That's a sneaky way the banks found of reintroducing "debtors prisons" eh?...(note that in Canada, "Contempt of Court" is the only common law charge still on the books; you don't need someone's account NAME to throw him in jail.) Of course none of this crap is gonna do any good when it's better known that the people (not the banks) are the REAL creditors of their country (which is a bankrupt corporation operating in receivership) and foreclose on it.

Hey, I was only trying to be helpful. I know all about ad hominem; for you to imply otherwise was in itself a form of ad hominem innuendo, but hey, who's counting?...We're all on here to have fun eh? Why argue at all?

Elvis was perfect too...At least in 2000 years they'll be saying he was.

I suggest you do a parity check. I think cosmic rays may have caused a few bits to switch in the CPU...It's probably time to reboot.

Considering what just happened in Egypt, I guess Stephen Colbert is thanking his lucky stars he lives in the US. He dodged one hell of a bullet. I wonder if Obama is as merciful as Bush was?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A

While they were probably arrested on a catch-all "suspicion of terrorism" charge to hold them, the Disney stuff was the tipoff of a hidden agenda behind the arrests. I'm pretty sure The Disney Corporation was behind it all. It worries too much about possible theft of its intellectual property & loss of royalties.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/its-illegal-to-be-a-child-in-palestine/

No, but between unlabeled GMOs, fluoridation, codex alimentarius restricting vitamins and a few similar things, it is not much of a stretch to say that the government is making it "illegal" to be healthy.

The problem with North Korea is the same problem with all the countries...It is run by "Fearless Leader" instead of the people. The people and everything else is considered Fearless Leader's personal property.

I'm not in the least bit worried about young Kim Jong Un pulling the trigger on a nuclear war because even if he's so totally "out of it" that he would do so, those closest to him would know it means the deaths of their families, friends, themselves, and probably everyone else in the country. Putting myself into their shoes, I know that if he ever issued the order to "pull the trigger", he'd find us doing just that...on him!

I don't think he's nuts; I just think he's too young & foolish for a good game of brinkmanship...He plays it badly. I think North Korea would be much better off if he just bought a condo in Florida and moved there.

Speaking of his leaving the country reminded me of a song. It was written for Canadians by a great Canadian who died recently, but I think it applies to North Korea as much as to all countries, not just Canada.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNbFLlMIp28

I think I'll send it to Canada's Prime Minister (as a gentle hint)

Nah...That's the Indian guy who makes up our Saturday foursome. Seems he never forgave us for stealing his land and killing his people. Some people are soo touchy! (I just can't figure out for the life of me why people live in the past like that.)...Our guys were souvenir hunters who taught his people how to scalp and he learned the trade well. On game days he sells tickets at a 10,000% markup.

The muslim guy is much more of a forward thinker...After we bombed his homeland & killed his family, he moved here to get away from the bombing and to start a new life. All he left behind is mostly oil and craters. He fits in pretty well over here. He put his own brand on jihad and decided to wipe out the rich people who own the corporations that made the bombs that killed his family...He started a hedge fund and lives for the day he can break all his clients in one fell swoop. He calls it Allah's justice, but he doesn't fool me...He LOVES his new Bugatti.

Only if they are complete idiots and not competent to govern themselves. Any reasonable human being would agree exactly on what these things constitute.

Of course!...They're too young to vote...What else could they be good for?

I thought national parties nominated ONLY dopes...Has there been a change in party policy I don't know about?

If they have voted for the illusion of safety as a result of overblown paranoia-generating propaganda (encouraged by a for-profit military Industrial complex that sells arms and needs wars to make money say), for instance, they might vote for a government that promises to protect them from all the enemies they have made starting wars of aggression for profit. With the people footing the bill for their own "protection" (and to subsidize the aforementioned corporations to boost their profit even more), there are bound to be some people more than a little bit unhappy about their taxes going up so more "enemies" could be killed around the world, all for the sake of profit that the people themselves never even see. They might even get more upset when they are told the enemy is practically hiding under their bed, waiting to kill them (enemies are everywhere paranoia). I can see why some might get upset when they are told they can't trust anyone, whether friend, neighbour, or even family...anyone could be a "terrorist", so everyone must be watched and it becomes your civic "duty" to inform on others for doing just about anything "out of the norm" (which of course includes saying anything bad about the "Fearless Leader", who is, after all, only trying to protect everyone from finding out about the MIC kickbacks.) Of course, if nobody is to be trusted, and the country is now infested with "rebels" (people who care and value freedom), "sovereign citizens" (people who know that it is the people themselves who are supposed to be in charge and that everyone capable should be self-governing), murderous criminals (an MIC supporting intelligence or policing agency), and...

I could go on & on...Do I have to?...Surely by now you get the point that a vote for "safety" is a vote against freedom, and that ol' Ben franklin was right.

It is up to the people themselves to do their duty and ensure that ALL the people have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and all the other rights that the people wish to grant themselves, to do their duty to protect those rights from ALL enemies, big or small, foreign or domestic.

The choice between true, egalitarian freedom and oppression and tyranny has always been the peoples' to make. Whether they choose to govern or be governed, the people will always get the government they deserve.

IMO, peoples everywhere have suffered enough for their old errors in judgment. They deserve much better now.

It's supposed to, but if the people aren't happy, I guess they aren't being well served and if the service doesn't improve, I guess it isn't a government of the people, by the people, or for the people.



That's right...and any so-called "government" that makes the wrong decisions "on their behalf" should be summarily fired.

First specify exactly what question you are asking and i'll try to answer it as best I can.

In the meantime I'll try to expound on the comments you just made:



That is called a self evident truth...That is an assumption taken to be so intuitively true that it is considered a SELF EVIDENT truth. If it is not provable in logical terms, it is an AXIOM, which is basically a Gödel sentence. Provable axioms aren't axioms at all, they are theorems derived from axioms. That which is considered self evident might be either a theorem or an axiom.

Are you trying to disprove what might be an axiom (impossible), or trying to disprove a logical theorem (also impossible), or are you just being obstinate to keep an argument going?



What's so tough? You are perfectly free to get up in the morning and go about your day without interference or obstruction of any kind aren't you?...That's freedom. It comes with a price though. The price is your DUTY to not interfere with ANYONE else trying to go about their daily business. Doing so causes them harm and is an infringement of their right to liberty, which would make you liable to damages and possibly criminal charges.



The restriction applies to ALL harm, though most people are hypocritical enough as to discount the harm they do. In more technical terms, you might not like somebody burping at the table, but he is causing no harm by doing so...unless you were having your boss over for dinner and he did it for the malicious purpose of deliberately causing you to lose out on a probable promotion. At that point he is causing you harm by simply burping at the table...You could have recourse in the courts if you can prove damages (based on a preponderance of the evidence).

One might say that the facts will determine whether or not "harm" is either notable, inconsequential, or non-existent.



You have to remember that the culture itself (the society in which you live) dynamically determines its cultural values & "laws". The "standard" is set by the attitude of the majority without respect to so-called "government laws", which may or may not reflect the values of the society. Any government that does not respect the will of the people in making its "laws" is an illegitimate one and a tyranny that should be deposed.

I don't think so...I know I wouldn't. I think they would very much prefer to live in a free republic...I know I would.

False. The question can't be answered to you satisfaction because (for whatever reason) you refuse to look at the answer.



It is only "vague" in your mind. Most other people see it quite clearly.



I think every rational mind can agree on what constitutes "harm"...Killing somebody simply because you didn't like him/her is universally recognized as murder, a form of "harm"

Burning ants with a magnifying glass to watch them fry is also causing harm, as is picking a posey to simply sniff it and toss away.

These are ALL forms of "harm", but only the first is universally considered a crime. It seems most people consider causing unnecessary suffering & death to another organism for selfish purposes as inconsequential. I do not consider it so...I have too much respect for life for that, even though I used to fry ants as a kid, and picked & sniffed flowers with reckless abandon. I know better now, so I don't do it anymore. (I still kill things, but only when necessary - like to eat)

While there are undoubtedly a few devout buddhists in the US, I dare say they are few enough in number as to not persuade congress that there should be a statute forcing people to sweep the ground before them as they walk, so as not to negligently kill innocent insects.



As noted above, there is nothing subjective about "harm." The only thing that's subjective is the cutoff point on the slippery slope that divides "notable" harm from "inconsequential" harm. That cutoff point is entirely subjective and unique to the individual. It is based on the degree of an individual's ignorance, negligence, and/or hypocrisy.

whether notable or inconsequential, it is still "harm."

Talk about betrayal!...I caught the muslim guy I golf with shaving strokes just so he could beat me!...I'll never trust one of those muslim bastards again...especially at golf!

Apparently not....most illogical, but unfortunately, very human.