Do I need to be a Conspiracy Expert to get attention?

reply to post by biggie smalls


Biggie

I wonder how many members have thought to use the wonderful check we're all getting from the government to buy a firearm.

It's unexpected income at a time when you need a firearm.

reply to post by cryingindian


No, I don't find any front runner will turn things around. I haven't for many elections. I always vote as an independent.

I don't think voters should be chained to voting for any particular party. If this were the case, quite possibly the best person for a job would win.

reply to post by cryingindian


Okay, have you actually considered how people might respond, or are you just too brain-dead to realise that people might have opinions that are actually quite rational and they don't really feel like explaining those opinions as if they were giving a lecture in front of an audience of school-children?

Now, granted - there may be some ATS members who have the intellectual maturity of a schoolchild, but just because it's so doesn't mean the rest of us need explain precisely why we feel the way we do over certain subjects.

So, in answer to your question;

The world is always in trouble, not just America.

I'm not entirely aware of anyone controlling the world other than we mere humans - so if i need be dissatisfied over the way things are then technically i should be expressing that dissatisfaction towards my neighbours, my friends, my relatives.

Hell, maybe i should go get a placard with the words "The world needs help!" written on it and parade up and down main-street shouting and swearing at passers-by.

Ultimately i feel this is the problem - people are always localised with their focus; it's always "China's pollution problem" or "America's Economic crisis", when in reality these are the problems of every single person on earth.

In a single sentence to sum it up for the people who keep missing the point;

While the World is in peril, every single man, woman and child on this Earth is in danger.

reply to post by Enthralled Fan


How do you vote in a "closed" primary?

As an independent, your voice can't be heard in a "closed primary" situation. How is that fair?

reply to post by cryingindian


You got it. Part of the problem is a closed primary. Why should it be that way? Why can't people just vote for whomever they want to?

We are forced into a corner so to speak.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Especially in the case where this election is headed!

Your opening post has 14 points that are being discussed or have been discussed on ATS a lot. Most have there own forums. So are asking for everyone to come into your thread and post there opinions/thoughts on all those subjects? Or was that an attention getter? The question you actually want to discuss is at the bottom of the list and in paratheses.


Why not go to one the forums that covers a topic you posted, and start a thread on it there. There is a good chance you'll get replies that are relevant to the topic.

Or, if there are active threads, post your opinions in them.

You want attention here? Contribute good material in threads that interest you and start threads with an original twist on the topic. People will notice. No need to be an expert; just participate.

reply to post by Throbber


Hey, Throbber,

Thanks for the input.

If I saw you parading on main street I'd spit at you.

in the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Speak not but what may benifit others."

What exactly is throbbing, by the way? Your viens on your forehead?


Mod note: Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 15-3-2008 by Duzey]

reply to post by cryingindian


You don't have to be a conspicary expert, there is no such thing. I came across this site while doing research online related to what I saw in the sky one night a few months ago. I got hooked on this site when I realized there are plenty of other people out there who question what they see, read and hear. Do you crave to have people take what you have to say seriously, do you need a hug?

We are here to exhange experiences, ideas and to get feedback. I like potatoes, do you like potatoes?

reply to post by cryingindian


Who said anything about veins?

I just wanted a nickname that didn't really make much sense but would lure certain individuals into making somewhat witty remarks about it, possibly making veiled innuendos whilst snickering to themselves about it not unlike certain cartoon characters named Beavis & Butthead.

Well done, Butthead.

p.s; Your input throughout your own thread has not been Appreciated, as you may have noticed.

Infact, as far as i can see - there is very little real input other than the rantings of an adolescent teenager attempting to highlight something that is indeed critical, but not entirely important.


edit; i can't say the n-word in s'n-word'?

Suppose i'll go for snicker, then.

[edit on 15-3-2008 by Throbber]

Mod note: Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 15-3-2008 by Duzey]

reply to post by jitombe


Yes. I LOVE potatoes.

Thanks for reminding me how much I love love them, actually.

Do you love potatoes if they are Genetically Modified? I do not. But I don't know how to tell the difference, really. Do you?

reply to post by Throbber


Hey, Throbber,

I'm not adolescent, and I hope someday I'm enjoying bitters with you, when you grow up.

I was just wondering what other members thought of the current situations in a "BIG PICTURE" formula, in the US.

I'm going to post another thread shortly, and I'd welcome your response. Sorry to irritate you.

reply to post by GAOTU789


Your use of "there" is flawed. I invite you to study English grammer. You should have used "their." But that has already been discussed elsewhere on ATS.

Thanks for your "moderation."

reply to post by cryingindian


Sorry, but my days of bar-room philosophizing were over well before i even set foot in my local for the first time.

Now before we start reducing our intellectual abilities to calling each other children, have you actually thought about anything i have said other than to attempt to draw derision and disrespect to my name?

reply to post by Throbber


I didn't call you names. Have you read my replies to you?

You invited name calling, and in earlier days I might have taken you up on it. But it seems we are across seas from one another, so what's the point in that?

Look, Throbber, I was really just trying to make a point in my original post. You, along with others have missed that point. That point being, in America (and as you mentioned, the world, since the global economy is so based on the hegemony of the US Dollar) are we realizing what is actually the matter?

I think the problems with the world rest on GREED. And it was burried in my original thread. And for that I appologize.

I think that the world is so caught up in materialistic things that individuals let the things that really matter fall by the wayside.

When I said that 1 of 4 teenaged girls have STDs, I was really saying that US families are so caught up right now in having things more than the perverbial "Jone's" that they let their family group suffer, hoping that the school system will infuse what 1950's family structures did back then.

There is NO EXCUSE for letting things fall apart in the home while trying to keep up with the obsticles our "government" gives us. In the US. I don't pretend to know what is happening in the UK, except that I think you all should have stood up a while back against survielence.

Originally posted by cryingindian
reply to post by GAOTU789

 

Your use of "there" is flawed. I invite you to study English grammer. You should have used "their." But that has already been discussed elsewhere on ATS.

Thanks for your "moderation."

You know what? The moderators here do a great job and without their help this site would be in serious trouble. Calling out their spelling in front of everyone is an attempt to embarass and that is NOT cool. You want people to pay attention to what you have to say and respond to your posts? Try being a little less pompous. I know Im done looking at your posts. Bye bye

[edit on 15/3/08 by xander68]

Unfortunately the increase in surveillance was introduced as a measure to curb drink-related violence, which is another 'burning' issue that seems to plague the tabloids during week-days.

And of course, drinking (or more specifically, night-clubbing) establishments were paid to set up CCTV installments, so the British Government more or less had us coming and going with that one, those dastardly little rascals.

So, who is more to blame, the British Public who should've stood up for their privacy, or the British Public who were interested in Justice after getting mugged/raped while plastered* outside their favourite night-spot?

The public's obsession with weekend binge-drinking has higher consequences than the Alcohol industries command over our way of life.

Like the snake coiled and ready to strike, the British Government simply waited for their opportunity.

p.s; you may not have noticed, but in the past i remarked quite frequently on how there were members of the political elite who were most likely quite capable strategists, i feel that the example i have provided highlights this in a way.

I also apologise for calling you out on such short notice, but i felt i had to make a point on the localised problems you were highlighting.

I trust i don't need to explain my feelings for why i did so.





*Drunk.

The sniping and personal insults end now.

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Further insults will result in further warnings.

reply to post by Throbber


It's cool, man.

Hopefully you feel the same.

I might add it's nice to have a "pen pal" in the UK, albiet an anonimous one!

I just posted a topic about the Unemployed being the perfect foot soldiers in the coming revolution, and I'm going to post another shortly, and hope you'll add your thoughts.

Stay cool, Throbber, and I'll see you around.

reply to post by Duzey


What is this in regards to?

Thanks.

reply to post by Throbber


Hey, Throbber,

I think I got a "warning" for posting uncourteous replies to you. I hope you don't get warned, too.

If you do, it's my understanding that we have a total of 5 "warnings" before we're banned outright, and that the warning go away after 72 hours.

This is my first warning, and I hope you don't get the same treatment by the supermoderators!