>> ^kronosposeidon:
^Why the title? Because it's an unexpected outcome. Most of the time men can and do beat women in activities that involve strength. Just ask any woman who has been in a relationship that involved domestic violence. That's not sexist; it's just a fact. Men on the whole are bigger than women, and therefore they are generally stronger than women, and therefore they are generally able to physically subdue their gender counterparts. Obviously strength isn't everything, as this video clearly demonstrates. Still, if I had used no title, tags, or description for this video, virtually everyone here, women included, would have expected the dude to win. I kid you not.
I can't believe I actually have to explain this. I kid you not.


So what? unexpected outcomes don't have to be put in such "omfg no way in hell" manner.
As if unexpected outcomes in sports were this super rare event only happening every 1000 years.

The first part of the title conveys the message of your posts which I agree with, but the kid you not part is baggage.

This is great! Google's the best. I hope they rule the next 1000 years with a gentle hand.

>> ^vermeulen:


Everyone looking out for themselves, without control, would have stopped buying.
What could statement possibly be based upon, aside from omniscience? How can you claim to understand or predict the habits of 300 million people?

A free market can not stand everyone to just stop buying at once, which is exactly would have happen the days after 911.
Really, 300 million people would all stop buying goods and starve to death? My understandng is that in a free market, when people stop buying a product the price drops until they start buying it again. Are you telling me that if the price of plasma tvs dropped to $100 each you wouldn't be out buying a dozen--just because a plane crashed into a building, probably not even anywhere near you?

Even Al Greenspan, the hardcore Randian bastard, admits that the regulation of the federal reserve is necessary for stabilization.
A chairman of the Federal Reserve board thinks the Federal Reserve board is necessary for stabilization? Madness. Greenspan is a hypocrite. Whatever he preached about the free market, and whatever ties he had with objectivism are not compatible with his role at the Federal Reserve.

Most economists also agree with this, and yet still hold Laissez Fair viewpoints
Most people 1000 years ago believed the earth was flat. What does majority opinion have anything to do with reality?

Ron Paul on the other hand, is basically a fundamentalist libertarian. He will never get past his viewpoint, and always view this as the only solution, and will argue anything at all against it.
Get past his viewpoint....to what? To your viewpoint? Why would he do this? What evidence are you bringing to the table?

The great depression was allowed to ruin the economy because the government did nothing.
The "great depression" would have been the "moderate recession" had it not be for the governments ineptitude. Yes the government did nothing--but not the "nothing" you are talking about. The US increased its reserves of gold during this period, but failed to increase the supply of money as it was constitutionally sanctioned to do in adherence to the gold standard. It was not a problem of regulation, it was a problem of failing to execute constitutionally given powers.

Its great that the internet allows everyone to voice their opinion, but can you at least try to research a little deeper before you make assertions? Its tempting to watch tv, do a google search, and read the local paper and think you are an expert on an array of issues because you are listening to "experts" on an array of issues, but its just not true.

You really cannot criticize Ron Paul's ideas if you don't even know the basis for his positions. If all you've seen are youtube clips, you really only have a superficial knowledge of his positions--it takes more than 3 minutes to explain the rationality behind any given position--especially with ideas that are unconventional and foreign to most people.

Educate Africa with the clear light of their history,(esp the last 500-1000 years)get em up to snuff, feed em, heal them, and give em some guns and ammo to take back their shit from the folks destined to fistfuck the planet into getting more and more.....Do the same with all caught in the middle, and create some folks worth a damn for the next phase in worldwide socio-spiritual eveolutionism.......BOOM!

I'd like to see how they stop once they got to the star. Simply turning the sail around would not be enough. A combination of solar sail and ion propulsion (ion not in the acceleration phase, but for the deceleration phase). It is unclear whether the flight time is direct at maximum speed the entire way.

~3200+ years though. That is a LONG time. If we can someday get the travel time down to decades or even a century, there may be potential for a mission. Send it off. Get it into orbit.. and have it send back data. Of course, the thing would need to be completely automated. AND we'd need to have someone back at Earth with an ear to the sky, waiting for a signal.

I wonder how practical sending data such a distance would be. The energy required. You'd need one heck of a powerful transmitter.

I suspect technology would improve in time (especially 3200 years) that would obsolete the mission to begin with. Imagine sending such a ship... to have a faster one PASS it on the way to the star 1000 years later.

I beg to differ about there being no mention of it in the bible. Not by name maybe, but read this:

http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ikvot/defending-the-pre-trib-rapture-again

--excerpts:
The idea that the pre-trib rapture view was invented by John Nelson Darby and Margaret McDonald has been disproven for years. All Rev. Darby did was to start a movement back to a literal interpretation of Scripture after over 1000 years of allegorical interpretation

although cynics can truthfully say that the word Rapture doesn't appear in any passage of Scripture, the statement is not correct in its intent. Rapture is a word of Latin origin, not Hebrew or Greek, the languages of the Bible. (The earliest translation of the Bible was into Latin, and the word rapture comes from there.) Its Greek equivalent is harpazo, which is found in the Greek text of 1 Thes. 4:17. When they're translated into English, both words mean "to be caught up, or snatched away." Harpazo, the word Paul actually used, comes from roots that mean, "to raise from the ground" and" take for oneself" and hints that in doing so the Lord's eagerly claiming us for Himself. So while the Latin word doesn't appear in our Bibles, the event it describes certainly does. There's a similar situation with the word Lucifer, also of Latin origin. It doesn't appear in any of the original texts either, but no one would be naive enough to deny the existence of Satan on such a flimsy basis.


Also: http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/was-nero-the-anti-christ

The idea happens to be supported by an approach to interpreting scripture that DID in fact formally begin in the 1800's, dispensationalism. This is why many think the rapture theory is that new. Though the idea of the rapture is supported by the dispensationalist methodology, it did not begin there, but with most of those who interpret the scriptures and prophecies literally and logically, rather than the more catholic symbolic interpretations. This more Catholic interpretation method took such dominance (by way of the dominance of the Catholic rule) that the rapture idea faded into the background for ages.

#4. Mom, Futurama, Net Worth: $15.7 Billion

Factoring 1000 years of inflation, that's really not much.

D) Fusion reactors small enough to put in a space ship
E) Better Ion Thrusters
F) Electromagnetic interstellar gas collector to replenish fuel
G) Electric-lighted botanical gardens in space, fertilized by excrement
H) Combine D through G in a spaceship for a comfy 1000-year trip to Alpha Centauri and back.*
I) Now here's the one that requires changing the laws of physics: WARP DRIVE!!


*: Hydrogen fusion converts about 1/1000 of the mass into energy while burning hydrogen plus oxygen converts only 3/10,000,000,000 of the mass into energy. So you get about 3 million times more energy from your fuel per kilogram compared to conventional rockets. That means you can eject your exhaust about (the square root of that) 1800 times faster and go about 1800 times faster.

The fastest conventional rocket yet (Voyager 1) used several stages and gravity assists to get to about C/17,000 (17.46 km/s), which would be fast enough to get to alpha centauri and back in about 150,000 years. (150,000 / 1800) + slack = 1000 years.

Some are so caught up in combating real pseudoscientific bullshit like acupuncture / homeopathy / the latest "natural cures" fad that they treat any challenge to the medical status quo as if it must be quackery. Just because something has been done for 150 years without most doctors realizing it was wrong, does not make it right. Leeches were used for 1000+ years, take that! Take no comfort in suckling on the teat of the majority dogma.

Rembar, how about that Swedish scientist who wrote the standard textbook on metal toxicology and consulted for the WHO, and helped get amalgam banned in Sweden? Did you watch far enough in this documentary to see him? Or did you skip the whole video as soon as you identified it as something contradicting your dogma?

I've got no problem if you remove actual pseudoscience, like homeopathy, astrology, acupuncture, 'creation science', chiropractors, raw foodism, diet fads, crystal healing, 95% of the self-help books ever written, and all the other bullshit from the Science channel. But this documentary definitely interviews many respectable practitioners of *science and is not bullshit.

>> ^Farhad2000:
If Kosovars then why not the Kurds?


no reason at all, as far as i'm concerned, farhad.
so long as that's what a significant majority of the population there, wants.
which it is. soldiers i've talked to, returning from that area, and news orgs, msm or not, have repeatedly said so.

they'll also mention that kurds mostly still love america, because that's where we had esablished the northern no-fly zone. to protect them.

now, if those news outlets are any good, they'll also let you know what the other side is saying, against it, which is usually "balkanization". smaller and smaller groups break off, often due to ever-more-radical ideologies.

problem with a lot of these cases (as seperatism is clearly becoming somewhat rampant in middle-asia and -europe) is that it takes a shitload of research to even understand why some of these national boundaries were drawn, to begin with.

and half the time, it's just the latest result in a long chain of bad blood for 1000 years, over something that neither side even remembers anymore.

big deciding factor, for me?
whether these current national boundaries, were drawn:

a) by a community, to establish a national identity, for a significant geographic region, that is often otherwise isolated by natural boundaries (mountains, rivers), and simply wants to be able to run their own affairs, in peace?

b) by being foisted upon them, after being conquered, in order to prevent the above scenario from happening, by essentially gerrymandering them out of existence.

This prompted me to read up on Kosovo. No shortage of blood spilled over it/on it over the last 1000 years. Every side putting the boot into each other whenever they got the power.

To paraphrase something Peter Ustinov said after the fall of communism and the breakup of the ussr, about tiny regions that have never been independent entities, people think that having their own flag and anthem are going to solve all their problems. Thats often only the beginning of the problems. He said that shortly before Yugoslavia really kicked off.

Hope this isnt going to be a repeat of history, but history would indicate that it is.

I think he is a key person in human history. Looking back 1000 years from now, I expect he will be remembered. Sure its being in the right place at the right time, but computers are a major development for mankind, and he has played the largest role in the PCs development. I guess a bit like Henry Ford, the Wright brothers or Madam Curie.

bicyclerepairman, you might have a very rational argument, but creation might be very irrational.

just take your level of reasoning one step back from the wall and take a good look... there's god! you found him!

Sigma/Everything/God.

Of course this explanation isn't finite enough for science, hence the phrase "god is infinite" and the counterargument "that's just faith" etc etc blah blah blah. "why would he make chromosomes like that" lol why the fuck would you bother asking in such an impertinent manner? you're only human, you can't expect to understand everything, that would be boring. Ask in an honest manner, like a proper scientist, and realise the answer is "we don't know yet but we're working on it"

an infinite god has neither beginning nor end, an infinite universe does not need to be created, life might have an extra component that is not biological, you have no idea. so you rationalise, to comfort yourself, in exactly the same way that other people use prayer... repeat the nice words "empirical" and "evidence" until you feel all righteous and comfortable... cling to the theory of evolution even though it explains nothing about creation itself...

one thing's for certain, our current theories will look stupid in 1000 years' time, so i wouldn't defend them too vigorously.

carry on.

Pay no mind to qualm, he is trolling in the same sense as someone who insists on bringing up the sexual maneuver of teabagging when you are really trying to talk about tea.

I want actual bibliographic citations for those quotes, not just unverifiable attributions.

I want evidence, not just testimonials, regarding the claim that CFR's only aim in creating a one world govenrment is financial exploitation.

A world government would not necessarily require anyone to give up any rights or civil liberties. It might be anywhere on the political spectrum. The only a priori difference between a government and a world government are size and the lack of any competing country. For all we know, the European Union might continue growing the same way that it previously grew (peacefully, with the consent of prospective members) for another 1000 years as culture diffuses to countries on its border. Creation of a world government does not necessarily require any fascism or any other immoral policy.

one day it will be ok to laugh at this in such a crass way. maybe in 1000 years. i would upvote just for the wtf factor. i'm like that.