toastywombel

When did I ever argue the poor have been in charge? I didn't even mention the demographic you were referring to, "the poor". I think you are simply looking to bait an argument. Furthermore, I think you would be hard-pressed to prove such a statement. I can think of several examples where this isn't the case.

I would agree with Moontaman to an extent. While I don't think the religious right is particularly winning the "culture war" so to speak, big business continues to rule with an iron fist. Our entire government is controlled by the wealthiest Americans. Any candidate that is up for election is backed by the same corporations. They are all figureheads representing the same pro-business agenda. The progressive agenda seems so distorted as well. In ways becoming exactly what it sought out to combat. I really don't know anymore, but what I do know is that we are heading towards a world where the wealthiest are in control, privacy and freedom are trivial, and such control is applied by acts of subversion not democracy. I really cannot see how the power structure can be toppled. I am slowly starting to accept that the fate of our world will be the similar to that of the utopia described in 1984. For nearly all of human history there has been a pattern of power being consolidated. While there have been cultural, physical, and intellectual revolutions, nearly all of these achievements have been twisted and/or dwarfed by those with money and influence. I believe this is our worlds fate and within our lifetimes it may very well become a reality.

Really marriage defined by the government and rights given to people simply because they choose to pair up in a monogamous relationship seems wrong. Giving benefits to certain people because of their lifestyle choices discriminates against individuals. Gay marriage benefits and straight marriage benefits both discriminate against individuals. Furthermore JohnB said, Ah civil unions are such a silly concept. Much like Colored Bathrooms, All the hardware of a regular White-Only Bathroom, but without the White-only! So yes let us go with civil unions, then we will have a new tax form, a new division in the IRS, and a new law set to define the same things that have already been defined in marriage except we will call it civil unions. And so many wonder how government wastes so much money. Like I said marriage or civil unions defined by the government are wrong in my opinion. No one should be given benefits because they are paired up. As far as hospital visitation rights and various other financial institution rights, can't such disputes be handled through the hospital and the patient. Also, I personally don't like the idea of the government having a list of who is married and who is not, who is gay (in a civil union) and who is not.

I hate to sound like a parent but we sure won't be able to agree on a global constitution with an attitude like that. The fact is that power is being centralized to allow for a one world government. This is the pattern of governing bodies. Whether it be corporate, governmental or really any organizations. They all merge and intergrate over time. A constitution is a set of laws a given government must abide by, and the unfortunate truth of the matter is as the national governments of our planet merge, our nations constitution becomes weak as it does not have jurisdiction over a global governing body. The ame applies to any other nation. Whether we choose to demand that the global government operates within the confines of a body of laws agreed upon by the citizens of this planet or not will be one of the greatest challenges of man kind. However the attitude that it cannot be done inspires inaction. Inaction will be what leads to an unregulated global power structure that is wreckless with freedoms and as organized and transparent as cobwebs in the dark. The governments of the world and powers that be are passing treaties and laws to merge and intergrate, because of this, a global constitution is a must for any freedom loving individual who wants to better society as a whole. A must. Viewing it as a must makes it easy to realize that to. Take the 'we can't do it' in a debate on whether we can or not is accepting an unregulatexd global government with no global constitution to abide by. And justinw, I was raised to never rely on the government for the simple fact that the more you rely on them to fulfill you're needs, the less you rely on yourself. The less you rely on yourself, the less control you have over yourself and the more you rely on someone else to provide for you. That is what independence is about isn't it Really you and your family would not survive this world without the work of the rest of humanity. The same is true of just about any family. We are social creatures and that is a fact. Why is it that so often many who might label themselves as conservatives believe their social responsibilities end with their family. The truth is that in a globalized world to some degree we all gain something valuable from many who are not or never werel in our direct family. And this does not just apply to roads and the usual public service mumbo jumbo, it is apparent that we all share certain behavioral traits and fundemental concepts. Mathematics the, concept of writing, music, engineering and design are all schools of thought that I am sure have provided benefits to you, me and all. To some degree we depend on all of these The fact that we can even communicate effectively right now is only possible because others before us who were not in our direct family helped create a shared complex language. Much if not most of what you have learned was taught to you by many. And I highly doubt it was your family who designed and built the electronic devices you use, all the food you eat, even ones way of making money depends on a system that allows for money to exist. To sy that the less one relies on others the more indepemdemt they are is just not a concept that correlates with reality.

I have already made my point clear and I love the way this discussion is going, for there are those that can articulate facts much better than me. So this is just to post a relevant article to the conversation in a broader perspective. Yet another example of how the government is playing as body guard to the corporate control. The video is a few years old, but I think it is relevant to the discussion, and example of further control being put upon us in the name of profits. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jjxg8f3Gq0 While the problem did get somewhat resolved, the underlying problem is, why does the state own water that comes from the sky onto ones business or property. I just find that ridiculous. I mean it grays the lines. I sometimes think of the day when they will charge us for the air we breathe, because its owned by the state of course.(sarcasm) This is a very good point made by you, and it has been made by others on this thread, so kudos to them as well. It seems like an obvious attempt to keep people who do bad things in the eyes of the state constantly under the control and guardianship of the state. Granted I don't think mass murderers and such should be free to wander our society, but I do not support what seems to be the creation and maintaining of a slave group of people used for the gain of a few. The reason it seems felons are exploited this way is unfortunately because no one in our society wants to help or be associated with a felon. Unless that association is imprisoning them. I would also like to add I nearly completely agree with Phi's positions on this, but it just seems that the corporate and governmental powers that be always seem to win in the long run, despite the efforts of the former Teddy Roosevelt and others. I find it curious. Revenge in and of itself to me, is a crime against humanity. Also I think most who are educated in law to some degree would agree that law should not be about revenge, it should be about protecting and promoting the public. Furthermore, it seems like when you say, Remember, you do not speak for everyone. I on the other hand believe that forgiveness should not be a factor in handing out a sentence to someone convicted of a crime. Forgiveness is personal. Meaning that it is one's choice whether or not to forgive someone, therefore the courts cannot and should not speak for it. They instead should look out for the public's safety, as opposed to making a sentence based on whether the jury, judge, or public forgives someone for the given crime. Finally on a more personal note, why would you want to let what some criminal does dictate your personal feelings? Just my thought on it. The act of forgiveness is a choice made by one, not by some underlying moral consciousness nor should it be dictated by the actions of others. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that it is not that certain crimes are unforgivable, it is that you are unable to forgive them. The ability or inability to forgive is a personal responsibility, it is not a set in stone thing. In the end it is, to a great degree, your choice. Although this may seem like a blur between politics, sociology, and self awareness to some degree these three studies blend together quite a bit, and to completely ignore the fact that they do would be silly. But I don't want to get too off topic so please don't take it as a personal knock against you, instead I am just trying to prove my point that in my opinion forgiveness and revenge have no role in law.

I don't think Phi is talking about regulating the guy who makes 30 grande a year drilling oil for Exxon mobile. I am sure he is talking about executives and such. The average day worker rarely has a say in which direction his or her respective company is going. Really, you think one can decrypt an encrypted hard drive that uses a 128 bit encryption key or better yet a 256 encryption key? Provided the key is always secure, it would take longer than the age of the Universe to decrypt a 128 bit encryption key using a brute force technique. http://www.inet2000.com/public/encryption.htm And tell me how does someone hack into a closed network, provided the network is truly closed. I never said that the United States shouldn't protect such national secrets, I simply stated that there are technologies that allow for the defense of such secrets without having to trample upon everyone's civil rights. I guarantee if I chose to encrypt secrets on my hard-drive no one man or country could de-crypt that information provided I never release the key. As with 128 bit encryption there are 2^128 possibilities. This is also trivial, I fail to see why if a foreign power is attempting spy on the United States, even if effective, we should allow our government to spy on the American People. I mean in the nuclear age, and with the fact that we are most likely spying on them, I really fail to see the HUGE security threat from such espionage. If any real conflict began between China and the United States, espionage would be useless, provided both countries can destroy the world. And its not that I don't think that we cannot do anything about it, it is just that this is continual breach of civil rights will lead to one of two basic conclusions. A totalitarian/ shadow government or violent revolution. Neither of which seem all that awesome to me.

I thank those who considered what I said and attempted to stay on topic. I especially appreciate iNow's efforts for very simply summarizing what I had said and attempting to keep the conversation on topic. However this thread serves as an example to exactly the reason why it is so hard to talk about this. Such a proposition seems to greatly challenge the idealized America of some. An idealized America based on the ever-chanting American Nationalism that is as present in our country as it was in Nazi Germany. This nationalism has grown so much, in some circles that one who might say something along the lines of what I am saying would be considered un-American, even traitorous. And this is exactly what happens in such a society. One who speaks against the society is persecuted socially initially, but this social persecution can turn into legal persecution. The end result is that those who were so vehemently attempting to defend the idealized America against one who may be presenting ideas similar to mine, ironically end up making the ideas presented by one become a reality. Flags all down the street, the continual thumping of America being the greatest nation in the world by nearly all major media outlets (not just Fox). Being a solider is overly idealized for example, and not that being in the military is a bad thing. Its just that it is important to remember that someones merit as an individual shouldn't be solely based on their career choice. This is all part of what I would like to refer to as crap propaganda, or what others might compare to nationalism along the lines of Nazi Germany. But let me re-iterate I do not hate the hope of what the United States can be nor do I hate patriotism , I am simply looking at what I interpret as reality and simply sharing it. I also don't want to dwell too much on 'hating' on or debating the existence of the propaganda. Maybe in the paraphrased words of V for Vendetta (a quite appropriate film for this discussion) if you do not see what I see than you should simply let the fifth of November pass without paying any attention to it. And of course this is a metaphor, if you do not believe this is happening then let your day carry on and please don't attempt to distract this conversation. I would like to take this time however to provide an appropriate retort to some of the comments brought about by others. As these are common responses to defend the action of the usurping of civil rights by the powers who be. Why? My career is based on computer security, I am an IT consultant who works for individuals and small business'. I can tell you with 100 percent certainty, based on my experience in the field, that the government with all it's resources would be quite capable of providing sufficient defense against confidential information being stolen without having to trample upon every citizens civil rights. Closed networks and really well programmed firewalls and communication lines are quite capable of providing adequate security without the need to trample upon every one's civil rights. I don't care what country or who you are if all the data is encrypted well enough it would be extraordinarily hard, if not impossible to decode such data even if it is compromised. Furthermore, in many cases it is not particularly the United States federal government trampling upon the rights of every citizens. It is individual companies. Take Carrier IQ for example. Their software is currently on and is still being provided in many, if not most smart phones. The software not only monitors every single thing smartphone users do, but also it actually uses a key logger to track every single keystroke a user makes, then sends it to some set of servers off in God knows where, pardon the expression. Then when a technician discovered this and posted a video about it on youtube what did carrier IQ decide to do? They are attempting to sue him. I mean I fail to see how such actions provide any security. This information can be found with a simple google search, however I provided some relevant links. http://www.uberphones.com/2011/11/carrier-iq-sues-developer-treve-for-exposing-their-software/ Now Carrier Iq's argument is that the users of nearly 150 million phones consented to this, because of course it was listed in the contract that the user signs in order to get the phone. Anyone who is anyone knows that even though the above may be true, the tactics used to notify users that such a private company is going to track ever single thing a user does on his or her phone is completely deceptive. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/telcos-say-you-consented/ However, on a broader point. Even if such actions provided security against other countries stealing our data, well isn't the point somewhat defeated if we allow some private entity to steal our data. Its along the lines of the argument, "we must allow this man to burn down our houses, because if we don't those people are going to come for us and burn down our houses." Also it correlates to the point Moontaman was getting across earlier about sacrificing freedom for security. Onto the next point I would like to get out: As far as living on the taxpayers dole, again a point re-iterated by dOg, I will simply refer to my last point. This is not relevant and to some degree every citizen, including you, is able to thrive off of public funds whether it be through healthcare, defense, infrastructure, and a plethora of other services offered by our government that often are taken for granted. A service offered by our government always has to be payed for and yes some information has to be gathered in order to make these services effective, but the difference is that there is a clear tangible relationship between the governed and the government in which the government has to have some accountability towards the people. This cannot be said of private and quasi-private/ quasi-federal programs. I don't wish to dive any further into this argument as it has been beaten with a stick, not only on this forum, but throughout the pages of history. Again my thanks to the moderators and iNow and any others I have forgot to mention for attempting to keep this on topic. Also my apologies for any grammatical, spelling, and or logical errors, I am extraordinarily tired for I have been working long hours lately.

dOg, I think you miss the point. This has nothing to do with living off the taxpayers dole, the second amendment or any of that. I mean maybe it does on a small scale but this is hardly the crux of the problem. The problem is the complete centralization of power though agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, CIA, and FBI. No longer are these merely law enforcement agencies but they are becoming tools of Corporate America. Tools being used to force their will upon the consumers. Moontaman makes a great point about in the past that decentralized governments led to individual abuses in cities and municipalities. However, the nice aspect about that was the fact that other municipalities and cities could offer a better alternative. Our society was improved greatly though groups such as the ACLU and furthermore the federal government enforcing civil rights in local governments, where the local law enforcement was sometimes perpetrating or facilitating the abuse of such rights, and often the abuse of such rights came from Big Business. If you know your history you will remember when FDR sent the national guard to protect workers on strike. However, this allowed the gate to open for the federal government to have massive oversight over such local and state governments. While I think there are advantages to a strong federal government, the United States has seemed to take a strong turn towards executive leadership. As congress grows increasingly unpopular, and the judicial branch becomes more nationalist in nature and less constitutional the executive branch has grown stronger through such bills as the Patriot ACT. The centralization of power to the federal government is not so terrible as long as checks and balances are followed, however when checks and balances are replaced with Executive Decisions for the sake of expediting national security procedures there is no recourse to push back against possible abuses of power. And it makes the abuses of power all that much more likely seeing as the power lies in the hands of one man or women and their respective administration. As far as us electing our own government, what a sham if I ever heard one. First off to run for office you have to ascribe to one of two political parties. Sure there are third parties but realistically your governing power on a broad scale is very limited when you are a third party. Secondly one has to be considerably wealthy or have a huge financial backing to even get on the ballots in all the states, get onto the debates. The truth of the matter is our republic is dead and we live in a Corporate controlled oligarchy with a hint of some social programs, which are terribly weak at best. And as you guys continue to argue over the semantics of what the United States should be according to the constitution, remember I am talking about the reality of what we are. I mean realistically our democratic republic is just as democratic and as much of a republic as any other sham election around the world. These tend to exist in the super-power nations. Russia, China, and the United States. Their elections seem real to many of their respective publics as well, but the reality is we have one of two choices, and both of them are always considerably wealthy, and both get considerable backing from corporate entities. The beauty is that the United States has been able give the illusion of a choice, the illusion that we, the public are actually the acting force in choosing our leaders. When in reality it is a select few who get to run, and they get to run determined by the heads of parties and their ability to rake in the cash. Then even beyond that there are so many people who just don't vote in our country, not only because it is treated as a trivial aspect, but also because many people simply don't have the know-how or the time. iNow was talking about possible solutions, and I figure I would offer some ideas, however, it would be hard to implement them seeing as the United States government and the corporate powers that be are so entrenched into their respective positions of power. A possible reooccuring constitutional convention. Where local and state elected governments get together every 10 years to re-access the constitution, and how it must be adjusted to protect civil liberties as time goes on. See the problem with interpreting a constitution from the 18th century is that there was no consideration at that time for the possible liberty violations that could occur because of the growth in technology. The founding fathers had no idea of the internet, but if they did, I doubt that would be okay with some of the practices implemented today. Also a possible ban on giving money to campaigns. Instead everyone gets a set x amount of dollars, and x amount of time on a set amount of tv appearances. They get one website and that is it. Maybe a more parliamentary system would be better? But what about a mandatory revolution every ten years as well. Where local governments get together and form a new government as well as rewriting a new constitution. Again with the goal of protecting civil liberties and better serving the public. This pile on law style of government we have is just so bloated and so ineffective at anything but enforcing control

Let us get straight to the point, I fear for my future, our future. And by 'our' I am particularly referring to my fellow citizens in the United States. Our nation has been growing into a strange corporate controlled police state for sometime, and while I realize that we are not on the level of a country like China or North Korea, I find our fate even more terrifying. Let me explain. Technology lately, as most would agree, has been advancing and growing beyond what many of us ever imagined. And if you have ever read a Brave New World or 1984 you as the reader may find it easier to understand my fear. As technology grows, methods of control become more and more intricate. Here for example is a list of current tools of control that are currently being implemented or are implemented by our government/ corporate governance. Data Mining- The implementation of the internet allowed for centralization of data through linking computers and servers throughout the world. Furthermore social networking sites such as facebook and others have sold to us the idea, in a sense, of trading our information for access to our friends and a world of new friends and their information. Finally recent laws and upcoming bills have allowed corporate entities and government entities free reign over accessing such information. The Patriot ACT I and II, SOPA, and ACTA are all examples of this. Tracking- The miniaturization of advanced computing devices capable of sending information through wireless transmission has brought about the modern day cell phone, and even further the modern day Smart Phone. It has been shown recently that information from such phones can be logged and backed up to locations. Such locations are accessible by the corporate entities of our state and our government through many of the above listed recent laws and upcoming bills. Such information includes our whereabouts, our desires, our friends, our politics, our ideas. Even down to the individual keystrokes we type into our phones. Surveillance- It is no big secret that cities, states, and the federal government have/has implemented the use of cameras, listening devices and other monitoring devices throughout our country. Now the government has the legal authority to fly predator drones over United States soil to prevent crime. Local, state, and federal law enforcement are now privy to live information being gathered from such monitoring devices listed above without any type of due process, and this information is often accessible at any given time. Enforcement- The ability to imprison and use all the above tools without due process was done in the name of safety. Safety primarily from an arbitrarily defined enemy, terror. What is a terrorist? Well that concept is up for debate, but the point is it is a definition assigned to a person, but it is not linked with any specific action, as opposed to a thief (someone who steals or has stolen) or a murder (someone who kills or has killed), a terrorist is someone who inflicts terror upon the public to advance an agenda. Now that definition seems rather broad yet so damning seeing as anyone who is stamped with the label of terrorist has no right to due process. These four aspects have lead me to fear, but somewhat accept that we are coming ever closer to the eutopian world described in books such as 1984 and Brave New World and embodied by creations such as the Borg on Startrek. A world in which we catch criminals before a crime is committed, begging the question, are such people even criminals? A world in which freedom is trivial and privacy is forbidden. A world in which a small group of men/ women have the power to create and ruin any other persons life at any given time for any given reason without any discourse. I believe that Voltaire said, "if there were no God it would be necessarily to invent him", and that is exactly what our society seems to be working towards. An overlying governing body that has all the power listed above. Some of you may say I am simply paranoid, and maybe I am haha. But the simple fact is that all the tools are practically available right now, but the power over the tools has yet to become completely centralized. And the worst thing is, we were never forced to give all this freedom up. Instead it was sold to us, commercialized through the repetitive nature of the media. And worse yet, sold to us as a choice. When the society begins to lean so heavily on such technologies for everyday events such as work, education, and finances when do they stop becoming a choice and instead become a requirement by default? As my friend said the other day referring to our country as it was intended to be in the hearts and minds of so many who loved freedom, "America is done son!" As it saddens me to admit it I think the statement might very well be true. I am curious to know your thoughts on this and how our political system, or lack of, has enabled the powers at be to further such agendas. I apologize beforehand for any grammatical or conceptual errors, I am tired and I have work in the morning so I am in somewhat a hurry to get to bed.

I find it more likely that the anger stems from the desire to control something that is not particularly controllable. Which is often where anger comes from in general, not just politics. As one attempts to defend/introduce a political point/view, his or hers true intent is usually to convey that message to others (receivers) and then convince such receivers that one's political point is a right one, and then finally hope that the receivers act upon the political point/view originally presented by one. "Right" in this sense meaning that it correlates with observed reality and offers solutions and/or explanations to mutually recognized problems that face one's society. Anger occurs when that message is unaccepted or challenged. Also, anger arises when a presented political point/view does not correlate with one's political point/view. The anger at its deepest level stems from the desire to convince or to some degree control the thoughts and then action of others. Which in the end is only as possible as the receiver allows it to be. So back to the conclusion, the anger stems from the desire to control the uncontrollable. Example: As you pointed out, lack of articulation can cause such anger, but that is again anger arising from the inability to convey the message, which is something you can control to a degree, but not completely. It is important to realize that the most articulate person in the world cannot force a stubborn person to accept a concept that the stubborn person refuses to accept.

While I would say the above is highly unlikely, the longer this story has gone on without anyone finding an error, the more credibility the experiments seem to gain, then more and more theories seem to flood in. I just read an article on some of the theories floating around and I figured I might provide a small collection, that was put together very nicely by the folks at Newscientist.com. While I have not always been a big fan of the site they do a nice job here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228443.900-smart-guide-to-2012-neutrinos-may-be-tachyons.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21010-fasterthanlight-neutrinos-new-answers-flood-in.html I personally find the "diffused glass theory" somewhat interesting. However this should all be taken with a grain of salt, seeing as the experiment has not had the chance to undergo the scrutiny of continual replications and study.

This is so interesting. It is a whole new ecosystem to explore. I can only imagine that there are many undiscovered species that may possibly exist in such underground water sources.

So it seems more and more evidence points to Europa having large lakes of liquid water under the surface. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336186/title/Lakes_may_lurk_beneath_chaos_on_Europa Share your thoughts.

I will refer you to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem

I guess I am curious, given the fact that earthquakes, volcanoes, and other seismic events seem very unpredictable and I suppose this is the right place to ask someone knowledge. How much do we really know? How accurately can we hope to predict seismic events? Is it simply the need for more sensors and monitoring equipment, or do we have to break technology barriers?

I live out west in New Mexico, and I knew a buddy from high school who was also always interested in politics. Well he went to school and worked with democratic campaigns as a volunteer during the 2008 election. He then joined the Democratic party at his university and eventually became president of the party at that university. I asked him once how one gets involved at a high level. He said that if you volunteer and help campaigns you can eventually get paid jobs, provided you work hard enough. He also told me most people who win political office hire their advisers and such from their campaign.

Yeah I found that very interesting too, it seems odd that things like this are never investigated by any media whatsoever. And the only ones who seem to touch on it are the crazies who want to "end the fed" and go back to the gold standard.

You might want to read up on the feasibility for such a tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax#Technical_feasibility You might want to read up on the smoot hawley tariff act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act And how exactly do you expect to pay for this. . . If you are going to do this. . . Finally, How high an increase? And to answer the OP. I think we need to increase spending to about 30% of GDP, in specific areas and increase taxes especially the top bracket maybe to 45% and the other tax brackets should possibly go up as well. I believe this recession was worsened by many underlying problems with our country. Education, Health Care, and the lack of jobs beyond that of the service industry. We need to re-invest in science as FutureBeast said but we also need to invest more into education, infrastructure, manufacturing, and energy independence. Now as much as that sounds like a political talking point it is true, yet many people don't like to hear the part above about taxes. Our education system has declined, our government institutions are terribly underfunded, financial regulations are not enforced to the extent needed and our healthcare is certainly not as good as it could be. And yet people wonder why? Well that is what happens when you attempt to care for an aging population while continually cutting taxes and cutting domestic spending. If you want cheap, conservative, small, corporate minded government then you get what you pay for. Great nations did not come about by having small governments that lived within their means. The internet came out of universities and education, the telephone lines, railroads, and highways were not primarily built by independent investors and "small government projects". Hoover Dam, Man on the moon, space exploration, the entire united states military. None of these would be allowed to about under small government or state by state education. Some may argue that such above programs thrive when the economy is let free and not regulated. However, I believe that when the community invests in such programs they are enriched in a way that cannot be quantified into a number, and this enrichment often allows for new technology, new jobs, and new wealth to be had.

Well in this case the public debt would be owed to the treasury bond holders among various other investors who give the United States Loans through purchasing United States securities. I am not quite sure, but I would imagine that it would be a combination of other nations/states, the united states public, the federal reserve and various other wealthy individuals. I actually just looked it up on wikipedia, and this is a chart from there showing ownership of US debt in terms of who owns treasury securities. Out of the 28% of debt that is owned by foreign groups.. . .

You are driving down a road, and there is probably much less than a 99.999999% chance that you are going to get to your destination safely. Yet you assume you are going to get there in x amount of minutes because its x amount of miles away. You don't understand that most of the time, the equations and theories are not just conjured up in the head of a mad scientist then tested for reliability. On the other hand such a technique is how many go about trying to prove religion. Religion predicts some thing and people go and try to find evidence of that. Science on the other hand is based off of observation. The equations and theories are hypothesized through observation then verified by further observation. And, if observation does not match the equations or theories, the equations and theories are changed to match what is observed. Its not a belief in the equations and theories, its tested principle. Not comparable to the way one believes in a God. The equations and theories in a sense gain credibility through observation, God's gain credibility through mandate much of the time. Finally, equation-a statement that the values of two mathematical expressions are equal assumption-a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof belief-something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. theory-a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomen Those are from Dictionary.com as you can see an equation that is part of a theory is not the same as an assumption nor is it like a belief.

If you understood socio-economics you would have not suggested such a thing. Defaulting on the debt does not work that way. If the United States government simply decided to stop paying the interest on the debt, they would stop getting loans, thus the government would have to cut its yearly funding drastically: Military, Welfare programs, Child Healthcare, Government Operations, EPA, etc. The debt is public money not private it would technically be held by any and all taxpayers. So it cannot be just defaulted to the rich. Defaulting doesn't work that way, and public money doesn't work that way. All that said you did mention in the beginning of your post,

It appeared to me that it was not vague at all. The tea party's goal, singular was to disrupt anything done by the federal government under Obama, with some exception to the military and faith-based initiatives. However, that being said there was a vagueness about what the 'Tea Party' was so upset about. Big government? High taxes? Obama is a Nazi? I'm not sure. The OWS protesters actually seem to have many tangible things to be upset about. Bank fees, wealth disparity, the fact that wealthy individuals often don't pay as much in taxes as middle class individuals, corporate-government corruption, and 'for-sale' democracy. But an overlapping goal? It is still hard to discern what the goals of this protest are but I think that the reasons they are upset are not nearly as vague as the Tea Party's. And really? You think that this thread is for whatever you think the message of the protesters should be?

What does anything but the first sentence of the last paragraph have to do with the protesters?

What was Obama's success? Well now you can decide on Foxnews, and one of the options isn't even something that happened when Obama was president. Can you spot it? Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/17/thousand-days-obama-whats-presidents-biggest-accomplishment/#ixzz1b6IP01I4

Okay John, let us take this step by step. . . . Jumping to conclusions about my beliefs. I never stated the above nor was it implied by my comments. Furthermore, why would you exclude someone from giving you advice on government? Simply because you don't like their organizational skills? Furthermore, why should you exclude anyone from giving you advice? That seems like a rather ignorant position that does not correlate with such concepts as: freedom of speech, fair/transparent debate, and democracy. I mean even I watch Fox despite the fact that it is clearly biased. Actually there are tens of thousands of protesters rallying around the OWS movement worldwide. I do understand your point about the committees, but again that only proves that the protesters have many committees. One may go to the extent of saying that such a system is redundant. But it is not wise to make broad, overreaching conclusions based on a very small detail, which this is. False choice. Why are there only two types of people to side with on this issue? Those with an 'level of knowledge' and those who have never had a job. Or is that all there is to you? The irony of this statement is that for years the finance industry and the public took the advice of those who were often considered to be knowledgeable in the field of finance. Do I need to remind you how that turned out? But I suppose your point is that you don't take advice from anyone unless they are knowledgeable in the field. Again very broad point. What level of education is considered knowledgeable? And again it seems really close minded and anti-democratic to simply shut out a group of people out from giving you advice. So slogans you consider part of politics in general are okay and you have no quibble? Again, your point is vague and obviously biased. Then it seems that your are trying to argue that protest leaders using words like democracy and consultation to empower protesters is a bad thing. From my understanding most people go to protests to change policy and vent frustration. I think the examples you are making to marginalize the whole occupy wallstreet movement are really examples you could apply to many different protest groups throughout history. I mean you are making the argument that if leaders of political protests/movements use slogans to make protesters feel empowered, included and special amongst other usually positive emotions that it is and only can be brainwashing. The truth is your post is just a vast generalization of one group of people. Then you compare that group of people (ows protesters) to another group of people you deem brainwashed (environmentalists). And your evidence for brainwashing is that the leaders of the movement chant empowering mottos that make protesters feel special. Finally all of that aside, you just accuse the protesters of being brainwashed and hardly attempt to address what they are protesting. Come on this is a joke. Its not even within the realm of legitimate debate about the OP. Finally the most ridiculous statement from your post is this, Really, you think starting a political party and/or infiltrating an active one is not difficult to do? Many banks committed fraud amongst other things, yet its the protesters who are at fault for not working hard and brainwashing each other by using inclusive slogans. I mean really to what extent are people allowed to spout intellectually dishonest debate on the politics forum. It seems the whole point of your topic doesn't even address the protesters message instead it just attacks a select few of the protesters in an attempt to marginalize them. Furthermore you frame your whole theory off of pure conjecture and one video. And what are you doing? sitting down at your computer complaining how you don't like that the protesters are not getting off their butt. . . Yet they are out protesting. I mean if you applied the above logic to yourself one could say, "Stop being lazy get off your butt and go show the protesters how to protest effectively or stop complaining about it. Another thing, why do approach as if you are from a position of authority on all these issues? You continually imply that you know what successful protesting is, you aren't going to listen to the protesters (as if that invalidates them to anyone else but yourself), the protest leaders use crowd control brainwashing (are you an expert on this subject?).