/

America lies! Still, better than the rest of the nut jobs.

Hehe, what an idiot :P Great stuff :P

2:15 is golden. It's so artificial it almost hurts.

And this is what happens when someone mentions it :)

What? When someone gets in someone's face and says "YOU'RE A COWARD AND A LIAR!"? That's what happens? Shit, that's undeniable proof right there.


PS: 1987.

That's just great :P Well deserved! What the hell did he expect him to do? It's Buzz Aldrin FFS!

they were all wallhack

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

btw, with the new lunar orbiters, there will soon be highres images of the apollo landing sites showing whats left of the LEM.

ah cool wondered why we hadnt seen any of those

its cos the landers are pretty small and spindly, so you wouldnt actually be able to see anything, until you get a good enough camera that is.

you can point a laser at the landing sites and get it reflected back from laser retroreflectors that were placed at the sites, proving at the very least that something landed there and placed these objects with considerable precision.

heh yeah ive just been watching all the myth busters moon landings vids on youtube =)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...ed-by-lro/

Fuck me, post some Kent Hovind videos next.

+

Kent Hovind is way more entertaining than those moon truthers. His appearance on Ali G was hilarious.

Hm, I didn't know he was there. I have to see that movie again.

It was in the Ali G shows done for HBO in America. Just get both seasons if you haven't seen them.

Oh. I haven't seen any of the shows, just the movie. Watching it right now actually :P I'll see if I find the shows.

Edit: Found it!

The movie is, er, not very good :P

It has its moments :P

True, though it sort of misses the point of Ali G a bit!

facepalm

http://i44.tinypic.com/23qxwgp.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svAQ6BCIgxg

The best proof that it wasn't fake is that the USSR never said it was. I think they paid a bit more attention to the images than you did.

As soon as human being realise that religion is just a system of control and that there is no god ,the world will be a better place.

Maybe if Americans stop being cowards, and also stop being stupid, I will like them again.

I was listening to a radio program earlier, where a Republican was talking about Sonia Sotomayor. He said the American justice system must be objective. This was a Republican. He said America has a history of objectivity from its judges. This was coming from a Republican.

Not long ago, if you were black and American, and you happened to be black and American, you were instantly arrested, tried and convicted. This is because, the good ole' boys from the Grand Old Party always practiced true American objective justice.

Now that the white-devil has been killed, as can seen by the election of Barack Obama, maybe the United States will get better. If so, i'll just get Natalie Tran to move here, that way we can have another Democratic voter.

Stupidity is, of course, the other killer of freedom. Take note, enemies of freedom, your strategy should be to instill fear and stupidity.

Republicans have always been completely objective. I wasn't being sarcastic, if that's what people think. Those crazy, zany slaves, for some reason, they never stop trying to escape. Of course we have to round 'em up again, each time they slither away. Regardless of how black they are, or which specific black person they might be, we have to return them to their slave-quarters. Did I say slave-quarters? I meant prison-cells, my mistake..

Obvious sarcasm is obvious, so

I wasn't being sarcastic, if that's what people think.

that's incredibly bad phrasing.

Due to its nature, government must be restricted; which means, democracy must be restricted. A free nation cannot remain free if the government has unlimited power. The greatest threat to a free people most often comes from within.

Democrats are far better than Republicans. In fact, Democrats have it almost exactly right. To have freedom, corporations must also be restricted. Republicans try to limit government on anything economic. Aside from the tragically flawed thinking, Republican methods are un-Constitutional (Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the means to regulate commerce). Government is the only entity powerful enough to contain business.

It is a fine balance between restricting government and restricting business, which is probably why Marxist systems have never worked especially well. Unlike Marx, I fully admit to being unbalanced. There is a good chance I will never know economics to the extent I know politics.

Let me provide an example of why there must be economic restrictions:

As everyone knows, in the United States, there used to be slavery. It was not a government program. It was entirely a business construct. The people who sailed the slaves turned a profit. The people who used slaves for labor turned a profit. Republicans (a.k.a. Confederates), want all economic restrictions removed so they can once again have their slaves.

The United States government was formed over 200 years after slavery began. Fifty-years later, the slaves were freed. Confederates are still upset, but... fuck them.

Most people do not understand American history. The reason is because that was the design. The Civil War never actually ended. Instead, it changed from a military battle to a political. The political war began with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Over 100 years later, Confederates assassinated JFK, had Lyndon Johnson (who was JFK's VP), start the Vietnam war and then had RFK assassinated to ensure a Confederate Presidential victory. The result was disastrous for the Union, prompting 40 years of Confederate power in the federal government.

You're not supposed to know any of this, because knowledge is power. If you knew these things, it would be exponentially more difficult for Confederates to win the political war. Of course, this also means they couldn't call themselves Confederates. They came up with a tidy new name, 'conservatives'.

Unfortunately for the Confederates, most of their people are in the South. I'm from the South myself (Louisiana). It's very hot, in the South. Much like an African climate might be. African-Americans will soon fully take over the region, ensuring the Confederacy will be permanently destroyed.

It's very hot, in the South. Much like an African climate might be. African-Americans will soon fully take over the region

racist much?

Social Security is a good example of where there should be government restrictions. From what I understand, everyone is forced to pay into the 'Social Security' system. This government program makes it so when you reach a certain age and disability, you receive 'Social Security' checks to pay your expenses. What good does the system do anyway? Makes it so you can be irresponsible with your money? Makes it so when you get old, you can spend the rest of your short life doing shit drugs until you die in a pool of your own piss, cum, bile and blood? Why are we forced to take money out of our paychecks, money we might need today, to pay for some goofy program we don't even want?

If old-people beg for money, it's very simple, don't give it to them. Government should be restricted from giving charity to old-people. Just 'cause some dumb hippy gives a shit doesn't mean the government should be involved. If you want to save lives, join the Red Cross. Government has its own job to do, and in this country, that means maintaining as much freedom as is possible (rape, murder, imprisonment, slavery and all other forms of force do not equal freedom).

Health-care is another issue where government should be restricted. I do not have health-care, and I haven't for most of my adult-life. Do I care? No. Do I want health-insurance? No. I don't care if it's free or cost a trillion dollars, I don't want government taking my money to pay for health-anything. I can take care of my own health-care, for free, simply by being careful. We survived for billions of years without 'health-care', but now politicians and Michael Moore tell us we cannot survive without health-care. In the case I falter, I can take money out of my own bank-account to pay for all my health-care needs, get help from friends, family or charities, or simply have myself euthanized.

There should be specific restrictions on government, to ensure freedom is not unnecessarily removed. Government does not give you Rights, government takes away Rights. What we do here (when things are functioning properly), is restrict what Rights government can remove. Democratically speaking, that means people can only vote on a small number of things. If they could vote on anything, they would vote to give themselves all the money in the treasury.

What a mean bunch of predjudices. You have no clue how a society works, maybe edjucate yourself first.

Health-care reform means what? I have to pay for old people who should be dead, but instead contribute nothing to society and spend all their time doing drugs and watching television? Does it mean I have to pay for your kids to play sports, 'cause they might injure themselves? What if I don't have kids? Do I have to pay for your kids because they don't look both ways before crossing the street? Do I have to pay for some cocksucker who uses psychiatric pseudo-scientific bullshit to justify the fucked up way they behave? Or how about paying for some dumb redneck who sticks car-antennas up their cock-hole, 'cause sometimes it gets stuck and a urologist is needed for removal?

Honestly, per-year, I pay $0.00 for health-care. What the fuck are people doing that they need so much 'health-care'? If it's some weird disease, i'd imagine treatment could be payed for by a science grant. I don't see how there is any justification for taking away my freedom, forcing me to pay more than $0.00 so other people can be wacko's. If they want to live that way, fine, but don't make me pay for it.

predjudice

There are almost no reasonable cases for government-funded health-care. One case might be if someone is the victim of a violent crime. Aside from maybe vaccinations for kids, or the rare other case, I cannot currently think of anything else.

Old people should be capable of funding their own drugged descent to death. Maybe sometimes I would be willing to pay for someone's health-care, but only if voluntary. When you try to force me, it will only make me less willing.

If Obama has one major flaw, it might be his sheltered life. He and his wife are both Harvard lawyers. How much can they really know about all the crazy shit less pampered people tend to do? My stepfather is a Urologist, which is why I know about weird redneck antenna insertions. He could tell you all sorts of stories about other types of 'medical cases'.

Only thing not needed in health-care are vaccinations, because most of them are a marketing scam.

Since Nixon, the people have become more miserable and less safe. People want to smoke marijuana, but Republicans say no. And why? They don't give a reason. Instead, they give propaganda. To take away freedom is to endanger. The government is a force of great threat. It is from a government we declared independence. If you have no personal choices, how can you conceivably achieve happiness? Everyone is different. Some people are happiest with a car-antenna stuck up their penis. Others enjoy anal beads. To take away choices, to take away liberty, could only mean less safety and less happiness. And yes, when slavery was abolished, slavers did lose liberty, but slaves gained liberty. If you do the math, abolishing slavery increased over-all liberty.

If you make everyone pay for Random Person's mistake, what do you think will happen? They will force Random Person to stop sticking car-antennas in his urethra. At that stage, Random Person becomes unhappy, because they lose what they love. It also makes things more dangerous for them, because they will be punished if caught doing what is now forbidden. And why forbid them, when you can simply ensure only the person who makes the mistake pays for the mistake?

If you are the victim of a violent-crime, the State should pay for your recovery because the state failed to protect you.

At some point, people have to be protected from themselfes, ie. mental disorders.

A lot of people were saying the Obama election was not a land-slide. That isn't close to being true. Again, like with the preceding mid-terms, the numbers did not tell the story. When you account for the enormous number of dumb redneck racist idiots in this country (who would never vote for Obama, just because he's black), the numbers were as good as the mid-terms and quite possibly better than something like the FDR numbers.

Once African-Americans gain full political power over the southern region (the Confederate states), the Confederacy will be de-Confederated. Splintered and spread among the other parts of the nation (hostile parts, such as the Union north), they will quickly become assimilated or dead.

It's nice though, isn't it... slavers being destroyed by slaves. First, they did it militarily. Now, they get to do it politically. And once the Confederacy is destroyed, the States can finally be United again, after 150 years of civil war.

yeah.

no.

The reason confederations are illegal (Article 1, Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;), is because a confederation has enough power to challenge the government. Abraham Lincoln made the mistake of allowing the confederation to continue existing, with no real changes made, aside from military. To destroy a confederation, the parts must be separated from the whole. It cannot be given the time, or other means, to regroup.

Confederates are quite possibly the worst traitors in human history. Within only 50 years, they illegally formed a confederacy and committed treason (Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.). They hate everything the United States stands for. They never practice justice. My whole life, their philosophy of guilty until proven innocent (which is the exact opposite of the American justice philosophy), has resulted in memories filled with distressing injustices. In cases where I did nothing, I was fined because the officer arbitrarily decided I was lying.

I'd love to hear why, my entire life, I have been deprived of legal marijuana. If you cannot prove, in a court of law, my use of marijuana should be outlawed, I should be able to use marijuana.

Confederates have done far more than wage 150 years of war against the people of the United States. They have also waged wars, and practiced their imperialistic ways with foreign powers. They deliberately initiate disastrous wars, if they know it will help them politically. Everyone, foreign and domestic, should eliminate them.

The political goal of the Confederacy is simple: To infiltrate the United States government (using their legal rights as United States citizens to be elected and appointed), for the purpose of changing the United States government into what they want(ed). They use a number of methods, including destroying, ignoring or subverting the Constitution, waging failed wars to 'prove' the incompetency of the United States government, inciting fear of a pretend danger, and therefore the 'need' to change the United States government, and using misdirection to damage the Union and absolve the Confederacy of suspicion or penalty.

To defeat the Confederacy, permanently, the Constitution must be upheld and the Confederate base must be destroyed. African-Americans - freed slaves - would never side with Confederates (slavers). We do not want to create segregation, or allow African-Americans to form their own Confederacy. Union whites, and other ethnicities, should make up roughly 50% of the South, while African-Americans maintain 30%, and Confederates, at most, retain 20%.

If you notice anyone going against the Constitution, it is likely they are part of the Confederacy, whether or not they realize. Pawns often fail to understand the role they play. Even though there are imperfections in the United States Constitution, they can be corrected with Amendments. There is never a need to be un-Constitutional.

do you own a time machine?

Only cocksuckers who don't know their cunt-holes from their cunt-holes follow the news. Almost nothing you find in the news is worth more than third-reich propaganda. You need to look around and determine for yourself what is what and what must be done. Even if you can trust some people, you can never trust everyone.

Let me rephrase this: You can trust some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot trust all of the people all of the time (inspired by the Abe).

Aren't women great? We give them equal rights, and within 50 years, they all become prostitutes. I suppose if you're one of those freaks of nature who do not like prostitutes, you might be unhappy. I personally enjoy prostitutes thoroughly. Furthermore, I have never done anything un-Constitutional in my entire life. There is a strong case to be made, because prostitution should not be fined or punished, any degree of fine or punishment is excessive or cruel and unusual.

Ignore my girlfriend from the Netherlands (I have 11 trillion girlfriends). It's not me, it's her. I'm from the Middle-East and Asia. Cherokee's are Asian from 40,000 years ago. Jews are Middle-Eastern from a few thousand years ago. People say there is a difference between Jew and Arab, but it's like saying there is a difference between Nigeria and Zimbabwe. Cultural, a little, religious, maybe... mostly, the difference today is that Jews moved to the Caucasus and have been breeding with Caucasians for thousands of years. I have no biological association with the Netherlands.

I'll be perfectly honest with you... everything I say over the next 5 sentences will be lies:

1. 0+0=0
2. 0-0=0
3. 0x0=0
4. 0/0=0
5. Having too many girlfriends is a pain in the ass. And yes, I am also part Caucasian (Russian, Celtic, English, Basque and Spanish).
6. Weed should be legalized, for everyone capable of using it responsibly. Innocent until proven guilty means if you cannot prove my use of marijuana should be punished, you have no Earthly right to punish.

I'm just fuckin' around, I currently only have one girlfriend. You should never have multiple girlfriends. When you're growing up, you might think it would be great to have lots of girlfriends... it's not great. It is a real-life terror-show. You do not know the horror. Find one person, and stay with that person. I had to learn this lesson the hard-way, just 'cause I am irresistible to gay-men, lesbians and women. It was never my intention to attract any of these people.

It is no good, and DNA does not dilute. Study science, and then you will learn, old-Jews and Arabs are the same.

Don't to judge others by your own standards.

I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.

Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.

Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:

(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

I recently saw a documentary on the legendary "damaszener steel" and the weapons forged from it. It turns out you need a very special kind of steel mixture to forge those legendary blades, can't do without it. So do the Japanese own and use that steel? Else their grand technique is worthless.

Why do United States President's always have dogs? Because they want loyal subjects they can boss around. An independent creature like a cat will ignore their orders and tell them to go fuck themselves.

Guilty until proven innocent... this nonsense has lead to blanket punishments for all Americans, regardless of whether they have committed any crimes (a crime can be defined as something that should be punished). If you are under 21, you are assumed to be guilty of mis-using alcohol, even if you have never used alcohol or mis-used alcohol. If you are under 18, you are assumed to be guilty of mis-using tobacco. The fact it is illegal to use these things, if you are under the set age, is punishment in itself.

Innocent until proven guilty demands that you prove: A. The person did whatever they were accused of; B. What they did should be punished; and C. The laws dictating the subject are Constitutionally valid. If you do things differently, Confederate cocksuckers can infiltrate the government and impose countless un-Constitutional garbage laws, with pre-determined punishments, simply for the sake of subverting the Union.

The fact it is illegal to use these things, if you are under the set age, is punishment in itself.

...

We are endowed by nature with certain inalienable rights. Among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To alienate what is inalienable, you must prove it should be alienated. Only a traitor would make you prove it shouldn't be alienated. Guilty until proven innocent is the direct opposite of one of our most sacred United States principles.

So then, why is it illegal for me to use Marijuana? Why must I show identification when I purchase alcohol? Why can't young people use alcohol or tobacco? Alcohol was around when the nation was founded, why wasn't it outlawed then, by our founders?

To alienate what is considered inalienable, you must prove it should be alienated. Prove to an absolute degree. Any reasonable doubt means it should remain unalienated.

The United States is not a Republic and never has been. Any American who tells you the United States is a Republic is either a moron who doesn't understand their own government, has been brain-washed into falsely believing the nation is a Republic, or is deliberately attempting to subvert the Union. The nation is and has always been a Union, and should be referred to as a/the Union (like it is in the Constitution). It is in fact, a union of both restricted Republics (the States), and restricted Democracies.

The idiot who wrote the pledge of allegiance did so around 1892, after the Civil War. He could easily have been part of the Confederate subversion plot.

Punishments should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. My use of Marijuana should not be punished. I have no doubt, in some cases, the use of Marijuana should be punished. To take away my inalienable right of liberty, based on something someone else did or does, could only be a device of Confederates, a people who want to turn everyone into their slaves.

On the matter of Marijuana, no one has proven to any degree that my inalienable rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be alienated. Why are they alienated? Because Confederates use any excuse to enslave you and subvert the Union, which includes undermining Union principles. They consistently create laws in conflict with the Constitution, on issues ranging from free-speech to the separation of church and state. And no, they do not have the right to change the government. Every measure was taken to ensure the government cannot be challenged (aside from certain restrictions to be imposed on corporations, which is something we need to correct). Only through an act of extreme un-Constitutionality can the government be changed from within. This has not stopped them from ignoring the Constitution. I can only imagine, it is through their subversion, people allow nature-endowed rights to be unlawfully and unreasonably alienated. They function in an old-world government fashion. They are imperialistic, aggressive, forceful and they keep their populace stupid, scared and ignorant.

Many people around the world dislike Americans, but they do not know Americans. It is the Confederates they dislike. Confederates have been politically camouflaged since the Civil War ended. Mistaking them for Americans is understandable. Hopefully, now that they have been ferreted, this issue can be resolved.

Maybe we should amend the Constitution to ensure the proper function of the country? It could be like, "In every case, the courts must prove to an absolute degree, beyond any and all reasonable doubt, the naturally-endowed rights in question should be alienated and otherwise punished.".

Amendments dealing with corporations may also be in order. The government must not be challenged. If usurped and replaced, the new government may have no interest or capability in protecting our rights. We have already seen corporations and Confederates allying together, in what many would call a fascist enterprise. Corporations are maybe the only things remaining that can truly challenge the government.

Rights can never truly be alienated, they can only be made more difficult to use. "In every case, the courts must prove to an absolute degree, beyond any and all reasonable doubt, use of the Rights in question should be punished.". It is not necessary to include 'naturally-endowed'. Every American should understand where Rights come from, and if not, the Courts can quickly educate them. Lawyers and Judges would not allow a court-case decided on something of that nature. If they did, it would likely result in a mis-trial.

Amendments to deal with corporations would mean new powers for Congress. They should be arranged to ensure Congress could not possibly help corporations challenge the government.

If it can be done, nature gave you the Right to do it. Governments, even when functioning at their very best, make it more difficult for you to use your nature-given Rights. Only an idiot, or a religious person, which is the same thing really, would think they know better than nature. In some cases, we can prove to an absolute degree. Aside from those cases, only a nation filled with suicidal, arrogant fools would choose government (liberals) or religion (conservatives) over nature (Americans, and maybe other people too). The simple fact you are unable to prove to an absolute degree means you must be incompetent. Why should we take the hypothesis of an incompetent over an omnipotent being?

I don't know what's going on with the health-care thing. I haven't looked at any of the current proposals. To be honest, and nothing against it, I have no interest in economics. My concerns are entirely political. Whatever health-care, deficit, whatever issues we have today are the result of political failings. The fact some our top people persist with the delusion we live in a Republic is either a sign of extreme subversion, or an indication our nation is run by morons. It is called a State of the Union address, not State of the Republic. Through Constitutional amendments, we strive for a more perfect Union, not a more perfect Republic. Calling it a Republic, regardless of intention, is in itself subversive.

Dealing with corporations is a necessity. Any new powers granted to Congress may also require new limitations. Whatever it is, it must be done so the powers can only, no matter what, be used to detract from the abilities of corporations to challenge the government. I have no interest in your economic concerns.

I'm concerned Obama has too many book-smarts, not enough street-smarts. Seems all he does is look at the numbers. Are you aware of the fact people are worried, scared idiots? They buy medicine for every little cut and burn, when 99% of their 'health-care' costs are probably completely unnecessary. The dog gets an injury... straight to the vet for four different types of medication and a professional medical examination, even though the injury does not require any human health-care. Dog saliva itself is better medicine. People are fucking retarded, and the numbers will not reflect that.

I don't know what is being proposed, and it doesn't matter. I am full of doubts about any 'reforms', because it means the government has intruded into our private lives, in what might be an unnecessary fashion. From what I have picked up here or there, accidentally listening to passing radio's, I have heard nothing close to absolute proof these 'reforms' are necessary. To make more difficult, to punish, our inalienable rights requires more than idealism.

* »Manni Flanke, ich Tor.« (Horst Hrubesch)
* »Mailand oder Madrid - Hauptsache Italien!« (Andreas Möller)
* »Der Pfau, der Superpfau, der Effenberg.« (Andreas Herzog)
* »Ailton Tor - alles gut.« (Ailton)
* »Ausgerechnet Schnellinger!« (Ernst Huberty)
* »Erste Pass, gleich Scheiße.« (Dragoslav Stepanovic)

If there was one great failing of our founders, other than a lack of limitations on corporations and a proper education system, it is due to the fact the theory of evolution had not yet been introduced or developed. They instituted a system of protecting inalienable rights by punishing some rights, the rights necessary to punish in order to protect. The problem with punishment is that it only makes things more difficult temporarily, and never does it stop them completely. Instead, it causes evolution. Different things evolve in different ways. When the turtle was punished (hurt/injured), it developed a shell. When the lion was punished, it developed sharp claws and teeth. When the electric-eel was punished, it developed an electrocution shield. None of them stopped practicing their inalienable rights, but rather, evolved so they wouldn't have to.

With the 8th amendment, this type of evolutionary process should be kept to a fair minimum, if the 8th amendment is practiced correctly. At the same time, in order to protect our rights to the fullest extent, a system of punishment should be a last line of defense and never used too frequently. Punishment will cause evolution, which will make our rights less protected, rather than what seems like the common sense thinking it would make them more protected.

I'll tell you what kind of health-care reform could be useful. You think heroin dealers are bad? You call them pushers? The real pushers are M.D.'s, psychiatrists and even veterinarians.

Instead of a psychiatrist telling you the science is still hypothetical, and you maybe shouldn't use the drugs, they are all too happy to give you a prescription, and another appointment, both of which they profit from.

Instead of a veterinarian telling you the medicine for your animal is completely unnecessary, they prescribe it as if assumed, and of course, turn a profit.

Everyone trusts these doctors, because doctors are so virtuous and intelligent, unlike those unscrupulous underworld hooligans. What's most fucked is that the illegal industry is far more legitimate, and far more honest, while the legal one is more like a criminal enterprise.

Maybe the reform you should do is require doctors to tell people when the science is hypothetical and/or the medicine is unnecessary.

The Amendment I proposed earlier would go a long way to correcting the Union's flaws. It would ensure punishment was a last line of defense, and if there is one thing that can over-ride instincts, it is intelligence. Teamed with a proper education system, and some positive reinforcement measures, we could correct many of the imperfections currently in the Constitution.

People want to do what they want to do. If what they want would endanger our inalienable rights, we can punish what they want to do (which would cause them to evolve and become more dangerous), or we can make them want something else. There are only 24 hours in a day. In any given case, there must be something else the person would prefer doing, or be just as happy doing, which does not endanger our rights.

The other supplement would be to ensure the government evolves faster and better at protecting rights than everyone else at destroying them.

I'm not sure it would be necessary to exclude Constitutional law from the proposed Amendment, simply because Constitutional laws have already been proven to an absolute degree (if in fact, they truly have). Either way, you can, and probably would have to (and probably should), exclude Constitutional law. It wouldn't affect the general population much anyway. Constitutional laws are mostly restrictions on governments.

It is possible restrictions, limitations, and prohibitions are the only way. At the same time, because the people must protect themselves from the government, by punishing the inalienable rights of the government, it could make the government more dangerous. But how else can it be done? Musn't there be a government, with either limited or unlimited power? Clearly, unlimited is not better.

Maybe the people and the government must each do their part, evolving the protectors and devolving or alter-evolving the attackers.

If it were up to me, the health-care issue would be resolved through the education system. People need to identify pushers, regardless of what costume they wear. If the government had a public education system for adults, to keep them aware of various current threats, and teach them how to deal with these threats, there would be far less need to impose restrictions on the use of Rights. The system could probably be run effectively through a website, or something similar.

If we can't use our Rights, what the fuck is the point of having them?

In this Universe, the only absolute laws come from Nature. All other punishments can be avoided or eliminated. Most of these human-imposed punishments are destroyed by Nature. Evolution ensures unjust punishments will only survive temporarily. Throughout history, you can see, in every case, when people were punished, they evolved in a way specific to the type of punishment.

When the King of Great Britain was being a total dick, the United States was formed. Our founders took every measure to ensure that kind of behavior would never again affect the people of this country.

Religion is the worst about punishment. It tries to punish almost every Right you have. As people continue evolving, religion continues dying.

When the use of alcohol was punished, speakeasy's were formed and Al Capone started killing. The cost of prohibition was too great, and the punishments were abolished.

When the War on Drugs began, entire underground industries formed and instead of one Al Capone, now there are thousands. People continue using drugs, probably to a far greater degree than before the War on Drugs.

Republicans have been foolishly punishing people around the world. In Roman fashion, they excuse their actions with the nonsense that 'we have the power to help'. Punishing Rights is not helping. As you can plainly see, their practices have led to a great backlash against the United States. If they continue punishing, the world will continue evolving to specifically reject what 'Americans' have been doing.

Evolution does function in a specific fashion. If you punish the use of Marijuana, people will evolve to be more capable of using Marijuana. When you install unjust/incorrect laws, Nature will destroy them. There are reasons Nature gives you the Rights you have. Unlike some things, Nature will not destroy nicely. Nature has no remorse, regret, or hesitation. Nature will punish the punishers - it is only a matter of time. And unlike the length of pathetic, puny human lives, Nature has all of eternity. The more severe the punishments, the more quickly the evolution.

Fighting Nature is suicide. A system of punishment could only mean perpetual revolution and excessive premature death. The punished will die first, but will then evolve to kill the punishers. The fewer Rights your government punishes, the better chance for survival. And that, kids, is political science.

Communism is a case where the bourgeois punish the proletariat. These 'Americans', the Republicans, the fascists, they find it fitting to wage war against the 'lower-class'. Simultaneously, they demonize communism. They don't realize, their punishments are what will ultimately cause a communist revolution.

When you punish the use of a naturally-endowed Right, people will only refrain from using the Right until they can find another way of avoiding the punishment. In communism, the proletariat are no longer punished by the bourgeois, at least, not domestically. On another concern, in communism, the proletariat and the bourgeois are punished by the government.

If you look at the dinosaurs, the supposed asteroid to 'strike the earth' more likely did not happen. Rocks of that size end up in the asteroid belt. As the big dinosaurs ate each other to death, the smaller ones had to survive on anything they possibly could. That includes insects, some of them of the flying variety, and all of them far larger than they are today. It would be more possible, these smaller dinosaurs, in order to survive, had to become better at catching this flying food, eventually leading to the evolution of smaller creatures more adept at traveling through the air.

Punishment (injury), is the primary cause of evolution. Things do not evolve randomly, and one creature does not evolve from another (contrary to the survival of the fittest hypothesis, or the monkey-to-man hypothesis). Humans have always been human. That is why, when we were punished during the night, we evolved to become afraid of darkness, which assisted our avoidance of punishment. A cat, which can see in the dark, has no need to fear darkness.

Unless you want to evolve something very specific, punishment should not be employed as it will almost certainly backfire. If punishment is to be employed without the intention of evolving something, it should be used in a short-term manner, before evolutionary change can complete.

Think about it... dinosaurs did not begin enormous. They began as microscopic organisms, like everything else does. As they got increasingly larger, they reached the point where a simple drought would be catastrophic. The herbivores died first, leaving the carnivores with only each other to eat. Due to their enormous appetite, it would be impossible to sustain their existence without herbivores. Eating each other would not provide nearly enough food, partially due to the fact food was being killed before it reproduced. It could easily cause something which seems like instant extinction.

so Jonesy, i guess this is your hobby?

We can only learn from the mistakes of dinosaurs if we know what their mistakes were. Imagine, all these 'smart' people, trying to fend off an asteroid which will never come. All the while, the real threat goes unchecked. Look at corporations today, fascist organizations like we've seen recently in the United States. They consolidate and conglomerate and merge, until they are as big as the biggest dinosaurs. Then they become 'too big to fail', which means the rest of us are punished due to their mistakes. Seems a lot like the possible predicament of dinosaurs. Could it lead to something other than the extinction of big business? Should it lead to something else?

Dinosaurs were not intelligent. They progressively increased in physical size, and reproduced in greater numbers, but took no account of the fact there is limited food. They also took no account of the potential need to store food in case of drought. The smaller you are, the less food you need (which means, the less threatening droughts are, or other forms of food-loss). Furthermore, the better able you are to store and preserve food, the less threat droughts and other food-losses will be. What you call an economic 'depression' or 'recession' is very similar to a drought. In our society of spending, we are like the dinosaurs. Perhaps, we are foolishly repeating their mistakes because we think their mistake was in allowing an asteroid to hit the planet?

I don't necessarily agree with special relativity. From my determinations, the gravitational field is a particle field. The particles extend from the sun to the edge of the galaxy. The particles move with the movement of the sun. Things caught in the particle field are moved by the particles. We know the sun is rotating, which might be the only thing capable of causing all galactic objects to orbit in the same direction (and exist on the same plane, which is created by the axis of the sun). We also know the sun is moving, because sometimes galaxies 'collide'. We move through space without slowing down, because there is no friction or wind resistance or anything similar. It is also the case, in the galactic gravitational field, it is like an airplane. When you walk to the bathless bathroom, you are not walking 500mph, yet are still moving with the airplane.

A rock the size necessary could only come from outside the galaxy. The instant it enters the gravitational field, its trajectory begins changing. The immense distance between the edge of the galaxy and the asteroid belt (regardless of at what exact point the object enters the galaxy), would easily cause the object to be galacticly assimilated, ultimately placing it gently into the asteroid belt. It would never have the chance to reach a planet inside the asteroid belt.

Smaller rocks do sometimes reach the Earth (and the moon). You can clearly see some of their craters. Because of our atmosphere, any of these smaller rocks will either burn away completely or burn away mostly.

If i'm correct, you should look for alien life inside of asteroid belts. Anywhere else, because of asteroid collisions, may be incapable of sustaining life.

I used to volunteer at an observatory. It was at the Onalaska high-school. Second largest telescope in Washington. My job was to do normal things like open and close the observatory and outline constellations. Mostly though, it was to find and show visitors deep-sky objects. The telescope was a 24-inch aperture Dobsonian model. I never wanted to stop, but I had to move. Most of the visitors were kids, around the age of 10, with their parents. We would show them the normal things: m13, the ring nebula and the binary star in the summer-triangle. But after they went home, around 10 p.m., me and Ed (a professional astronomer who the observatory was named after), would stay up all night long finding galaxies. We didn't leave until 4 in the morning (stupidly enough, considering we needed to be places in only a few hours). In western Washington, it is cloudy 9 months out of the year. You have to see these things when you can. The later you stay up, the more you can see, owing to the fact the Earth rotates.

I can tell you, every galaxy I ever saw had the same qualities: an equal field of plane, and a single-directional orbital motion.

I do not know planetary physics so well, but I do know astrophysics.

Yeah, here ya go... spin the fusion reactor, maybe then it will work. It could create a little gravitational field, which you could use in a spaceship. Like a UFO-style spaceship. The fusion is such a massive source of power, it would easily provide for space-travel. And a thermonuclear explosion wouldn't matter so much, because it would happen in space.

The particle aspect I am not entirely sure about. Clearly though, the motion of the sun is what controls the various galactic objects. Which means, Einstein gravity and Newton gravity are both incorrect. And those little birds you see are probably dinosaurs.

I am still amazed by big lines in front of gas stations every time the gas price goes down for like 3 cent a litre. If you have a HUGE car with a equally HUGE tank, which can contain say 100 litres, you save what....3 euros. But most people have normal cars, so they save 1,50 euros.
It would be more intelligent avoiding tickets and save 100 euro at once, but no, looking 10 minutes for a parking spot is so much harder then waiting 10 minutes in a line at a gas station.

The moral of the story is, most people do not even think about the most common things they do, and that's dumb.

People take is EZ.

See, only corporations can get things right. Not Newton, not Einstein, but Jonesy Inc. You can find Jonesy Inc. products at all fine retail stores.

No, seriously, I live in a great country. When you buy food, at the store, on the package there is a 'sell-by' date. You'd think it would be an 'eat-by', but do corporations care about anything other than protecting their profit margins? The health of the customers is irrelevant, even though their customers are also their neighbors and country-people. Me and the E and the Sir Isaac N can figure out astrogravity until the day we die, but unless we win nobel prizes, we get no money. Nobel prizes, due to their difficulty and uncertainty, are not worth the risk of investment, as any 'wise' investor will tell you. Maybe I am part-Jewish, but not the money-is-everything part. These 'free-marketeers' exhibit the worst in Judaism, and of course, the free-market religion comes from a mega-Jew by the name of Milton Friedman.

I can't imagine, until corporations stop being wild, stupid beasts, they will contribute much of anything worth real value. The fact still remains, they cannot be allowed to challenge the government, destroy the environment or collapse the economy.

Punishment and evolution are simple: You must punish in such a way, the creature can only evolve in a single direction, and that direction is the one you want and are fully prepared for. These free-marketeers disguise their religion, so they can get around Constitutional restrictions on the separation of church and state. This so-called 'free-market' comes directly from Judaism. If you notice, proponents always say, 'I believe in free markets'. It is religious garbage mixed with economic garbage. And you know what that means... a whole lot of garbage.

An individual cannot challenge the government. There is almost no reason to ever punish individuals. Only assemblies can challenge the government. That means, a violent assembly, such as an army (which is why only peaceable assemblies are Constitutionally protected). It could also mean a religion, or a corporation, both of which have a great deal of money and power (possessions/weapons and people).

The government must not be challenged by anyone. If the government is lost, usurped, or subverted, the protection of our Rights is gone. In addition to protections provided by the government, the people must protect their own Rights.

Unless you can prove, to an absolute degree, beyond any and all reasonable doubt, then your claims are religious. Religion is a system of beliefs, not absolutely proven truths. When you say, "I believe", you may as well admit to a court of law that you are attempting to integrate the church and state.

The Amendment I proposed earlier, which in finish would probably read, "Excluding cases of Constitutional law, in every case, the courts must prove to an absolute degree, beyond any and all reasonable doubt, use of the Rights in question should be punished.", would end frivolous, religiously-motivated work on the part of Congress and the Executive, and would ensure United States citizens would never sue one another unless absolutely certain of their claims.

Here, so you can alleviate yourself from responsibility, you can attach my real name to the Amendment: Nicholas Freeman, writer and crafter of the 28th Amendment. Now let's get this thing done. It is exactly what we need to fix this Union. And, in advance, I apologize for any excessive Britishness contained within my name.

The 26th Amendment, created by a confederate traitor in the form of Richard Nixon, set a terrible precedent. It declared discrimination and prejudice against people based on age. It states, everyone at the age of 18 is exactly the same in ways of maturity, intelligence, education, height, weight, capability, economic status, and every other piece of horrible incorrect nonsense. One awful law after another, since that Amendment, has been crafted based on this 'reasoning'.

The 28th Amendment under proposal would not eliminate the terror of the 26th Amendment (and Amendment which should be repealed), but it would eliminate the various other assaults enacted because of the 26th Amendment. To punish Rights given by Nature, there must be nothing other than absolute proof.

If there should be any voting discrimination, it should happen based on education. To pre-judge someone, based on their age, to consider them guilty until proven innocent, is only something a Confederate traitor or exceptional cocksucker could possibly concoct. Innocent until proven guilty means, "Excluding Constitutional law, in every case, the courts must prove to an absolute degree, beyond any and all reasonable doubt, use of the Rights in question should be punished.". A 10 year-old could be adequately educated. And a 14 year-old can be a perfectly responsible alcohol user. I started drinking at 14 (and smoking weed), and have never had any legal problems or vehicle accidents or anything else you claim happens when young people drink or when people smoke weed. And guess what, I figured out something Einstein, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Marx, and every other non-curse-word user you have ever known could manage to do. Take that fuckfaces.

Get your heads out of your asses.

To pre-judge... it is the basis of racism. Blacks are pre-judged based on the color of their skin. Young people are pre-judged based on their age. Weed-smokers are pre-judged based on their personal preference. And where does this federal government pre-judging come from? The 26th Amendment, enacted by Richard Nixon, established by the subversive Confederate states themselves. Who are the biggest racists? Confederates. A singular plane and single direction of orbit could only mean the sun spins, and it is the motion of the sun responsible for astro-gravitational control (which you cannot see with the naked human eye, because the sun is a giant fireball - looks the same at all angles). Look at a political map. The Confederate states have been responsible for the last 40 years of un-American atrocities. That ain't no fuckin' coincidence, as William Shakespeare would say.

Your child is like you. Their child is like them. Confederates are only a few generations past their civil war ancestors. The same DNA exists within them, with almost no changes. But now they have evolved, and are more dangerous... assaulting members of the Union through government police forces. Before, they enslaved people physically. When it was no longer allowed, they started enslaving people mentally.

How can prejudiced law be legal when it is clearly in conflict with the right to a fair trial? If you are prejudged, there is no trial, which is the basis for any number of different prejudice laws in place today (drug laws, sex laws including statutory 'rape' laws, alcohol laws, tobacco laws, voting laws). Trial, in this Confederate society of prejudice, consists of nothing but determining whether the accused did what they were accused of doing. They are prejudged to be deserving of punishment. The proposed 28th Amendment would eliminate any such prejudice and restore the right to a fair trial.

Every American should understand, Nature gives Rights. Everyone is created equal in the sense we all have the same Rights. For government to soundly punish the use of these Rights, it must prove, in a fair trial, the uses should be punished. Any American who says otherwise is probably attempting to subvert the Union, or was improperly educated. These truths are, in fact, self-evident. When the use of Rights is punished unsoundly, it could only result in revolution.

Kenneth Pinyan (June 22, 1960 - July 2, 2005) was a Gig Harbor, Washington, resident who engaged in receptive anal sex with full-size stallions at a farm near the city of Enumclaw. He videotaped those sex acts and distributed them informally under the name Mr. Hands.

During a July 2005 sex act, videotaped by a friend, he suffered a perforated colon and later died of his injuries. The story was reported in the The Seattle Times and was one of that paper's most read stories of 2005.

Pinyan's death prompted the passing of a bill in Washington State prohibiting both sex with animals and the videotaping of the same. Under current Washington law, bestiality is now a Class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

A documentary of the life and death of Pinyan, and the life led by those who came to the farm near Enumclaw, debuted at the Sundance Film Festival 2007 under the title Zoo. It was one of 16 winners out of 856 candidates for the festival, and played at numerous regional festivals in the United States thereafter. Following Sundance, it was also selected as one of the top five American films to be presented at the prestigious Directors Fortnight sidebar at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival.

The media outlets that reported the story withheld Pinyan's name. His name was revealed on national radio by talk show host Tom Leykis in the summer of 2005.

Prosecutors later determined that the horse, an Arabian stallion, had not been injured by being allowed to engage in sex in this manner. The photographer, 54-year old James Michael Tait of Enumclaw, was later charged with trespassing, since this act took place on a third party's property. A third man alleged to have been present was not charged. According to the Medical Examiner's Office, Pinyan "died of acute peritonitis due to perforation of the colon", and the death was ruled accidental.

Other factors surrounding the death were apparently that the deceased, concerned about appearing in a hospital with an unusual internal injury and the effect on his security clearance as an engineer for aerospace company Boeing, had apparently refused his friends' urging to go to the hospital for several hours after being aware he was internally injured, and was either beyond treatment or dead when he finally reached the ER.


Media reports at the time of the trial suggested that despite seizing and examining carefully a large number of such videos from the property, no evidence of injury to the horses was found, precluding animal cruelty charges, and that the trespass charge against Tait were brought due to lack of grounds for any other matter.

It was only after Pinyan died, when law enforcement looked for one way to punish his associates, that the legality of bestiality in Washington State became an issue. The prosecutor's office wanted to charge Tait with animal abuse, but the police found no evidence of abused animals on the many videotapes they collected from his home. As there was no law against humanely fucking one horse, the prosecutors could only charge Tait with trespassing.

Brian Zimmerman (1972 - September 20, 1996) was an American politician who in 1983, at the age of 11, was elected mayor of the community of Crabb, Texas. He won by a landslide, garnering 23 of the 30 votes cast. His stated goal as mayor was to incorporate the unincorporated community of approximately 200 people to avoid annexation by neighboring cities such as Houston.

His sole campaign promise led to a "hard fought" incorporation battle, because many residents feared that incorporation would result in higher taxes. However, Mayor Zimmerman held that an impending annexation would result in even higher taxes than incorporation, which instead would give the town some control over tax rates. The other major issue was that incorporation would force him out of his position as mayor, since Texas law stated that mayors of incorporated communities be at least 18 years of age.

He nonetheless supported a referendum to incorporate the community, stating "The mayor isn't there to sit and worry about keeping his job. He's there to do what's best for the people." Zimmerman's incorporation bid was ultimately unsuccessful, but he was reelected as mayor following the referendum. During his first two years in office, he reportedly had one of Crabb's roads paved. His unique mayorship garnered considerable attention - "worldwide" according to the Texas Almanac - that included articles in People magazine and the New York Times. In 1988, his story was chronicled in a made for TV movie called "Lone Star Kid"

.

In 1996, Brian Zimmerman died of a heart attack in Houston at the age of 24 He still holds the record as the youngest mayor in United States history. As of 2008, Crabb remains an unincorporated community and has been neither incorporated nor annexed during or after Zimmerman's life.

Could somebody lock Jonesy down to this thread, so he couldn't do anything on ESR except post here?

Free-market, i'm all for it. Let's get rid of all government restrictions, that way we can have slavery again. You'd like that, wouldn't you Republicans, or Confederates, or whatever you call yourselves these days?

Political concerns must come before economic. And in the modern and future ages, we must also put environmental concerns before economic. Economics and politics should not merge, and should not be friendly.

The nature of business is one of predator and prey. The predator exploits the prey. Slavers exploit slaves. In nature, this predator-prey system works better, because it assists natural selection. In society, people are not necessarily being killed, physically. Some minor degree of exploitation is probably acceptable, because it helps evolve the exploited. Excessive exploitation could only result in massive changes, most likely some sort of revolution (like with communism), or something like a Constitutional amendment abolishing slavery.

Without a functional environment, we, as a species, will become extinct. Case closed.

Political concerns must come before economic because without a functional government, we, as a people, will become extinct. If you observe various political websites, you can see clearly the problem with merging business and politics. We are supposed to uphold free-speech, in a political arena more so than anywhere else, yet these political forums censor everything that might damage them economically.

And if you're wondering how long it took me to figure out astro-gravity, it took no less than 5 years of studying astronomy and Einstein's theory of gravity. Funny how it takes thousands of years to figure out something so simple, merely because we cannot visibly see the sun rotating.

In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.

They tell us free-markets give us freedom, and they use the word 'free' in conjunction with the word 'market', but actually, freedom is bad for business. And if you have no true freedom, all the money in the world is worthless. I mean, if you can't use your riches, there is no point being rich. That is besides the fact, in a 'free-market', most people are not rich. Half of them are slaves, literally, or they are exploited to such an extreme degree, they may as well be slaves.

It is a simple equation. Less freedom for you means more money for them. Using their large sums of money, they can provide for themselves more freedom. As they gain more freedom, you lose more. Thus is the way of slavery. A 'free-market' is one of the greatest threats to a free-people.

Maybe if the government instituted uniform laws, such as requiring all businesses to uphold free-speech, the competitive edge gained through censorship would be eliminated, ensuring freedom has no negative impact on business.

The 'free-market' system is completely anti-freedom. It was created, propagated and perpetuated by Republicans a.k.a. Confederates a.k.a. fascists. It was designed to turn people into slaves. The more free a market, the less free a people. It should always be free-people, never free-market. This is also why, as they preach 'economic freedom', they do everything to take away our, as some people call it, 'personal freedom'.

Free-markets means the markets are free to turn you into a slave.

What does this mean for esports? You tell me.

Let me clarify one point.

Markets are assemblies. You are an individual. It takes an assembly (a government), to compete with an assembly (a market). A corporation does not compete against an assembly of customers, because each customer functions almost independently of one another. Unless an assembly of customers was formed, it could not conceivably be possible for consumers (giant suicidal dinosaurs, apparently), to compete with the exploitive methods of large corporations. An assembly of slaves cannot compete with an assembly of slave-owners or slave-traders, either of which are better equipped than slaves. Because, in the United States, only peaceable assemblies are Constitutionally protected, what kind of assemblies could be formed to free slaves without government intervention?

So please, tell me what all this means for esports.

How can even an assembly of customers compete with the kind of organized assembly you find in a corporation? Customers can't spend 40 hours a week figuring out how to avoid exploitation.

Government intervention is sometimes necessary.

Economists are the problem. Never take political advice from anyone except a politician. I'm not talking about communism, socialism, or capitalism. I'm talking about two organized assemblies, one with the purpose of ending excessive exploitation, the other with the purpose of excessively exploiting. The people should not have their taxes increased, (or their Rights punished). Instead, corporations should be restricted. For one individual to exploit another, could almost never if not never result in something extreme. This is about the threat posed by something other than a peaceable assembly (according to the Republican dictionary, peaceable means exploiting traders and subverting liberty for the sake of financial profit). If people are being injured, how can it be peaceable?

Exploitation is one person profiting at the expense of another. It is, at best, un-fair trade. At worst, it is sadistic and war-like. Corporations are not people, they are assemblies. They have no Constitutionally-protected Right to injure employees or customers. Mutual and equal benefit cannot be achieved through exploitation.

One individual injuring another is almost always irrelevant. The government should almost never punish individual Rights. Individuals can contend with other individuals. It is when an individual faces a group, there is a need for government intervention.

Marx was right about exploitation. The problem with his solution... his evolution, is that it came from the stand-point of an economist.

From any point of injury, there are multiple ways to evolve. In order to protect our individual Rights, communism cannot function as an American solution. This notion of private and public is irrelevant. Rights of individuals are more important, and more protected, than Rights of assemblies. The assembly is the threat to both individuals and other assemblies, including the government itself.

The markets should be free to practice fair-trade. By fair, I mean mutual and equal benefit to all involved parties. Whether through natural rejection, or through the facilitation of natural rejection by way of government intervention, the markets are not, and never will be, free to exploit.

:D

100th poster on Jonesy's journal \o/

Sir Alexander James Edmund Cockburn, 12th Baronet Q.C. (24 September 1802–20 November 1880) was an English lawyer, politician and judge. A notorious womaniser and socialite, as Lord Chief Justice he heard some of the leading causes célèbres of the nineteenth century.

Cockburn was born in Alţâna, Romania [1] [2] to Alexander Cockburn and his wife Yolande, daughter of the Vicomte de Vignier. [3][4]. His father served as British envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Württemberg and the Columbia District (now Colombia) and was the fourth son of Sir James Cockburn, 8th Baronet (b c1729, d July 1804), his three older uncles having died without heirs.

He was initially educated largely abroad and acquired fluency in French and familiarity with German, Italian and Spanish. He was educated at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, gaining a first in Civil law in 1824–5 and graduating in 1829 with an LLB, also and being elected a fellow, and afterwards an honorary fellow.[5] He entered the Middle Temple in 1825, and was called to the bar in 1829. He joined the western circuit and built up a substantial practice though he was sufficiently diffident about his success in London to devote little of his energies there, not even keeping his Chambers open.[4]

Three years after his call, the Reform Bill was passed, Cockburn started to practice in election law, including acting for Henry Lytton Bulwer and Edward Ellice. In 1833, with William Rowe, he published a parliamentary brief on the decisions of election committees. In 1834, Ellice recommended Cockburn as member of the commission to inquire into the state of the corporations of England and Wales. Through his parliamentary work Cockburn met Joseph Parkes and himself became interested in politics as a profession in itself, not simply as a pretext for legal argument. Cockburn had become ambitious and in 1838 he turned down the offer of a judicial appointment in India with the sentiment "I am going in for something better than that". He became Recorder of Southampton and from that point started to reduce his election and parliamentary work in favour of more publicly notorious cases. In 1841 he was made a Q.C..[4]

In 1847 he decided to stand for parliament, and was elected unopposed as Liberal Member of Parliament for Southampton. His speech in the House of Commons on behalf of the government in the Don Pacifico dispute with Greece commended him to Lord John Russell, who appointed him Solicitor-General in 1850 and Attorney General in 1851, a post which he held till the resignation of the ministry in February 1852.[3]

In December 1852, under Lord Aberdeen's ministry, Cockburn again became Attorney General, and remained so until 1856, taking part in many celebrated trials.[3]

In 1854 Cockburn was made Recorder of Bristol. In 1856, he became Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. He inherited the baronetcy in 1858. In 1859, Lord Campbell became Lord Chancellor, and Cockburn became Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench.

Several Prime Ministers offered to nominate Cockburn for a peerage, and he finally accepted the offer in 1864. However, Queen Victoria refused, noting that "this peerage has been more than once previously refused upon the ground of the notoriously bad moral character of the Chief Justice".[6]

In 1875, the post of Chief Justice was replaced by Lord Chief Justice, a position he held until his death [3] on November 20 1880. He died of angina pectoris at his house in Hertford Street, London; he had continued working up until his death despite three heart attacks and warnings from his doctor.[4] As he never married, he produced no legitimate heirs despite having a surviving child. As a result, the baronetcy became dormant upon his death.[3] His remains were deposited in Catacomb A of Kensal Green Cemetery.

Tell me something, do you find it unusual there is only one President? If there were multiple, Presidential work could continue 24 hours a day.

the president works?

All they do is sign contracts and play golf. And they like hunting animals (Bush), Good ol' cowboy.

Take it from a 28 year-old bachelor, they don't want dicks or bank-accounts, they want commitment. Many prostitutes have told me, "commitment". They don't want my money, or my excessive bedroom prowess, even though they compliment me constantly, which, coming from a professional, is flattering.

Don't be like Hamlet, make a decision.

More prostitution = less rape. Eventually, there will be no prostitution left because even the prostitutes now prefer commitment. Why do Republicans punish prostitution? Because they prefer rape.

I don't actually visit prostitutes myself, but I do know some, and I like every one of them. They provide a valuable service, and they practice fair-trade.

No, i'm committed to my relationship with Natalie Tran. She's not a prostitute.

It's a simple thing, you either have prostitution or rape. I understand, you want to live in a fairy-tale world, and you want your children to live there too, but it isn't reality. Rape or prostitution, make your choice. Vote Republican and you get rape. Vote Union and you get prostitution. Until someone can figure out a reasonable way to make it so there is neither rape nor prostitution, one or the other will exist.

Jonesy, are you on speed? :D Good fun.
Please continue writing anyway. I like your ideas and such.
You should enter politics. You would rape everyone because you make so many arguments to counter attack the rest.

Religious people are the most vulnerable to delusion, and are therefore the most likely to fight unnecessary wars. Religious people are also the most afraid, and are therefore the most likely to support additional laws.

Religious people suffer from Dopamine overload, particular the DRD4 dopamine receptor. In other words, they are a bit paranoid.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/feb/26/00029/

When one twin is religious, the other will likely be religious as well. Its “heritability coefficient” is moderately high, ranging from .40 to .70 (compared to heritability coefficients for traits that most scientists see as adaptations such as basic personality traits—.40 to .60—or intelligence—.50 to .60). Genes, such as the VMAT2 and the DRD4, are consistently associated with high scores on religiousness scales. And religiousness is now known to exhibit a definite brain basis: some drugs enhance religiousness, while others diminish it, and some brain regions are more consistently associated with religiousness than others.

In other words, normal people need drugs to experience religious feelings. For religious people, God is their 'drug'.

Many people are religious because of evolution. We became too smart for our own goodwill. We need answers and God gives them.

Many people believe in God because otherwise their life would be useless. (it is useless, but people don't want to hear that).

Amphetamines increase dopamine and too much dopamine will result in Amphetamine psychosis.

WIKI Delusions

Psychosis may involve delusional beliefs, some of which are paranoid in nature. Karl Jaspers has classified psychotic delusions into primary and secondary types. Primary delusions are defined as arising suddenly and not being comprehensible in terms of normal mental processes, whereas secondary delusions may be understood as being influenced by the person's background or current situation (e.g., ethnic or sexual orientation, religious beliefs, superstitious belief).[6]

Like you can read, dopamine overload results in Delusions (GOD).

Is this Jonesy's post record thread?
What more than 30 posts, cant count!

I don't know that even a corporation practicing fair-trade could be considered peaceable. In their existence, they function as competitive. Something constantly in conflict is not peaceable.

If you limited the size of corporations, any punishments inflicted upon them would, at most, only have minor impact on the economy. The simple manner of punishing exploitation, at least, when the exploiter is an assembly and the exploited is an individual, would eliminate most exploitation, effectively facilitating the natural response to exploitation. The exploited always reject exploitation. It is the natural course of evolution exploitation will be eliminated. Exploitation is the point of injury. Communism is only one evolutionary direction.

Prostitution should go unpunished. Rape is exploitation. Until our sex-drives are different, people will continue either raping or employing prostitution services.

Natural rejection occurs in two manners: absolutist and pluralist. Everyone rejects being raped, robbed, murdered and otherwise exploited. Only some people marijuana and prostitution. In the latter case, the people do have a Right to rejection. To facilitate pluralist rejection, the government should only punish to the extent natural acceptance can also occur. This means, smoking marijuana on an airplane would be punished, but smoking marijuana in your own private residence would not.

In a case of absolutist rejection, it is punished always and everywhere, with or without government intervention.

The martial arts evolution is to repeatedly injure yourself in minor ways, so in the long-run, you are better protected from severe injury. For example, you might punch a plank of wood with a rope tied around it. You do this 100 times a day, 50 with each fist. After 10 years of this training, your knuckles have toughened substantially, allowing you to punch the rope harder and with less pain inflicted. If you get into a fight, let's say, with a samurai, you can use your strengthened knuckles to punch through their bones. Because samurai's have swords, it is necessary to kill them quickly and with a single blow. Without strengthened knuckles, you could not adequately wound the various kill-points.

'Liberals' often want to sensitize. Martial arts evolution is a way of desensitizing. Minor pains are irrelevant. It is only severe injury and death one must worry about.

maybe we should nuke this spambot ;)

It'd be great if I did win a Nobel prize in astrophysics. Then people would say, "Pro-gamers are winning Nobel prizes, what are other sports people doing?". With the prize money, I could start playing again. Of course, a Nobel prize winning player would be helpful in getting esports where it needs to be.

I would imagine the Nobel institute would also benefit. Opposed to other sports, ours if far more scientific and intellectual. You know how other sports people are... dumb jocks, most of them. Nothing against them, as people, but I can't imagine the Nobel institute has any reason to award Nobel prizes to dumb jocks.

Dumb jock is a little offensive, even if true. From this point of injury, where can you go? You can attempt to avoid hearing the words (or anything synonymous). You can attempt to stop people from using the words. You can continue hearing the words, until they stop bothering you.

Are there any other options? Owing to the fact we live in a free-speech nation, avoidance and censorship are probably poor choices, and will only lead to dead-ends. As you waste your time traveling down these dead-end paths, people who make the third choice are evolving faster and better than you.

Because censorship causes its own injury, which creates endless revolution, you wouldn't want to use censorship. Avoidance could be ok, but how can it be done? Furthermore, while you avoid, you become weaker. Everyone who doesn't avoid or censor is becoming stronger. If the time came, when conflict arose, the people who censor and avoid will be more severely damaged.

OMG, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

An optimist would say, at some point, the United States government lost its mind. It forces individuals to pay for each other, instead of forcing assemblies to pay for individuals. Instead of having police find severe exploitation of employees, customers and the government itself, government sends police to find and imprison people who are merely smoking weed and eating ice cream.

Most injuries (problems), will not be eliminated (solved), by the free-market. The next person who tells you otherwise should also explain to you exactly how to 'solve' some of these 'problems'. They won't do so, because their job is to exploit, not to help the exploited. If they tell the exploited how to stop being exploited, they will no longer be able to exploit.

Only minor injuries will be eliminated by the free-market.

Simple truth is, an individual will never be capable of competing with an assembly. Only in a primitive age, where there were no real assemblies, could something like a 'free-market' possibly succeed. Unless an assembly (government), protects individuals, the latter will always suffer repeated free-market injuries. That does not mean communism or socialism, it means the government needs to police corporations. It needs to stop them from severely injuring or killing. If the size of corporations was limited, it would allow for the most economic freedom. The larger a corporation, the greater damage it can cause, and therefore, the more policing is needed.

In nature, occasionally there is a pack of dogs, or a herd of buffalo. These are not organized assemblies, working around the clock to exploit everyone and everything they can possibly can. In the beginning of society, armies were formed to conquer the world. Since that point, only organized, comparable assemblies have been capable of competing.

The problem with exploitation is it incentives injury. The government, and the people themselves, must remove the incentive.

Esports is just what the world needs - popular games driven by brains rather than brawn. In brawn sports, you have all these 'unintelligent' jocks who, when interviewed, always repeat the same cliche', "I'd like to thank God and Jesus. Without them, I couldn't stick my foot through that guys face.".

Government cannot justify injuring people to stop people from injuring themselves. Either way, people are being injured. Better to injure yourself, by educated choice, than be injured by others. Of course, this case is another example of exploitation. Politicians exploit the voters who reject cigarettes and tobacco by injuring those who accept these things. They exploit worried parents by injuring whatever they worry about. Seems in every area, exploitation is the source of injury and injustice.

Maybe the best way to subtract incentive is through education. Teach people everything there is to know about exploitation and how to protect themselves from exploitation. If then, someone attempts to exploit, it will: A. Fail B. Back-Fire C. Cause the exploiter to spend his or her time practicing a dead method, instead of practicing something functional such as fair-trade.

Most people are so ignorant and dumb, they don't realize they are being exploited. A good example of this can be provided by Fox news.

You should first teach people about political exploitation. Once they can no longer be exploited by politicians, the government can be fixed. Once the government is fixed, through the public education system, people can be further educated about exploitation. Anything else, beyond education, which is necessary to eliminate exploitation, can be better done with a fixed government.

There are times you realize how fucking nuts people are. When you vote to injure people, simply because they hold a different personal opinion... because they accept marijuana or tobacco when you reject it. I guess it goes back to the same case of group-opinion and deviance. In nature, when someone deviated from the group, it resulted in physical injury to the deviant and possibly also the group. Today, this left-over faculty causes far more harm than good.

As long as they don't severely injure me, and I don't severely injure them, what is the problem? If I only smoke in designated areas, it is mildly injuring to me, but well within tolerable, understandable and justifiable levels. To smoke in non-designated areas would be an injury to those who reject marijuana. If I smoke in only designated areas, how exactly are they being injured at all, much less more than mildly?

In the case of pluralist rejection, avoidance is a worthwhile path. Those who reject marijuana can avoid people and places of marijuana acceptance, and vice-versa. The government, at most, only needs to facilitate the avoidance.

Absolute rejection is a case for censorship.

The government is not protecting young people by suppressing their freedom. The government is exploiting voters and tax-payers by 'helping' them with 'parenting'. The suppression of freedom is absolutely rejected by everyone, without exception. Some people will support the suppression of freedom, when it is not their freedom being suppressed. Like with robbery; some people will sometimes rob, but they will always reject being robbed.

In cases of absolute rejection, censorship/suppression should be used. This means, the government should be suppressed from suppressing freedom (in this case, of young people and everyone else indirectly affected). Anything else can only succeed temporarily, and will ultimately result in some form of revolution (which may only amount to the destruction of responsible parties).

Prostitution: Some people accept prostitution. It should not be suppressed.
Drugs: Some people accept drugs. Their trade and use should not be suppressed.
Sex: Some people accept any kind of sex, with young or old, with straight or gay. None of them should be suppressed.
Gay-Marriage: Some people accept gay-marriage. It should not be suppressed.
Alcohol and Tobacco: Some people accept the use of both or either, for young or old. The use of these things should not be suppressed.

In all of these cases, and plenty more, educated choice and avoidance should be used. Why should the government tell you who you can have consensual sex with, or what age they have to be? This notion, the government should be involved with every aspect of our lives, comes from I don't even know where. It is absurd and ridiculous. The government should only be involved to the extent it suppresses whatever is absolutely rejected, facilitates avoidance of things plurastically rejected, and facilitates conditioning of things absolutely accepted.

Rape, robbery, torture, murder, slavery, oppression, tyranny, invasion, occupation, usurpation, subversion, other forms of exploitation... all things to be suppressed by government.

Free-speech is something everyone accepts, at all times (no one wants their freedom of speech suppressed). Like the opposite of robbery, sometimes people want to suppress your free-speech, but you never want your own free-speech suppressed. In this kind of case, the government should facilitate mental conditioning, which would eliminate the desire to suppress free-speech.

You've got a boring hobby.

If I had children, I would want them to make their own educated choices and their own mistakes. I would not want them to be my prisoner or a prisoner of government.

The issue of cigarette, marijuana, or even sex dangers does not account for evolution. Through injury, like with the martial-arts example, we can develop protection from specific injury. Through evolutionary descent, meaning, evolution taking place from you, to your children, to their children, etc., protection gained can be improved upon. Narrow-minded people only think of their own little lives, and maybe the lives of their immediate families. You should be thinking about your entire line of descendancy, for all eternity.

Only injury causes evolution. Through reward, there is only refinement.

Unless you know what you're doing, you should not injure. When the government unjustifiably injures, there is revolution. When corporations unjustifiably injure, there is revolution. Sometimes, when parents injure their children, the latter will murder the former (murdering, in this case, is a way of protecting from further injury). Regardless of anything, when injury occurs, evolution occurs. Evolution protects from injury. If there is no injury, there is no evolution.

Sometimes, you can identify a future injury. This can also produce evolution. The problem is, there are many ways to evolve. You don't have to murder your parents to stop them from injuring you. You can simply move far away from. If people are foolish and ignorant, functioning on instinct rather than intellect, it is exceptionally dangerous to injure them. When the government injures young people, by suppressing their freedom, this can only result in some form of revolution. As the young people grow up in a state of constant injury, perpetrated by government, only extreme antagonism towards government could possibly occur.

Maybe Confederates deliberately tried to incite this antagonism, so the people themselves would call for a change of government. It would be an effective subversion strategy, aside from the fact Confederates are pathetic losers, always have been and always will be. The Union government will not be destroyed, it will be corrected.

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."

"He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."

"He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within." (maybe not dissolutions, but certainly obstructions)

Speaking of obstructionism, "He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers."

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." (gayland security department, anyone?)

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power." (do I misunderstand, or does this sound like the military-industrial complex)?

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:"

"For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:" (how many mock trials have there been recently, e.g. the theater trial of Saddam Hussein?)

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:" (the United States does not torture, within its own borders... besides, the people caught were terrorists, really)

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:" (any number of abolished economic regulations could easily be considered most valuable laws)

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." (I suppose this doesn't really apply to New Orleans)

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation." (have any of you heard of Blackwater?)

"He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands." (maybe store clerks do not quite 'bear arms', but they do execute anyone considered 'underage')

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I find it incredible the United States has become the very thing it declared independence from.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If the Democratic party cannot correct the errors, I do not know what we will have to do.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

I would never want to allow the incursion of a Confederate form of government. Let us do what we can to ensure the Union is corrected.

holy shit dude haha

What could cause the United States to become what it declared independence from? My answer would be - exploitation. If a great treasure lies down the road, one will not stop for crossing possums.

I would rather read all this than half of ddk's column.

If someone must be injured to obtain a reward, the reward should be removed. I don't see how the advantages of city-life could possibly outweigh the disadvantages of making yourself a nuclear target. And yes, I have lived in big-cities and small-towns (less than 10,000 people).

On the issue of global warming, one of the main problems is a lack of tree's. In dense population areas, mechanical and electrical structures are producing excessive amounts of Co2, and there is no real plant-life to convert it back into oxygen. Instead of tree's, there is asphalt and concrete. Maybe we could shove tree's into the tail-pipes of cars, what do you think? Global-warming aside, if we have no oxygen, we will die.

People cut down tree's unnecessarily. Some people still burn wood in fire-places. They could use electrical heaters, but would rather cut down more tree's to practice an old and unnecessary method of heating. In the modern and future ages, cutting down tree's is almost never necessary. As we are learning, what is becoming necessary is to not cut them down.

A million years ago, grouping was necessary for survival. Today, the way we group is sometimes a threat to our survival. If civilians spread out, there is more room for plant-life and less threat of offensive nuclear weapons.

At this stage, grouping is instinctual. It is not instinctual for every species. It is time we ignored this specific instinct, knowing it no longer is necessary or absolutely helpful.

Wakeup Jonesy, the Bad Guys (elite sinister scientists) have a stranglehold on everything (they always have): politics, laws, media, land, and last but not least Money. The US is circling the drain right now and recently the circles are becoming faster and more frequent. It's only a matter of time now until their agenda comes full circle, none of us have any control over that.

We were all born in their world, and we only know what they allow us to know. Everything you say here will fall on deaf ears unwilling to grasp realities outside of their small little worlds because they've been trained to be afraid and reject.

Just try to enjoy what time we have left.

Co2 produced by cities goes where? In nature, we were surrounded by plant-life. As we breathed out Co2, plants converted it into oxygen. In cities, where there is no real plant-life, will Co2 make its way to plants? I'd have to seriously question the environmental impact of dense population areas. People like to blame global-warming on 'fossil-fuels', but maybe it is a lack of conversion mechanisms?

Sometimes, people talk about penis size. They say, 'i have 9 inches'. If your penis is like a pencil, is 9 inches really so good? Shouldn't penis size be measured in both length and circumference? This issue is far more important than any other.

Almost all the points you are making are made in Addendum. That film should be projected in all schools instead of the stupid education kids are receiving.

What I am questioning, is how Co2 produced by dense population areas makes its way to plant-life. Even the tallest tree's are not that tall. Why would Co2 move sideways, towards plant-life, instead of up into the atmosphere? If it moves into the atmosphere, what is the real environmental impact of city-life?

I'm not a left-brained scientist. Co2 is a physical thing. It is a gas. Wouldn't something light, like a gas, make its way up, rather than to the side, where it would need to be in order to physically contact the plant-life necessary for conversion?

No matter what, more people = more Co2. We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Dense population areas, because there is no real plant-life, means more Co2 enters the atmosphere instead of being converted into oxygen. If we change to a spread-out living structure, human-life can be intertwined and interspersed with plant-life, ensuring proper conversion of Co2 to oxygen.

this thread needs to be added to hall of fame.
and jonesy user level needs to be created.





but
STFU already!!!

indeed.

Man, you can talk...

We inhale O2, we exhale Co2. Plants inhale Co2 and exhale O2. Without the two of us living together, in close proximity, even wind-currents will not be enough. Regardless of mechanical production of Co2, we will continue producing Co2 simply by breathing. The city-structure, with so many people, in such a small space, so far away from plant-life, could only mean increasing levels of Co2 in the atmosphere. The only solution is to spread out cities in such a way, plant-life and human-life can work together to regulate Co2 levels.

As our cities and their populations grow larger, Co2 levels in the atmosphere increase, causing what people call 'global warming'. Usually, global-warming is blamed on 'fossil-fuels', or something else technology-based. Maybe the real problem comes from baby-booming city-folk and a lack of appropriate plant-life?

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj193/naf1...1249561627

In this excellent technical schematic, the dots are tree's, the circles are houses or other human-structures, and the empty spaces are roads/sidewalks. With tree's on all sides and wind, most Co2 would reach the tree's. We might not want all Co2 converted anyway, or it may result in global-cooling. Clearly, this modification would have to be done and enforced by the government. It is in no way financially profitable. The 'free-market' would never make these modifications or ensure the necessary ratio of plant-life to human-life.

Eventually, Co2 will dissipate and spread to wherever there is plant-life. The problem is, it takes time for the Co2 to reach the plants. When there are no plants, or not enough plants, within proximity, by the time the initial Co2 is converted, X amount of additional Co2 has been produced. From point of Co2 production to point of conversion, how much damage is caused?

The reason there is so much pollution in cities is because there are no plants within proximity. It might take 30 miles of traveling for the Co2 to reach suitable plant-life. The Co2 can also go up, beyond the reach of plants, before finally coming back down to where plants can 'inhale'.

There are too many rules in America. The Government is too big. But I'm a libertarian :)

Either we produce less Co2, or we more quickly convert Co2 into O2. Co2 is not magical. It must travel to the plants before conversion can occur.

Because we cannot simply restructure our cities over-night, we should use a dual strategy of reducing Co2 production and increasing the rate of conversion.

Maybe you could capture all the mechanically-produced Co2 and transport it to a dense forest. If you could do the same with as much human-produced Co2 (in cars or in buildings), as well as adding more plant-life to urban areas, an adequate rate of conversion relative to the rate of production could possibly be achieved.

I don't understand gay-Rights opponents. They're only delaying the inevitable. Is it sheer stupidity, or has democracy become sadistic?

I propose to rename this thread to "Jonesy's asylum".

.

A simple gas is easy to capture and compress. What you could do is install into cars a device to do both of those things. When gas is pumped into the car, stored Co2 is simultaneously pumped out. From pumping-stations, the Co2 could be collected. Government could subsidize the project through tax-incentives: for pumping-stations, car-manufacturers (and possibly car modifiers), and vehicle-drivers themselves. With the rising prices of oil, cheaper gas would be a good incentive to use this system.

It's only pollution when it isn't converted back into oxygen. Forests are more than happy to help. It would be like if they brought oxygen to us.

I'll give you a good example of how Republicans think, and how their thinking has fucked up this country:

At the house of a Republican, there is a house-cat and a bird-feeder. The cat, naturally, kills birds that come to the feeder. What should happen, to stop the cat from killing birds? The Republican solution is to imprison the cat - to lock it permanently inside, where the Republican then must clean up cat shit for the duration of the cat's life. Of course, the cat hates being imprisoned (cats are independent, liberty-loving creatures), which makes the cat miserable and more likely to cause 'mischief'.

Another solution is to remove the bird-feeder, which, when cats are around, functions as a bird-trap. Why doesn't the Republican use this obvious solution, which would prevent the deaths of birds, allow the cat to shit outside, where a human would never need to clean, and would give the cat all the freedom it wants? The reason is because the Republican gets some kind of selfish pleasure out of watching birds that come to the feeder. The Republican is a creature of selfishness, who will actively torture others if it will make their lives better, even in insignificant ways such as watching birds at a feeder.

There may be other solutions, which would allow the Republican to watch their birds, would allow the birds to feed safely, and allow the cat to have its freedom, but the Republican cares not for these other solutions, because the Republican does not care about the cat, or even the bird really... the Republican only cares about itself.

Their solution is the same to everything. They endanger the birds with these feeders, and to 'protect' the feeder-birds, they kill the cats, or imprison them for life. Why do they do these horrible, harmful things? So they can watch birds at feeders. If it sounds insane, it's because it is insane.

It's not just their solutions. It's the fact they are the one's creating the problems. To satisfy their selfish desires, everyone else must suffer.

I'm not a Republican. Here is a solution which does not come from a Republican:

To have feeders, give cats freedom and protect feeder-birds, create a cat-harness which limits its ability to strike.


Micro - Macro, bitches. Figure it out.

No way, Australia in October. I'm going there for my brother's 30th birthday. He is not a nature person like I am, but he does like to snorkel and dive. He is not certified. He lives in the Bay Area, where he could get certified. I got certified in Belize, which is like the most optimal possible place to get certified. The Great Barrier Reef cannot be missed. I'm sure we'll mostly be drinking with the locals (one of my favorite vacation activities), and eating authentic Australian cuisine (???). Far as I know, we're going to do the Sydney thing, which is perfect for me, because Natalie Tran is in Sydney. I'll convince her to go diving with us, and drink lots of alcohol. That is, if she's not too afraid of sharks.........?

We were going to go to Thailand, but it's the rainy season.

I'm not really going to convince Natalie to dive, but it would nice if she would show me some local non-touristy things.

The cat harness is an example of only suppressing what you want suppressed. When you imprison or kill, you suppress 10,000 things which have nothing to do with what you want suppressed. The cat can still run, jump, climb and lie down, it simply cannot strike quickly enough to catch birds.

Conservatives are basically the more primitive among us. They always say, 'don't talk, act'. Because of their poor intelligence levels, they do not understand that talking is, in itself, an action. Like stupid animals, conservatives do not talk, they 'act'. The baboon puffs out its chest, makes some noises, and then smashes in your skull. It will not have a conversation with you.

I don't know why they find so much difficulty advancing to societal living, getting an education, and learning how to talk. Some of them even seem to walk backwards. It's like they want to become dumber and more primitive. Show me a talking plant. Do they want to become plants? To quote FDR, "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.". They drag the rest of us into their primitive world of stupidity, forcing us to evolve beyond their reach. The most dangerous thing to conservatives is a good public education system.

Talking is one of the most powerful forces in humanity. Look at religion... the Bible is all talk - a book of poetry - and yet, because people misunderstand it, there are billions of oppressive slaves constantly persecuting. The Third Reich and the Bush administration were 'built on propaganda' (propaganda is also talk). Barack Obama won the Presidency with speeches. Has he implemented a single policy idea mentioned during the campaign?

I don't know what it will take to teach conservatives how to walk forward. If we kill them, more will grow in their place. If psychiatrists were legitimate, they would understand that conservatism is a mental disorder. To make yourself more like animals and plants could not possibly increase our means to survive. We know leaving the galaxy before the sun explodes is our only path to survival. Only through intelligence can we leave the galaxy before the sun explodes.

Now that it has been established we need to become more intelligent, more scientific, more knowledgeable, better educated and better at engineering and inventing, let's get started.

Drug-offenders are tortured through cruel punishments and excessive fines. Why? We call them offenders but who is offended? A religious person is offended by anything contrary to their religion. Should we punish everything contrary to their religion? I'm not talking about drug-abusers or drug-addicts, i'm talking drug-users - people who never use drugs irresponsibly or in a way it would severely injure anyone (including themselves). Why then is their use of drugs punished?

It may be wise to begin structuring our societies to most closely resemble life on a spaceship. In thinking about what life would be like on a spaceship, an entire society living in this spaceship for an indefinite period of time, I came up with a new sitcom idea. It's called, "Rednecks in Space". It involves people who are missing teeth (and brain-cells), who have wild, crazy antics that almost destroy the spaceship and all of its inhabitants.

What do you guys think? Are any networks interested?

Thanks for keeping all your nonsensical posts in one thread.

On the spaceship, we won't be able to have sports like baseball, football or soccer, because they take up too much space. We can have video games though. We'll definitely have computers. Computer games do not require extra space, except for on the hard-drive. This also means, Quake players should switch to flat-screens. The various governments should immediately suspend all sports-activities that take up too much space and make computer games the only state-sponsored games (i'm completely serious about this last part, really). Video games are driven almost exclusively by the brain, which makes video game players smarter.

I don't know that we could colonize other planets. What if there is no oxygen? Could we oxygenate an alien world? What if plants do not convert Co2 into oxygen? What if there are diseases neither our immune systems nor medicines can protect us from? Look at what a simple case of small-pox did to Native Americans. It is possible we'll simply have to roam around space in our ship, extracting Universal resources mechanically.

Even if we could colonize other planets, their sun's will also die. Maybe it is best to master space-living, and live that way exclusively? Otherwise, we'll have to keep changing planets.

The issue of American health-care is viewed from the wrong perspective. The problem is more deeply-rooted, possibly even seeded. Health-care is just one branch. To prune the one branch, when the real problem is coming from the seeds or roots, will not solve the problem, it will only lead to an eternity of unnecessary and endless pruning.

How would we deal with health-care on a spaceship? Let's say 300 million people lived on this space-ship, permanently. Would we use a capitalist system? If people were sick, would they be denied health-care because they do not have the money?

Personally, I despise insurance. I don't have it, and I don't want it. Insurance is for foolish cowards who would rather throw money into a bonfire than be more careful. Natural health-care (which is free), is by far the best. The system of insurance must come directly from religious brain-washing. Vote Jesus for Heaven-insurance.

That being said, certain things, which people (including myself), may or may not like, might be required for an eternity of space-ship living.

This notion of insurance implies people have no control over their lives. God controls everything, and all you can do is buy insurance and pray. All the money you spend on insurance, you could put into a bank-account. You could make it the 'insurance' account. Then, when nothing happens, you can spend the insurance-account money on something other than disaster-relief. You're preparing to meet the Devil, but the Devil does not exist. Nature clearly dictates, if you're careful, and you have good immunities, you'll be fine. Don't play contact sports, don't drink too much alcohol, wear your seat-belt, don't play with fire, don't in-breed, and die when you should, instead of waiting until you are nothing more than a useless, wasteful pile of flesh and piss. Have some dignity, and die with bravery.

For any unusual disease or whatever, you can pay for treatment with a science grant. The treatment doubles as research, which in these unusual medical cases, is invaluable to the country.

Natalie might be Australian, but she's Vietnamese-Australian. It could be an interesting case-study of nurture vs. nature. All the Australian Australians are descended from criminals. If her and I actually meet, and she tries to steal my wallet, I guess nurture is stronger than nature. In New Orleans east, there's a large Vietnamese population. I've never known Vietnamese to be criminals, like Australians are.

I saw some other youtube Australian thing, of some girl at her school. She was young, probably around 12. The students at her school, aside from the few Asian students, were worse than animals you would find at a zoo. Maybe it's a lot fun getting drunk with Australians? I guess i'll find out.

Anyway, Natalie should move to the U.S.... Australia is only good for criminals and ridiculous drunks like me.

Apparently, the real problem with Australia is that its too much like America. Almost like you're not on vacation. Thailand is so different, I don't have the words. The Great Barrier Reef will be nice though, if my brother wants to go. We'd have to go to Northeast Australia for that, before we head to Sydney... let the sharks eat our legs. You can't get piss-drunk before you dive though. If you have a hangover, you get nitrogen narcosis, which makes you hallucinate and get disoriented. I was dumb enough to do it one time, and I almost got lost... went down instead of up. It was fucking scary.

The 'Rednecks in Space' sitcom is very much a 'fish-out-of-water' situation. In this case, it is literal, in the sense the fish cannot breathe and will die immediately. No one on a space-ship will tolerate dumb, redneck bullshit. I don't mean to be severe, but it is the reality we face. Maybe by living under-ground, the supernova will simply 'push' the planet at high-speeds into, eventually, another galaxy... if you like to gamble, go that route.

For the rest of you, have more imagination. This thread is new... like a book, but you, the reader, can add anywhere you find prudent.

Science is not a system of faith, it is a system of justice. Scientists predict our sun will supernova in 5 billion years. Is their estimation correct? Regardless, the sooner we prepare, the better able we will be.

I don't know what's funny about a 5 billion year time-line. The sooner we start, the sooner we get there. We know where we have to go. Let's get started.

Something we do not know is how long it will take to get there. We should not gamble with survival of the species.

Vacations are healthy. While i'm getting ridiculously drunk with Australians, the rest of you should work on this issue.

Let me make something clear... I have no money. My family-in-law has money. My family, on my father's side, has money. I have no money, have never had money, and no money will be left to me. Despite these facts, I will out-drink every Australian on the continent. It runs in the Celtic blood. Money cannot defeat nature.

No, seriously, Natalie should move to the States. She likes it here, and she could come live with me and my brother in San Francisco. He's got this great place in North Beach, like three blocks from the famous sea-lion pier. With the three of us, bills would be easily affordable. It's right next to Chinatown, and the buildings are fucking beautiful from there.

I'll move there either way, in a few months. When I go, i'll start playing Quake again. I sincerely hope you are all ready to feel the Keltic curse ('specially you English fucks).

My brother is actually a baboon. He has all kinds of mental problems. He calls me a liar about things i'm not lying about, and then calls me a 'piece of shit' for lying. What's worse, he's the biggest liar next to George W. Bush himself. He tells lies that have major impact on the entire course of people's lives. He deliberately falsifies something, for the specific intention of misleading, which is by definition, lying. The things he says i'm lying about: A. I'm not lying about; B. Even if I was lying, the things I say would have no impact, especially any major impact, on anyone's lives; C. The things he accuses about are not in any way intended to mislead, even if they were false, which disqualifies them as lies.

Being a paranoid, delusional, instinct-driven, projectionist, ignorant baboon, he is not completely without good qualities. He does go to a psychiatrist, and you know what happens there? The dickhead psychiatrist gives him Adderall. In no way whatsoever does the psychiatrist address his actual mental problems, which are severe. He makes a fair amount of money though, and I make almost none. Funny world, we live in.

It may be the case, when people are no longer driven by instinct, the system of capitalism will stop functioning.

Maybe the problem with capitalism is that it develops instincts instead of intelligence. The system keeps people in a perpetual state of animalism, or even increases their primitive aspects. Capitalism might very well cause a society to become stupider. Because instincts drive the system, instinct, rather than intelligence, is rewarded.

It's not so much that animals are 'primitive', it's that they are failed models. We know only intelligence will keep a species alive forever. Either animals become more intelligent, or they will die. The same is true for humans. To be omniscient about the Universe and about survival is what will grant us eternal life.

With all due respect to our founders, they knew nothing of supernova's and life in space. Survival must come first, or freedom is irrelevant. Society should reward intelligence... like contributions of critical knowledge, exploration and engineering. But as you can see, I contribute some of these things, yet am punished instead of rewarded.

Humanity has a history of punishing and rejecting intelligence. Most of it comes from religion, of course. If you don't know what a supernova is, picture a thermonuclear explosion multiplied by a trillion. We're all going to die, unless we become knowledgeable and intelligent enough to leave the galaxy.

When I say intelligence should be rewarded, I don't mean by something private like the Nobel institute. I mean, publicly, the government should reward these things. Intelligence is invaluable to society, and invaluable to the species. We cannot survive without intelligence. Our instincts, what some people call 'heart', will not keep us living forever. Survival must come first. Without survival, there is nothing.

I'm sure we can find all the ship-construction resources we need within our own galaxy. The asteroid and kuiper belts alone should provide almost everything.

Intelligence should be rewarded publicly, privately and anything elsely. If intelligence is rewarded, unintelligence will be punished (non-reward = punishment), and the species will achieve the intelligence necessary for continued survival.

It is natural to move away from punishment and towards reward. If they are punished for intelligence, they will move towards something else. If they are punished for lacking intelligence, and rewarded for intelligence, they will move towards intelligence. Some people will take longer to reach intelligence, but they will keep moving in that direction.

The more rewarded intelligence is, the faster it will be attained.

Religion rewards faith, not intelligence. Religion is the worst about punishing intelligence. It's gotten so bad here, in the court-rooms, a place where justice is supposed to be served (which means, ascertaining), they swear people in by having them put their hands on Bible's. They make no effort to ascertain anything, only to make things more believable. A Bible in the court-room reflects the very opposite of justice. In no way does religion make any attempt to ascertain anything.

I have no money because human society does not reward intelligence. If I trained my body to run full-speed into another human body, and sustain fewer injuries, (something of the most extreme practical value), I would be a multi-millionaire.

Only a species of severe stupidity would punish intelligence and reward this nonsense called 'athleticism'. No, seriously, when the sun is about to explode, I am absolutely certain physical abilities gained through playing football will save the species.

Let me rephrase this... how exactly is football, baseball, golf, or any of the rest going to help the species survive a supernova? Even though none of them can help in any real way, they get paid billions of dollars while the real people ensuring human survival are tortured. I hate to use the word suicidal, but is humanity suicidal or simply that clueless?

There are three main issues: 1. We need to survive until the supernova; 2. We need to survive the supernova; 3. We need to survive beyond the supernova. All three require the exact same thing - intelligence. We need knowledge; the more pertinent, the better. We need engineers, inventors and scientists. What we do not need is silly animal-world bullshit like American football, which will only turn us into some kind of dumb animal like a Ram.

All of our diseased branches, not just health-care, come from the same thing - stupidity. As we should know, intelligence is what separates us from all the other animals. What we also know, is only increased intelligence will ensure our eternal survival.

How can we reward intelligence? To start with: We could substantially raise taxes on certain non-intelligent, non-necessary industries; substantially lower taxes on any works of intelligence; allocate significantly more funds to education; and, create a new government agency for the purpose of rewarding, on a basis of individual contribution, any pertinent works of intelligence.

One specific educational change could be: if a person completes a college degree (at least, from public colleges), they are refunded a portion of their expenses based on grade-average. If they get a perfect 4.0, they are refunded all of their expenses, which includes any kind of dorm-room/living costs.

The government agency would not be like a freelance CIA. It would reward things in philosophy, science, engineering, inventing, etc... similarly to a Nobel or Pulitzer, but awarded instantly and whenever contributions are made. Congress has the power to create this agency (Article 1; Section 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;). Through the awarding of money, credibility and increased expediency of already existing security (patents, copyrights, trademarks), the agency would further promote and secure both science and useful arts. How is it currently secure if we have to pay for these protections (patents especially are expensive and time-consuming), and fight legal battles over silly litigated nonsense? This is besides the fact some things are useful (necessary even), but not profitable, which means only the government or some kind of philanthropic organization could possibly promote or award them.

Actually, that particular power of congress exemplifies the problem. They formed the power based on the false notion usefulness = profitability. In a capitalist society, your only real rewards come from money and credibility. Without either of those, you have nothing. The problem is, usefulness and profitability are not synonymous. Some things are profitable but, aside from being profitable, are useless. Other things are useful, but are not profitable. What we end up with is a society of idiots, who function under the delusion useful = profitable.

Maybe, to form this agency correctly, a Constitutional amendment would be necessary.

Intelligence is necessary, but not profitable. Contact sports are profitable, but not necessary. Intelligence is useful in that without it, we will die. It is not something you can necessarily engineer into a tool (like a shovel), which can then be sold.

How can intelligence be rewarded, if not through the government or a philanthropy? How can we become intelligent enough to survive, if we punish intelligence?

Rewarding intelligence is exactly what the government should be doing. Government is here to do things that are necessary. In the case where government rewards intelligence, the people pay, through tax-dollars, to ensure their survival. These types of intelligence cannot be engineered into something sellable on the private market. For example, no private institution has the money, or profit-incentive, to build massive space-ships.

It is a simple reality, the government must do some things, which are necessary and cannot be done by anything else. Rewarding intelligence has now become necessary and only doable by government and philanthropy. Even if a Constitutional amendment is required, it should be done. Free-lance intelligence is no less valuable than any other kind. In some ways, it is more valuable, because it motivates everyone to provide intelligence.

It wouldn't be too costly for tax-payers. The only intelligence to be rewarded through government would pertain exclusively to survival. Because it is for survival, it would be worth the cost. There is no financial profit for tax-payers, but they do profit in the sense they continue living.

In addition to the other measures, instinct-driven stupidity would decline rapidly and intelligence-driven, justifiable ascertainment would incline progressively.

With insurance/religion, the time, money - life - you put into these systems is lost, unless horrible things happen. This means, people who purchase these systems want (both actively and passively), horrible things to happen. If there is no hell, there is no heaven. These systems can only lead to perpetual disaster.

Religion is the worst. People spend their whole lives 'serving God'. What happens when they receive no return on their investment? They will then realize, their entire lives were wasted on a false promise, and they were mislead by their so-called 'shepherds'. Best way to avoid being injured by lies is to simply not follow. You can only be mislead if you follow.

No matter what, with insurance/religion, horrible stuff is happening. Either you lose money, time and life, or something horrible happens which, at most, returns the money. You still lose time and life, and all the things you could have done with the time and money you invested. In other words, either you lose all of this stuff or you regain some of it due to a horrible occurrence. Either way, there is loss.

Now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to go kill some zombies.

The horrible thing does not necessarily happen to you. Most of your money (if not all), is spent on disasters having nothing directly to do with you. Someone else gets into a car-accident, in which case your investment is turned (not returned). Same with religion... someone must go to hell, or insurance can save no one. If we were all headed straight to heaven anyway, religion/insurance would have no purpose.

Of course, there is no real heaven and hell. The system was designed to guide people, using their base instinctual drive which moves them toward reward and away from punishment.

I'll tell you what. When I get old, useless and wasteful, strap C4 to my head and blow that fucker up. Let the animals eat whatever is left of my corpse. If any funeral is held, make sure there are no religious people, and someone specifically tells Jesus, on my behalf, to go fuck himself.

If you dickheads want to degrade your nation due to a selfish fear of hell, pay for your own 'health-care'. Why should the government pay for you to take drugs until you die in a pool of your own piss? I'm not saying you should be killed, or you should do what i'm doing, but if you want to continue living in a way of negative national value, cancel out the negative by paying your own way. That is, unless you're a bunch of traitors, doing nothing other than exploiting your nation.

I am a person of integrity. For political gain, I will not stop cursing or become fake-religious.

There is value in both public and private structures. If people are not helping survival of the species or nation, their cares should be handled privately (through luxury). If necessary for survival of the nation and/or species, it should be handled publicly.

You cannot have justice without ascertainment. To have a Bible, which is an icon of injustice, in a court-room, could only mean injustice. Nothing in the Bible (or any other religious book), has been ascertained, or has been attempted, by any religious person, to be ascertained. Religion is a system of belief, which is the direct opposite of ascertainment, and therefore, the direct opposite of justice.

To punish unjustifiable killing is necessary for survival of the species and or nation. To provide health-care for old-people is completely unnecessary, but only an absolutist simpleton (or psychopathic old-person murderer), would suggest we prohibit the private provision of health-care for the elderly.

Justice means correctness and truthfulness. The only way to achieve justice is through ascertainment (determining correctness and truthfulness to an absolute degree). Without ascertainment, the wrong people, and the wrong things, are punished.

In terms of survival, being incorrect or false will without question lead to extinction. We cannot survive the supernova by having 'faith', we must ascertain every detail of our exodus.

You have to understand, Republicans go by the political symbol (R), which also stands for retarded. They say the government shouldn't decide who gets health-care. No one is suggesting the government should decide such a thing. The only thing in any non-R discussion has to do with who, or what, the government should cover or reform. If you want to stick car-antenna's up your urethra, go ahead... but why should the people pay for any urological costs should something go wrong? Could these Republican idiots please get their shit straight? Do they want socialized medicine, or do they want small-government? Excluding bullshit cases like car-antennas up urethra's, and old-people milking drugs and TV until they die, will definitely keep government to a minimum and legitimate health-care availability to a maximum.

Republicans... hopefully they all die soon. To die completely, they must be replaced. They have no interest other than exploitation. They play the contrarian or the obstructionist, having no concept or consistency in what they talk about or what they do, simply because it may prove politically profitable. A sad pathetic excuse for something Abraham Lincoln created. Ironic, the Southern stupidity, which Honest Abe attempted to kill, has come to ruin the party he created.

Selfish reward/gain/profit is always the act of an animal (an idiot).

If 'God' wanted you to die by spending the last 10 years of your life in a nursing home, taking drugs, watching shit TV and pissing/shitting on yourself until you die by choking on your own vomit, why did 'God' give you the choice to strap dynamite to your head and blow that apparently empty skull into a fine mist?

'God' only decides when you die in the sense you will die within 150 years. How exactly you die, and when within that period, is mostly up to you. Have some creativity. What kind of moron (Republican), thinks God actually wants everyone to become either a casualty of war or an old pile of slime?

Guess what, religious people? Until you have ascertained your claims, you're just a bunch of dickheads.

Religion is the opposite of justice. The religious person has faith something is true. They believe it is correct. They do not know and they do not prove. Our founders would be appalled to find such injustice openly accepted in both the judicial and executive branches. Even in the legislative branch, which is expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment to make any religious integrations, religion manages to seep its way in by disguising itself as something non-religious.

Seems our government will only be truly restored when religion is fully expelled. The executive, granted by the religion-in-disguise legislature, travels around the world committing faith-based injustices. The legislature has no true authority to grant either the judiciary or executive any means of publicly practicing religion. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution granting the judiciary or executive their own powers to practice religion, aside from on a purely personal basis. If the Constitution has not given these powers, the powers should not exist. The 1st amendment forbids Congress from amending the Constitution to grant these additional powers.

If the government was functioning correctly, there would be no religious icons in the court-rooms and there would be no 'faith-based' initiatives in the executive. Justice would be served in all areas of government, as it was meant to be.

I'll continue this kind of thing over here, letting the video game website do more video gamey things. It's interesting though... the esreality system doesn't account for people doing things like this thread.

The windows live writer thing is nice. You can publish things without even loading a website.