 165 (I have taken multiple IQ tests online for whatever they are worth, and yes, then number is now around 135 to 145 but that could mean a bunch of stuff, or nothing at all). So then I was moved to a "gifted and talented" program (which is not "special kids", but "advanced", their words, not mine) in that school where I was offered "more substantial classes" such as sign language, academic competition opportunities (things like speech and debate), computers, Spanish, extensive studies in pre-history (dinosaurs and such), presidential history, and so on. The kinds of things that they don't generally teach 4th and 5th graders (at least, not at the schools I attended).
My education and the fault of the government... maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But I have talked to a lot of people from before my generation who talk about what they were taught in school and I compared it to what I was taught, and it mostly seems they received a more well-rounded education.
As far as assassination... from my limited knowledge, it seems that there is persecution (Jesus, real or not real) or are assassination attempts or successes whenever someone really seems to be on the political side of humanity (as opposed to the political side of money/corporations or one's self): Martin Luther King Jr, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Lincoln (though some debate his goodness so far as its relation to freeing of the slaves), John Lennon, etc, etc.
I was learning about Ron Paul (R-Texas) last night and I think a lot of what he says makes sense, but it seems he probably won't gain enough support to get close to Rudy, which may or may not have anything to do with media control. And I completely forgot where I was going with that....
mkilly wrote:I'm not a Trust-Your-Government Theodore or anything, but to say that Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom, or that Bush engineered 9/11 to make some money, etc., I mean, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. In a conspiracy theorist's worldview, there are no coincidences. There are a lot of problems with our system, and sometimes I really do feel like I can't conceivably do anything now or ever, but most of the time I have some small hope and faith that things are going upward and not downward.
Would not the silent hands of the elite be able to hide their involvement? This is why there is no proof. The whole ousting of Nixon would probably not have happened without Watergate (disclaimer: I know very little about the details of Watergate, so no need to go into my ignorance

), and the lack of evidence surely otherwise would have left you saying the same thing. So, I think it is better to assume the government is always corrupt or will quickly become so. Therefore we need to always scrutinize it, spank it, send it to its room, and get rid of its toys if necessary. Not let it pass legislature that allows them to bust into my house if they suspect me of being a terrorist. Not let it get so big that the people can't really decide anything.
I think ALL laws should be voted on by the people. Period. We can have Congress to help us word things well (people like you Marcus!), but then we should be able to vote on it. WE should have a line-item veto; if a great enough percentage of the people mark out a section of a law, it is removed but the remainder can be ratified.
I don't know, I'm just a simple person who thinks he knows what he's talking about. But it sure seems to make sense to me.
EDIT: Normally I try to proofread my posts, but I'd be late for work, so here ya go!
Wages - Hoglen & Wages - The Affirmative Mention - Gawking Urethras - The EAF - and more