SeVeR

Yep, an english pound is now worth 2 american dollars aswell. The current American leaders are running the economy into the ground. They are printing millions of new bank-notes to fund their debt and their war, and you're getting a massive devaluation of the American dollar. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do until the next President comes in, and hopefully he will put a stop to it. In the meantime we have to hope the dollar doesn't completely crash. If the American people knew the truth about how the government has sold them out, they'd start a bloody revolution. The only Presidential candidate to acknowledge this crisis is Ron Paul.

I found a short summary that describes in the fewest words possible the most important issues facing America; Have a squint at this: http://www.ronpaulregistry.com/index2 I've been saying this sort of stuff for months; The war on drugs and the war on terror being two prime examples. Think what this guy could do for America...

I'm giving him my complete agreement with anything he suggests on the politics forum... no matter how right-wing and religionist it is.

The only popular thread on this forum is in the trash... why not just stick the entire forum in here? 17th Parallel/Trash - Come see the magnificent X'terrania, four bucks a view! No touching please, heshe bites!

Carl Sagan for sure. He wrote Cosmos, which romanticised the history of science and convinced me to become an astrophysicist. I think i read one of Kaku's popular Quantum physics books, if thats the right guy. I don't know about the others... Thatcher and Cheney deserve eachother. As for Hitler's Braunpoker, the story is probably made up, just like the one about him being a panzer (pansy).

yep, they'll eat you instead.

No-one interested?

True, people don't need to believe in an afterlife to defeat their fear of death. I never claimed such a thing. However, belief in an afterlife has to be a major contributer for many of those who are not afraid to die. The fear of death stops me and you from killing ourselves for a cause. Religion gives a ticket to a world beyond death, so why be afraid of dying a religious martyr? Of course there are instances where religion is not involved... there wouldn't be many suicides otherwise. Fear of reprisal is the whole reason we formed social groups (tribes) in the first place. We are stronger in a group, we are more likely to kill our enemies, less likely to be killed by them; it's why we formed groups - in order to survive. From this simple co-operation we learn not to kill those in our tribe - basic morality. If we kill those in our tribe we become feared by others in the tribe, and they may eliminate us to ensure their survival. We then learn not to indiscriminately kill outsiders and non-involved groups, as they may seek to eliminate us as a result - general morality. We still kill our enemies, but seek alliances. An omega is in my opinion a rarity. However they are still useful to the tribe rather than a "waste of resources". They serve the purpose as protector for those who will reproduce, helping to guarantee the Darwinistic progression, even if they themselves are not worthy. This is rare as frustration can arise, which can act as a counter force to Darwinsitic progression by posing as a threat to the survival of those who will reproduce. I do not understand your reasoning. Everything around a child/teenager is telling them that they are not a waste of resources. The existence of adults tells them that they will one day be at the age to reproduce. Humans are just another animal. Our survival instinct has merely developed beyond that of any other spieces. It has developed religion - the means to permanently weaken other members of the spieces in order to conquer them, rule them, and keep them from seeking power and wealth. I'm beginning to see religion as a natural course afterall... Hitlers mistake was simple and in two parts: 1. He made the rest of the world fear him. They percieved his invasions of Poland and France and his vision of a German master race as labelling them the weak and the disposable. England/America and every other race therefore had a survivalist compulsion to annihilate Hitler and the Germans. 2. He misunderstood empathy. Empathy is a naturally derived moral, which is very different to charity. Empathy tells us to help the weak become strong so that they may become our ally and owe us a debt - something that may aid our own survival. Charity helps the weak through the instilled moral obligation that it is the right thing to do, it very often keeps them weak, as their is no ambition beyond the short term fix. Hitler annihilated the weak, and went against the naturally survivalist empathetic urge to help the weak become strong. Prime example: Hitler would have killed Stephen Hawking, I would have seen the potential for a great mind (as i do in all mentally able people) - It is not survivalist and it is not Darwinistic. So this theory when understood is perfectly applicable to politics. Yes, there are always idiots who misinterpret, and despots who deliberately misinterpret religion and darwinism. The difference is darwinism can be progressively understood as it is based on us (our evolution, our history, our biology), religion will always be open to interpretation as it is based on an en!@#$%^&*y that is unknown to our senses and exists only for as long as we have faith. It is based on words in a book, and you should know that anything can be re-interpreted for a purpose (gay-bashing, abortion doctor killing, muslim-hating etc) based on whether that purpose is desired.

maybe abuse.

Proposterous. Belief in an afterlife removes the fear of death and allows a person to perform more radically dangerous acts without a thought to personal survival. Suicide bombing is the natural result. Belief in a God is used to justify the killings as being what an omnipotent all-good and powerful en!@#$%^&*y would want to be done. It removes personal guilt! They didn't suicide bomb anyone. They valued power but in a destructive and non-survivalist fashion, and they perished as a result at the hands of their enemies. Convenient. What of vengeance? Aileron, if Darwinism only requires the organism to reproduce before dying, then up until the point of reproduction the need to survive must be of principle importance. All men and women who are biologically capable of reproducing should therefore not kill themselves for any reason. Anyway, i did say Darwinism/survivalism. I feel that the survival instinct is the basis for all the morals of a productive non-destructive society. Religion distorts those morals and is a pernicious influence on society. Your theory that absolute darwinism would mean sending all adults who are not going to reproduce out on suicide missions is profoundly flawed. You must first understand how morals are derived from the survival instinct. The most basic moral "do not kill" is in fact a product of the will to survive: We do not kill because then others will fear us and attempt to eliminate the threat to their survival. i.e. killing is a threat to our survival. Of course if our survival is threatened, then we may kill to protect ourselves. By sending in suicide bombers we increase the threat to our own survival and instill the opinion that it is acceptable to not value your life. This is profoundly damaging to a cause of war. Peace should be sought in all conflicts of interest. Secondly, almost all adults are biologically capable of reproducing until old age, and all adults can be subject to a change of opinion, so how would you know who is not going to reproduce. Thirdly, sending someone on a suicide mission who does not want to die brings a threat to your survival from the person being sent. It's a well do!@#$%^&*ented fact that the Japanese saw their royal family as Gods before the conclusion of the second world war. Religion can most certainly be blamed.

Ron Paul is running for President in America. He is a right-wing republican. Even though i am a left-wing socialist, and am completely at odds with this man, i would still vote him into office. Why, you say? Because he understands the economy and he understands foreign policy. That's all i need to know he is uncorrupt, and the best thing that could ever happen to America. A summary of his views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo Finally, someone who understands what the current American leaders are doing to the economy. This guy is incredibly brave for standing up to the corruption in America: The above link gives a run down of the economic problems and the solution, spoken by Ron Paul. Next is a section of the debate on the Iraq war. Rudy Guiliani shows his true colours, and Ron Paul tells us exactly why they're attacking us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKITUOl0NBc And he even understands what is happening to Iran: In the last minute of this video he explains two of the most important points: 1. We have no proof Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. 2. This incrimination is exactly the same as what happened to Iraq with WMDs (only for us to find no WMDs when the invasion came). I've heard from alot of people that he is being blocked by the media. This doesn't surprise me. I feel it is important to get the word out though. I think he's pro-life and pro-gun etc, but that doesn't bother me. What is important is foreign policy, the economy, and corruption.

Religion removes the fear of death through the promise of afterlife paradise. If the whole world were darwinist/survivalist, the suicide bombers wouldn't exist. All forms of life value personal survival above all else, unfortunately humanity has derived a way of making others give up their lives to further anothers... in a way it is an extremely darwinistic motivation on behalf of the instillers of this belief. Unfortunately i doubt the teachers know that.

Socialism, not being at a political extreme, is open to many intepretations ranging from moderate to very leftist. I think we both agree not to get too left of centre. However in England we have something called the National Health Service, and in my opinion it works brilliantly. I got appendicitis and an infection of the large intestine, and was operated on a few hours after i was given a hospital bed. I was charged absolutely nothing. To see your doctor costs nothing aswell, only non-essentials are charged. This is easily possible in America, if you don't spend trillions of dollars on Iraq. I agree that the wealthy should be taxed, but there are instances where tax is not justified, even for the wealthy. For instance we have an inheritance tax where 40% of any inheritance over 300k (pounds = 2x dollars) must be given to government. This is clearly unfair, and is an example of an overly leftist regime. I agree with you on helping the middle class more with university costs. I'm amazed McDonalds pays so much, surely you have to work 12 hour days without holidays to earn that though? 40 years of freedom for blacks is an estimate. Obviously it didn't all happen at once. With these poor environments being so !@#$%^&*ty, is it surprising to you that a larger percentage of black kids remain in poverty through adulthood? I think the efforts of the black community are changing this situation, but they need more time AND effort.

I hadn't read those, but i still think it's a hoax. They're just a couple of attention ASSS. From looking at toppy's posts, they're too re!@#$%^&*ed and comedic to be genuine.

oh yeah Cubbies, that day at 8:52pm GMT when i killed Hotlavaking in the javelin was just the best...

I reckon this whole story is fake, and an attempt to make someone look stupid.

Someone working in McDonalds cannot become middle class. They will forever be working class because their wage will never be high enough to let them afford a decent home or a quality of life beyond work-eat-sleep-work-eat-sleep etc. They may escape poverty, but if you ask someone to spend their life flipping burgers in order to get enough money to live on, they may well give up on life. The government is there to help them out for one purpose alone... and its not because they're such a caring bunch. It's because they don't want these people turning to crime. Some people are destined for failure because they are poor and stupid. The only way to get out of that situation is through an immense amount of motivation, and not everyone has that. Those that don't must gain some level of support to stop them from mugging you on the street. They are useless to society, but the alternative is incarceration, forced labour camps or execution. I seriously wouldn't mind the idea of forced labour camps, provided they are humane and give every oppurtunity for progression back into the normal labour system. The subjects put into these camps would have to have been out of work for a long time and would have demonstrated a significant level of laziness. I don't think anyone enjoys living in a slum. Anyway, i'm sure you know all about poor neighborhoods, so do you think one with a crappy school, gang-ridden streets, and parents who cannot buy their children toys, is in some way a productive environment for producing motivated young doctors and lawyers? I doubt it. Black people tend to live in these neighborhoods, not by choice, but through the fact that their ancestors lived in these neighborhoods. Yes, some kids have that special motivation to actually make something out of themselves, given this poor start in life, but most will not. Black people born into these neighborhoods are starting to move away and into better jobs and therefore better lives, but 40 years isn't long enough to equalize the racial polarisation of wealth.

That only works if you drink your !@#$%^&*. Stops you going blind too... although it can't cure a sprained wrist.

NBV, there are exceptions to every rule, but i remember you telling me how you were involved with the "bad crowd" for quite a while. It seems that the "bad crowd" will attract or be attracted to poor people doesn't it? You must consider yourself a rather special case rather than a typical one. The middle class do have it hard in that respect, a smooth drop in government payments for poor uni students should be implemented instead of a sudden drop at whatever limit the government chooses. Yes, being poor is no excuse for being poor. But being poor makes it more difficult to become rich. Think about your typical poor neighborhood: - The influences of gangs, the run-down schools, the parents who don't have enough money to buy their children toys (forcing them to the streets). You're looking at a formula for another poor person. You should consider yourself lucky to have escaped.

I completely disagree. More black children than white children were born into poor families. So your typical black American born in the same year as you was far more likely to be born into a poor family; thus getting a poor start in life.

What made you want to go?

There are people on both sides of the poverty line who do not have the effort to make a life for themselves, and to earn money. It's not limited to poor people... i should know, i go to university . But anyway, we just see the poor lazy people turning into thieves because they cannot function any other way. The rich lazy people can just get away with it. I do see a distinct lack of motivation from those living in poverty, but can it be the reason they turn to crime? These people may just be risk-takers and anarchists who have no respect for the law and who believe they can get away with breaking it. They see crime as their "legitimate job"... i mean they still have to work at crime and their work:salary ratio is probably not much better than a well-paid job anyway. I can't believe that African Americans dug their own hole. Before the 1960's they were pushed into those poor areas and not given any kind of respectable jobs, its hard to turn whole communities around in 4 decades.

Its because they're hypocrites who are as racist as the people they criticise. They've spent all their lives trying to separate themselves from the whites whilst campaigning for sympathy towards their little group. What they should be doing is integrating and asking for no special treatment. I maintain that they're wrong and they're not a minority, you appear to agree with my reasoning yet you still call them a minority. If you address skin colour as a way of dividing the populace in a purposeful manner, then yes. So you're saying they dug their own hole? Black Americans have lived in America for longer and did not end up in the poorer neighborhoods by chance, as discrimination has only recently declined. Latino Americans have not encountered the same level of hate and can get their feet in the door. They are still poorer than whites though. Also California is a rather nice accepting place to move too if you get my drift. Of course there are exceptions, but overall averages show poverty to be a factor in crime. Poorer countries, poorer areas of countries, poorer cities, poorer neighborhoods, are all backed up by statistics as being more susceptible to crime. -EDIT- sorry for the lateness of the reply, i have recently had to finish a masters dissertation, three pieces of coursework and three exams.

why does anyone give a flying !@#$%^&*. TRP, i'm sure the admins of this forum network will ask the sysops of chaos zone about who they'd want moderating a forum here. Chaos "big shot" pussies who hide behind false names and make empty threats, get a !@#$%^&*ing life.

yea, such a narcissist.