ATS and OWS: What the heck, ATS?

page: 23
193
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Very very well said

I think you summed it up very concisely




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
This puzzles me too. Why aren't more people supporting this OWS movement? It is us middle and poor citizens who really get trampled on daily and yet people are content to just sit back and watch something which maybe the most important movement in decades and that could possibly provide some changes in a system which is becoming more and more unbalanced every day!



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mitch555
This puzzles me too. Why aren't more people supporting this OWS movement? It is us middle and poor citizens who really get trampled on daily and yet people are content to just sit back and watch something which maybe the most important movement in decades and that could possibly provide some changes in a system which is becoming more and more unbalanced every day!


Are we really getting trampled on? That is something people need to take stock and pay attention to. Sure, the government is not capping rates for education or medical care, but at the same time people are given scholarships and federal student aid. People also have access to medical care.

The problem is multi-layered, people take out loans and live above their means and creditors are more than happy to give loans at high interest rates, because people are willing to pay them for a time.

What we need is a major overhaul of the system, starting with the consumers and then to the creditors. I think this, if for one day, the slate was wiped clean for everybody and we all started over with loans we could afford and were willing to pay then it would make a difference. But people do not need to get back into hot water.

The way I see it is this, the consumer is trampling over the credit system by allowing themselves to get into debt. So the credit system fights back by manipulating interest rates and a bogus credit point rating that affects insurance on cars. We should not be forced to have car insurance, but because people do not know how to drive and would not pay if they had an accident, we have insurance.

The trampling is a two way street.
edit on 11/8/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 




Excellent post OP and something I've said myself.

This is what ATS has been talking about for years, the revolution people have been waiting for.... the ENTIRE WORLD is out on the streets camping out, protesting, raising awareness and all people want to do is attack them and ridicule them and mock them.


Pathetic.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thanks for the thoughtful and considered response! I don't really disagree on much. As you have pointed out it is important to remember that as our country was founded, it is recognized that individual rights are endowed by God and nature and not bestowed upon us by the government. That should be enough to afford a sense of empowerment for each individual. But also as you point out with Monsanto issue, we are not fully exercising our rights as they stand. I hope you continue to share your opinions while offering concrete and pragmatic suggestions for action. Your musings are always thought provoking and are appreciated.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



the ENTIRE WORLD is out on the streets camping out, protesting, raising awareness and all people want to do is attack them and ridicule them and mock them.

Pathetic.


Isn't this the same attitude toward the Tea Party? All they did was raise awareness about government issues but because they were conservative and not leftist, the same people now in OWS attacked, ridiculed and mocked them. Kind of a bit dishonest on the OWS part now to expect people to agree with them after what those protestors say about the Tea Party.

That is what is pathetic.

edit on 11/8/2011 by WarminIndy because: embed a picture.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Isn't this the same attitude toward the Tea Party? All they did was raise awareness about government issues but because they were conservative and not leftist, the same people now in OWS attacked, ridiculed and mocked them. Kind of a bit dishonest on the OWS part now to expect people to agree with them after what those protestors say about the Tea Party.


did you get their prints? how do you know it's the same guys? :-)

seriously - if you have problems with the OWS movement - criticize it on it's own merits - or lack thereof

but tit for tat - what kind of argument is that? You're against the OWS because you got your feelings hurt?

I'm guessing there's going to come a time, if it hasn't already happened - where more than a few members of both camps are going to realize have the same gripes and share a common goal

you think this is a leftist movement - and to be sure - there's more than a few leftists involved - but it's more centrist than you're allowing yourself to see

you've already decided which 'side' you're on - this is a movement that could really work for everybody if they could just get past stereotypes and focus on the issues



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 





You have to forgive me as I am an idiot, but I don't get your solution to the problem of this poor dying person. Charity has proven itself inadequate as we have starving people all over this planet.


That is because I didn't offer any solution, but in truth, neither did The Walking Fox. The hypothetical was brought up only to function as a distraction. No "solutions" to the hypothetical were offered by Fox, only that anyone who disagrees with the Fox, or at the very least I am a cold callous uncaring barbaric man for disagreeing with the Fox, and to prove it the Fox pointed to an imaginary poor person suffering of dying.

You claim charity has proven inadequate, but I volunteer for a church that has a food pantry two days a week, and I have seen the looks of genuine gratitude and sighs of relief, not looks of disappointment at the inadequacy of that churches effort. Is adequate in some aggregate sense? Jesus said: "The poor ye have with ye always..." so, if Jesus got that one right, and two thousand years later it appears he pegged that one and was spot on, then what precisely is adequate in your estimation?

While were on the issue of adequacy, I have also heard many of these poor and homeless people complaining bitterly about the way they are treated by the local welfare office they go to. Of course, I am not at all a believer in government subsidized welfare so those complaining get no agreement or sympathy from me, but I do have two ears, and I do listen, and it appears government is riddled with inadequacy regarding this issue of poverty. What is the answer? To just keep taxing and taxing and taxing until the only one who gets to keep their revenue is the government, while we all show gratitude at their inadequate care of us?




The problem with your argument to me is that it depends on humans being "good" when the world is replete with examples of their maliciousness.


It is a straw man argument to insist that my ideas require all people be good. I know, I know, but Jean Paul, you are advocating self government. Yes, I am. But I am not suggesting some pie in the sky Utopia where everyone drinks abundantly from chocolate flavored rivers, and munches off of marshmallow clouds and candied tangerine skies, I am suggesting that more People than you are willing to give credit to are ethical and good. I am not suggesting that by self government we would not have to establish and ordain a government, and in the United States we have established and ordained a government but under our Constitutional republic self government is not only possible, it is wholly probable.

Of course, it isn't probable with more than 600,000 acts of legislation on the books, and a plethora of alphabet agencies claiming authority over our lives anywhere from collecting rain water to helping someone who has tripped and fallen on the sidewalk - and consider that! If you do not have any credentials in emergency health care, and you dare to help a person who has hurt themselves and for whatever reasons that help is construed to mean post injury was complicated by your efforts, then you will be held liable and severely punished for your crime, but you want to know what my "solution" is to helping the imaginary poor suffering person?

Let's reign in the tyrants first. Not first as in let's wait to help our fellow brothers and sisters and reign in the tyrants first, but in terms of any governmental "policies" towards social ills, for God's sakes let's reign in the tyrants first. In the meantime, we are all more than capable of self government, and one of the surest things we can do in terms of self government is to begin by helping others, not insisting that some act of legislation force us to help our brothers and sisters, but to Just Do It!




I take it as starving, dying people are simply a cost to bear. It has been the general condition of Man since his inception. I am naturally pessimistic about Humanity though and have yet to see many examples of Man being able to "regulate" himself.


Not a cost to bear that you are willing to take on yourself personally, but a cost to bear that you are willing to impose on everyone, without any regard for the success or failure of the "programs" or "policies", which means administrative agencies and bureaucrats that would be tasked with allocating the tax dollars you believe is "our" cost to bear and advocate its imposition. That would be fairly called a disconnect. To say just tax me and fix the damn unsightly blight of poverty and then consider the problem solved, even when it is nowhere near solved, or worse to pretend that even though what you've advocated all ready exists, to insist it still exists because a certain class wasn't taxed enough, is a disconnect from the reality of the situation.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 





Libertarians talk a big game, but I wish they'd just admit what is really going to happen-The weak will die and that will be the end of it. Let' not lie to each other about it. The weak die now and it's not a free market.


Lyndon B. Johnson, with his Great Society rhetoric talked a big game, and the left has been talking this big game ever since I have been alive. A "War on Poverty" was declared by the left when I was just a child. Now, here we are and here you are complaining about all this poverty, but given that, don't we have to look at this "war" the left declared and admit that poverty has roundly kicked their ideological asses?

The truth of the matter is that since the advent of capitalism and the ideas promulgated from capitalism, and interestingly in spite of an exponential growth of the population, more people are living longer and better than ever before. That means less and less are suffering from poverty than in any time in history, and the recent economic woes American's are suffering today is not because of a capitalist system, it is because the United States government rejected capitalism as a valid economic theory and closed up the markets.

People want to be really, really, angry with the welfare checks banks got, but few want to be angry with the notion of "welfare" being a job of government. People want to feel as if they've done their share to counteract the devastation of poverty, and in my not so humble opinion, people have shamefully accepted an income tax scheme as the "solution" to the devastation of poverty, and have been so willing to believe that by agreeing to these taxes that anyone who remains in poverty for too long does so because of laziness, or drugs, or something that means they deserve their desolation.

Have you not read the threads where "supporters of the OWS" are complaining about the homeless eating "their free food"? More than just Libertarians talk a big game, talking big games is the modern cultural milieu.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Isn't this the same attitude toward the Tea Party? All they did was raise awareness about government issues but because they were conservative and not leftist, the same people now in OWS attacked, ridiculed and mocked them. Kind of a bit dishonest on the OWS part now to expect people to agree with them after what those protestors say about the Tea Party.


did you get their prints? how do you know it's the same guys? :-)

seriously - if you have problems with the OWS movement - criticize it on it's own merits - or lack thereof

but tit for tat - what kind of argument is that? You're against the OWS because you got your feelings hurt?

I'm guessing there's going to come a time, if it hasn't already happened - where more than a few members of both camps are going to realize have the same gripes and share a common goal

you think this is a leftist movement - and to be sure - there's more than a few leftists involved - but it's more centrist than you're allowing yourself to see

you've already decided which 'side' you're on - this is a movement that could really work for everybody if they could just get past stereotypes and focus on the issues


Well you just need to read my prior posts where I said I am not on either side. I just said they have the right to protest if they want. But I will not whitewash anything to protect or take away rights. If their leadership is advocating Marxist Socialism, then that is something the protestors need to be honest about. And the protestors also need to be honest about why they are really protesting.

I am not on a side, I chose to not be on a side. I have maintained all along that I will defend the right of the OWS to protest. I don't have to agree with their politics, but at the same time, they need to allow and defend other groups same rights. Would you defend the Tea Party the right to protest? Would you say they have the right to say what they want?

Unless you can defend another person's right to protest, then you are disingenuous and if you are, you should not be defended. And yes, the same people who attacked and ridiculed the Tea Party, including the leadership of the OWS, are now expecting themselves to be taken seriously. And no, I don't take OWS serious enough because all I have seen is a bunch of hippie-era wannabes. But no, I have not taken sides. And you should read all my posts.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by antonia
 

What is the answer? To just keep taxing and taxing and taxing until the only one who gets to keep their revenue is the government, while we all show gratitude at their inadequate care of us?


I tend to believe the answer is to be found on the micro level rather than the macro level. Community based approaches work better than Government based ones, but most communites do not have the resources.





It is a straw man argument to insist that my ideas require all people be good. I know, I know, but Jean Paul, you are advocating self government. Yes, I am. But I am not suggesting some pie in the sky Utopia where everyone drinks abundantly from chocolate flavored rivers, and munches off of marshmallow clouds and candied tangerine skies, I am suggesting that more People than you are willing to give credit to are ethical and good. I am not suggesting that by self government we would not have to establish and ordain a government, and in the United States we have established and ordained a government but under our Constitutional republic self government is not only possible, it is wholly probable.

Of course, it isn't probable with more than 600,000 acts of legislation on the books, and a plethora of alphabet agencies claiming authority over our lives anywhere from collecting rain water to helping someone who has tripped and fallen on the sidewalk - and consider that! If you do not have any credentials in emergency health care, and you dare to help a person who has hurt themselves and for whatever reasons that help is construed to mean post injury was complicated by your efforts, then you will be held liable and severely punished for your crime, but you want to know what my "solution" is to helping the imaginary poor suffering person?

Let's reign in the tyrants first. Not first as in let's wait to help our fellow brothers and sisters and reign in the tyrants first, but in terms of any governmental "policies" towards social ills, for God's sakes let's reign in the tyrants first. In the meantime, we are all more than capable of self government, and one of the surest things we can do in terms of self government is to begin by helping others, not insisting that some act of legislation force us to help our brothers and sisters, but to Just Do It!


You don't have much of an argument here from me. People should help each other, but most people only do so when it is in their interests to do so. people could take your advice right now, except they don't want to. You can't separate the people from government as if the government is the only problem. The government would not be this way if people didn't allow it. Politicians don't just fall from the sky, they come from our "best and brightest" and perhaps that says a lot about who we are as people.





Not a cost to bear that you are willing to take on yourself personally, but a cost to bear that you are willing to impose on everyone, without any regard for the success or failure of the "programs" or "policies", which means administrative agencies and bureaucrats that would be tasked with allocating the tax dollars you believe is "our" cost to bear and advocate its imposition. That would be fairly called a disconnect. To say just tax me and fix the damn unsightly blight of poverty and then consider the problem solved, even when it is nowhere near solved, or worse to pretend that even though what you've advocated all ready exists, to insist it still exists because a certain class wasn't ta


I didn't say what you are attributing to me. I think it's a matter of living on planet Earth. It's not a matter of what system of economics, taxation or religion people practice.



The truth of the matter is that since the advent of capitalism and the ideas promulgated from capitalism, and interestingly in spite of an exponential growth of the population, more people are living longer and better than ever before. That means less and less are suffering from poverty than in any time in history, and the recent economic woes American's are suffering today is not because of a capitalist system, it is because the United States government rejected capitalism as a valid economic theory and closed up the markets.


You know, that sounds oddly like the Communists at the end of their time. "It was because we weren't communist enough". It's a fundamentalist argument-if we were just more capitalist then everything would be better. Many people attribute the explosion in population and it's longevity to Oil. Now, would this not mean that the survival of that population is tied to oil (rather than a economic system, if their POV is correct). Without the oil what happens? Energy is what makes all economies possible.
continued...



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


It is my opinion the main driver of the first downturn was a dramatic spike in oil prices. Oil discoveries have flatlined in the last 6 years and demand keeps increasing. Those discoveries we have made are in harder to drill places. Oil Shale is a temporary solution to the problem as it could only supply world demand for perhaps 6 years. The problem is the return on e gets from drilling is always less than the expected recovery rate. We have yet to find a suitable alternative to this. Our bloated government is a problem, but if I'm right you won't have to worry about it much longer. To me, both the left and the right seem unable to deal with this reality. Removal of regulation may help in this endeavor, but I think you'll find more people are just fine with a bloated government as long as they are living in relative comfort. I expect no real change unless oil becomes too expensive for most people to buy.

I think where we differ is you see this as an Ideological issue whereas I see it as a resource based problem. There is no economy without money and there can be no money without energy. There can be no infinite growth economy in a finite universe. In the end what you are left with is a struggle over what little resources are left. This is where "morals" and "ethics" come into play and generally when people are trying to survive these are not important considerations.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I've been on ATS since 2000 and I've watched as ATS has become a disinformation machine and they never did a thing to correct it. They never will, why would they? ATS is full of Israeli Mossad and US corporate seeders. They make money so that puts the blinders on the owners. ATS is the dirty misinformation that FOX won't allow. That's it.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Got nothing to do with the media, I see what's happening first hand. I have 0% respect for the 99% of the people protesting right now. I don't watch the news this only first hand observation. No matter what I feel I wouldn't support people acting like this and I don't even want to open that can of worms again.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 





I tend to believe the answer is to be found on the micro level rather than the macro level. Community based approaches work better than Government based ones, but most communites do not have the resources.


If we are going to limit "resources" to the amount of tax dollars allocated to any given community by the federal government, or even state or local government, then yes, there is never enough "resources", for government, that's the beauty of creating bureaucracies claiming "solutions" to fixing social ills, their expertise at competent incompetency is a strategy designed to get even more tax dollars! "We failed because you the People won't let us do our jobs, and you refuse to pay the taxes necessary for all these vital services". Sigh.

The not enough "resources" argument is predicated in the belief of scarcity. Abundance is a different paradigm, and we can argue till the cows come home - cows so abundant these days their farts are blamed on the rising level of methane in the atmosphere - about how much abundance there actually is, but arguing such a thing misses the point of abundance. It is a contradiction to argue that abundance is rife with scarcity. Whatever "resources" may or may not be in abundance, our individual ingenuity is for damn sure in abundance.

Indeed, when you first replied to my posts and claimed to be an "idiot" I thought maybe you were being sarcastic, but when you followed up in another post claiming idiocy again, I read it this time to be a more self effacing remark than sarcasm. If this is true, I would not only respectfully disagree that you are an idiot, I would vehemently argue that declaring yourself an idiot only limits your own vast potential for ingenuity.




You don't have much of an argument here from me. People should help each other, but most people only do so when it is in their interests to do so.


What is wrong with helping others because it is in our best interest to do so? I prattle on quite a bit about the pollution of the lexicon and how words have been hijacked and used to mean something that is either so far removed from the etymology of the word as to render the word unrecognizable from its etymology, or just plain nonsensical. Take, for example, the word selfish. Selfishness is generally defined to mean a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others. Can you see the contradiction in this definition? Is it so hard to understand that regard for others is in our best interest?

I do not volunteer at the food pantry of this church because I belong to the church (I am Catholic and the church I volunteer at is Presbyterian), I do so because it makes me feel better. Not in some smug sense that I feel as if I am ending poverty, or I am doing my "fair share" to ease the suffering of others, I do this volunteering because at this moment it is the very least I can do. I am not in much of a position to do much more at the time, and because People have helped me - a few members in this site have helped me out in my times of need - I want to do what I can myself to "pay it forward", because it is in my best interest to do so.




people could take your advice right now, except they don't want to.


Okay. Let people make their decisions as they see fit. If people take my advice, let them do it because they see the value in that advice and not because of any other reason. Hell, if people take my advice, I would hope they did so because the realized it was in their best interest to do so, and if it is not in their best interest to do so, then the last thing they should do is take my advice.




You can't separate the people from government as if the government is the only problem.


I haven't, and it is why I am being so damned hard on the "OWS" protestors. It is why I spent several hours last night fashioning several posts in reply to elfie. If we are going to fix government, we have to fix ourselves, and since the establishment of government is largely based on establishment of justice, which means law, I passionately argue and instruct to whomever will accept my instructions, on what law actually is and how wildly law differs from what is legal. It is imperative that we understand the law, for this is what has led to so many of our problems, our own profound ignorance of the law.




The government would not be this way if people didn't allow it.


People get the government they deserve.




Politicians don't just fall from the sky, they come from our "best and brightest" and perhaps that says a lot about who we are as people.


This is demonstrably false, and the best and brightest among us appear to have "gone Galt".



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


The best and the brightest among us are too damned bright to waste their time becoming politicians, especially in a day and age where the republic of The United States of America is believed to be by so many a democracy. The best and the brightest have no interest in pandering for some kind of consensus. The best and the brightest do not look to elected office to fix problems. The best and the brightest, if they haven't all ready "gone Galt", are doing what they can to make a better world all the while doing their best to navigate the Byzantine like governmental catacombs of regulation.




I didn't say what you are attributing to me. I think it's a matter of living on planet Earth. It's not a matter of what system of economics, taxation or religion people practice.


If we are going to "bear the cost" of poverty, it is most assuredly a matter of what economic system is in play, taxation, and charitable ethics.




You know, that sounds oddly like the Communists at the end of their time. "It was because we weren't communist enough". It's a fundamentalist argument-if we were just more capitalist then everything would be better.


There is no such thing as "more" capitalism. There is capitalism and that is it. What is in place today in the U.S. is not capitalism, and I am certainly not arguing for "more" capitalism as that only plays into the modern deceit that what we have is capitalism. All I am arguing is for capitalism.

Further, I find it odd how terms such as fundamentalism are used today, as if fundamentalism is a pejorative. Micheal Jordan didn't become the well known basket ball player he did because he rejected the fundamentals of basketball. Jordan embraced the fundamentals of basketball, and those fundamentals were evident in every game he played, but no one ever calls Micheal Jordan a fundamentalist. My guess is that no one calls Jordan a fundamentalist because the word fundamentalism has become a pejorative and no one really wants to imply that Jordan's own fundamental knowledge of basketball and the fundamental skills he developed were a bad thing.




Many people attribute the explosion in population and it's longevity to Oil. Now, would this not mean that the survival of that population is tied to oil (rather than a economic system, if their POV is correct). Without the oil what happens? Energy is what makes all economies possible.


Many people are also attributing anthropogenic climate change to oil, and screaming that we're all going to suffer dramatically because of this. People make their claims and it is up to us to use our own powers of critical thinking to determine what the truth actually is as best we can.

Without the oil, do you find it so hard to believe, do you think humanity so lacking in potential, that we will not use our ingenuity to resolve any absence of oil and a need for energy? There are more things on heaven and earth, antonia, than are dream't of in your philosophy.




I think where we differ is you see this as an Ideological issue whereas I see it as a resource based problem.


Your advocacy of the scarcity paradigm is ideological, I assure you. The universe is rife with resources, and as I have pointed out, our own imaginations are infinite in their own resources. The combination of the two makes the scarcity paradigm look rather...well, scarce. We are far more powerful than you seem willing to believe we are. One of humanities greatest tragedies is not that they fear other people's power so much; it is their own damned power that scares the crap out of them.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



And no, I don't take OWS serious enough because all I have seen is a bunch of hippie-era wannabes. But no, I have not taken sides. And you should read all my posts.


I have read all your posts:


All I can say is this, while I defend your right to protest, do you really understand what you are throwing away in favor of Marxist Socialism? You are also throwing away my rights.


you haven't actually criticized the Tea Party in this thread - yet

so...?

and about those hippie wannabes WarminIndy - who wouldn't want to be a hippie?

I'm tired of the put downs - frankly. They're childish at best - but in reality they're thinly veiled bits of contempt for a group of people that had the guts to stand up for what they believed in - they put themselves on the line

it's not an insult - but you can't see that - can you?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





Without the oil, do you find it so hard to believe, do you think humanity so lacking in potential, that we will not use our ingenuity to resolve any absence of oil and a need for energy? There are more things on heaven and earth, antonia, than are dream't of in your philosophy.


Do you know the Laws of Thermodynamics?
en.wikipedia.org...


The second law of thermodynamics distinguishes between reversible and irreversible physical processes. It tells how this shows the existence of a mathematical quantity called the entropy of a system, and thus it expresses the irreversibility of actual physical processes by the statement that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.


Scarcity is a scientific fact. There is nothing ideological about it. You cannot escape it. All energy reduces to an unusable form once tapped into. This is where Entropy comes into play. Things break down, they fall apart. Unless of course you are one of those people who think science is wrong. You can certainly find some kind of energy to use, but nothing comes close to oil. The other issue is oil is used in almost every aspect of modern life. You and I are typing on oil by-products, wearing them, sitting on them. If we wanted to transition it should have started at least 20 years ago, but there is little profit in this in our current paradigm so it will not be done until Oil becomes far too expensive for most people to buy.

I also think you over estimate human ingenuity. Take for instance a disease mankind has been researching feverishly for years-Cancer. At least 50 years of research have brought us a little closer to beating cancer, but not by much. The cure is still far off. Now, some would say this is because there is no profit in a cure and that may be true, but if it's otherwise it shows an abysmal failure on the part of mankind.

There is no amount of human ingenuity that will overturn the laws of physics. It is human arrogance to believe such things. All modern economies, left or right, depend on infinite growth. Scientifically speaking, it's impossible.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Yes I know the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and am fairly certain I made the point in this very thread that this principle extends to much more than just the chemical reaction of heat systems. However, if you are implying that the universe is a closed system, then all those claiming the universe is expanding must be wrong. Unless, we go with the theory that the universe is expanding but at some point will contract. There is not near enough known about the universe for you to claim that it is a "scarcity is a scientific fact" in the context you are using it.

Abundance is also a scientific fact.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 

2 words: MARTIAL LAW




edit on 9-11-2011 by TruthDamnTruth because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
193
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join