Take the silver spoons out of their mouths. Give them a 3rd world environment. 3rd world kids never perform poorly academically due to slacking off, why?

Because they want to get out of the shit hole they are living in, and education is seen as a way out,. Although statistics would probably show that ghetto kids slack off also. Make education more fun? The real issue is how to make education more prized, and ignorance shunned. Nothing more then a culture change will produce that. Mabye get anti tobacco campaigners on the job of promoting education, they did a good job of changing peoples attitudes about smoking. Its on the verge of becoming completely outlawed to smoke in public places in Australia.

Its a good idea but if I were American I wouldn't base my vote on a single issue. But I guess I am a hypocrite because I would not vote for McCain because of his stance on the war, he would have to have excellent policy on everything else for me to want to vote for him. The problem with politics is opposing parties are usually obligated to disagree completely with the opposing party, but the opposing party may have policy that is better then the alternative. It would be great if you could take the best policy from all parties rather then haveing to take shit ones with good ones. Also a post said it could cost more then the incentive to develop the technology. Thats not a hole, if you received a reward greater then the cost of development whats stopping the government from funding the development of the technology?

In a world of rising fuel costs, whoever can develop the most economical cars will have a huge advantage in the market, sure not everyone is after an economical car, but lots of people are. The tax credit further sweetens the deal of developing fuel efficient cars. Does the tax incentive persuade car makers to start developing economical cars now, probably not most car makers would have already realized what the market wants. It probably would decrease the duration time of the development of this technology though, as budgeting for this development may become less of an issue if it means paying less tax.

Why is there so much religion topics in these politics threads?

Should there be a religion forum?

Why is there so much religion topics in these politics threads?

Should there be a religion forum?

Well yeah its expensive, but what are you going to do. You can't expect to dig things out of the ground forever, better to try and adapt now rather then going through a crisis. But Americans are wingeing a bit, the rest of the world has it worse off in terms of "gas" prices, especially when 4.56% of the world population (US) consumes 25.9% of world oil consumption (sourced from CIA world fact book). You could always move to an OPEC country or Venezuela if you want cheaper fuel. I heard Iraq fuel is cheap too.

Shale oil and biofuel is a more economically viable option now because of oil price. Eventually oil industry will die, and all the money will stop going to OPEC nations. Well either that or America decides to "spread Democracy" to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the emirates, Russia, and Venezuela. If you want the African oil you will need to compete with China.

When the ballot box comes round. People will have forgotten why they even hated Obama anyways.

Its a shame politically incorrect cartoon are being banned.

Some acceptable American propaganda I was exposed to growing up

Loosely to do with your point that spirituality is universal. Organized religion (Jews, Christians, and Muslims adleast) has nothing to do with spirituality, its actually damaging against spirituality (my definition of spirituality anyway). Its all about structure, control, law, and money. Although these organizations do charitable things, its not their biggest priority, otherwise why should they be against condom use in countries where AIDS is rampart.
This is evident due the fact that early spread of desert god worshiping has came about from force, and even today in some cases (fundamentalist Muslims imposing Islam). This may have been necessary in ancient times because a culture that promotes obedience to all higher power could be seen as a beneficial culture to government, and whats worse then burning forever if you break the law if you break the law of men the worse that they can do is torture you to death.
Since drug use promotes spirituality and paganism, you could see why the head of this organization would see this as a threat, and without a followers then theres no organization, then that person in a very comfortable position of power and affluence may need to get a real job (and "real jobs" we have now are a walk in the park compared to what you had to do just to put food on the table back then). Plus if the government didn't like the population using drugs because of productivity or otherwise it would be a good decision for the organized religion to side with the government in hope of promotion from the government (a state religion makes religious diversity that so much more difficult, and competition make you loose customers).

Bit off topic but relevant in the way why I think organized religion is against drug use.

I think its highly probable that religion came about from drug use (pagan adleast) from there its a tool of politics. Whenever I have smoked large amounts of weed, I've gotten a bit spiritual even though I am an atheist. This isn't because the drugs unlocked another plain of the cosmos or extrasensory perception, its because of sensory alteration, heavy feeling of euphoria, and minor hallucinations.

I'm not so sure about they Stoned Ape hypothesis as to why language was invented, more likely it came about through the need of communication to describe a certain stone tool and how to make it, coordinate the hunt and warfare. But religion yes. Theres many references where tribal cultures used psychoactive drugs in attempt to get closer with the elements, nature, and the perceived gods that control it. (You just need to look up Peyote and history of cocaine for lots of references).

Since the Bible Torah and Koran steals a lot of things off pagan rituals and customs it is hypocritical for them to be against drug use as a lot of their views may have came about from drug use, but hardly any desert god (God of Israel) worshipers acknowledge or even know the history of their holy texts. But politics often influences religion (Pope) whether or not religious choose to believe that.

Well show how much integrity and confidence in their cause. To have to resort on personal attacks on people instead of giving a reasonable argument for what they stand for. I wonder how many PETA members would stay vegans if they were put out in nature away from the comfort of their suburban homes, (note to vegans predators will still kill and eat you in nature, no matter how much you love them or stand up for their "rights" lol).
Animal rights what a joke, I've got no problem with allowing animals to have rights like us as long as they are able to achieve literacy and understand the laws they have to abide by like us, the condition of our rights.

Like most activists their hearts seam to be in the right place but its too bad they don't have a fucking clue. I would rank PETA lower then pro lifers and only slightly higher then those picketing fundermentalists Christians and people that protest their cause at funerals.

There isn't a scientifically accepted origin of AIDS.

Also the butt fucking monkeys reference is a bit stupid, bit of an effort to catch a monkey just to fuck it, plus its assumed AIDS came from chimpanzees and they are quite small animal, enough said. It probably more likely that blood were transfered from some sort of shamanic ritual. We will eventually cure AIDS that is if we actually tackle it rather then working on prolonging erections and curing premature ejaculation. Well that or its a global conspiracy, man made virus that the world doesn't want to cure.

At 5/26/08 03:03 AM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: Dude, it's a joke. I often have non-serious posts in topics of this calibur. It entertains me.

Its hard to tell sometimes, someone needs to develop a forum sarcasm detector.

I had no idea you were a pro American Russian cellardoor. Its generalizations like that, that gets America into so many wars in the first place, if you keep it up your world will become a very paranoid place to live in. The world is not black and white, it has a whole spectrum of colours.

Just curious if I am an American citizen with no felony charges or mental deficiencies (because guns are restricted to these people already I think (OMG fascist government is regulating guns)). Would I be allowed to purchase a M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank or a Intercontinental Ballistic Missile if I had the money, I'm certain the answer would be no (OMG fascist government is reducing our ability to revolt, those unconstitutional bastards). I'm sure pro gun people would be against citizen being able to buy these things so they believe in "arms" regulation. So don't say arms regulation is unconstitutional, I always wonder why arms is specifically defined as guns when the 2nd amendment is referenced.

Certain arms are regulated for the same reason why you don't allow a child to have some petrol and a box of matches and just trust that they will be responsible (bad example I know), you can't allow certain people to own weapons past a certain destructive potential simply for the reason that they should have the choice. Why do you need an M16 with armor piecing bullets to protect your home, when almost every burglar would not be equipped with military grade equipment to steal your crappy $400 t.v mass produced in Asia and sold by Walmart, plus these weapons aren't nearly effective enough when dealing with a modern army (in the fantasy of Armed revolution against the government referenced by some people, they have smart bombs advanced logistics and communication and sophisticated arms (tanks stealth bombers nukes), owning a gun that can fire an extra 300 rounds per minute is going to have little improvement in the case of this hypothetical.

At 5/26/08 01:08 AM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: If they were smart enough to not be gay or black in the first place they wouldn't have gotten it. It's just a form of punishment passed down from god himself.

Heh unlike all the other diseases that can be transmitted heterosexually or through other bodily fluid exchanges.

Anyway if thats the case why do non gays and blacks get AIDS?
And what about malaria? Africans and east Asians are less susceptible to it then Europeans and Americans (the real Americans not what you call your self (assuming your American)). Is that Gods punishment for not being Black or east Asian?

At 5/24/08 03:01 PM, jew193 wrote: well, cmon. shes a woman. do you REALLY expect her to back down?shes stubborn just like all the other ones

lol so true, only this isn't some argument over a non slip frying pan. Bringing up things totally unrelated will not work in an election, or will it? (Americans care too much about scandals rather then their candidates abilities so I'm not so sure)

At 5/25/08 10:14 AM, therealsylvos wrote: I'm pretty sure the people who have a vested intrest in the company, the shareholders, the board et al, know on which side their bread is buttered, and if they think getting the best management and paying a lot of money for it makes economic sense, your going to tell them that they're wrong and they should pey more money to a common laborer who provides nothing particularly valuable or scarce?

Outsourcing could be just as dangerous to the company. Lots of average Joe's don't like the idea that they are buying things from a company that doesn't support their local economy, especially if the company outsources job which they work as. If there should come a company that is patriotic and well known that they don't outsource a lot of average Joe's will choose that company, you can't mass sell things to the rich because they are the minority and thats what manufacturing is all about mass consumption.
Also they don't have an interest in the company they could care less if it runs into the ground as long as they get a good return on their investment.

By the way, everyone is wrong Xenu is master.

I've never seen anyone put so much effort as Mez does into promoting their ignorance.

I can't believe some people are flirting with the idea that they might need to play rambo and thats why they should keep their gun. If war comes to the US homeland it will come in the form of a mushroom cloud, or via biological means. Plus there is the factor of destroying the US military first before the bad guys could bring in the troops, do you really put that little faith in the most expensive army in the world. Anyway what possible motives would a country have to police America, it would be way too expensive for little benefit, your at more risk of annihilation then occupation.

At 5/23/08 02:15 PM, poxpower wrote:
Being a philosophy professor must be the most pointless and unsatisfying job in existence.

Thats a bit harsh, what about toll booth operators or sanitation or parking officers personally I would rank telemarketers the lowest.

At 5/23/08 12:08 AM, psuedoslash wrote:

::
:Let me guess you believe in "DARWINISM" too?

lol Darwinism, you have seen too many creationists videos I think.

:The damn school system is so fucked I'm glad I get to go to my private Christian school. My father doesn't let me go every day though. Sometimes he takes me to work and teaches me the value of the dollar. Something that Some HEATHEN SLACKERS will never quite figure out.

If it makes you feel better knowing the value of a dollar, will somehow compensate for your poor quality of education then believe what you want to.

In Australia we have no idea if he have problems or not. Apart from remote outback ghettos, growing gridlock and increasing strain on public transport in the capitol cities, and drought. The media is too busy giving us the latest update in the American primaries (a sad day when I know more of whats going in in another country then in my own), what type of shoes some celebrity is wearing, and providing us with every piece of information about sport and sport players. Some days they might as well say "Some sports star played poorly (because they were up parting on alcohol and drug binges rather then focusing on their fitness) this is a national disgrace we hope they do better next week, and on the lighter side of news thousands of people have died from some disaster but we wont bore you with the details", depending on who you listen to, (Capitalists) Kevin Rudd is going to destroy the economy, (Trade unionists) Kevin Rudd is too friendly to business and some perceived immigration epidemic, (Religious) The government is too apathetic about poker machines, (Fanatical environmentalists) The government isn't green enough and other environmentalist gibberish, (Farmers and rural communities) the government is going to steal our water, (Everyone else) "Fuck politics. Petrol, and food are too expensive, and don't get me started about alcohol"

Main problem I think is everyones apathy to anything that doesn't effect them directly.

Once the entire world is developed, we will simply replace workers with robots. Legal slaves. Whats better then not paying workers at all.
Its a difficult issue to take sides with. It destroys working class communities increasing unemployment, poverty, possibly crime, and a higher drain on the government due to welfare dependence if they are unable to find a another job quickly. On the other side it provides employment and development in poor nations that could be argued that they need the job more even if they get paid a third of the wage, but I don't buy the "companies do it to save money to stay completive and give us a lower price", I think companies do it because the executives will be able to buy another ivory back scratcher for Christmas, companies sell at what ever price they think we will buy it at only lowering prices when there is fierce competition.

Cheap petrol is a thing of the past. It could be made cheap again if all countries increased production, but it would only make the world oil supply run out, then it will become more expensive soon enough anyway. We need to stop planning things in the short term leaving our grandchildren and great grandchildren to bear the repercussions. We will need to reconstruct the way we deal with moving between two points, lots of people will not like this but its really tough shit. Plus it hasn't helped that a quick profit has been as an argument to stagnate development of technology, I heard some story not sure if its true but some guy in the 50s claimed to have invented an engine that ran off water, but was put out of business because governments added fluoride to tap water which made the engine non functional, making it nonviable alternative to petrol.
If Thomas Edison invented electric light today, Dan Rather would report it on CBS News as "candle making industry threatened. Newt Gingrich

Its either that or we build a global dodgem car track to get around cheaply.

LOL. They won't like it if you point out ironies in they patriotism.

Silly me, I should have looked at the administration chart before posting. It does look like a much better system than capitalism and communism. All this time the capitalists wanted everyone to think its either their system or communism. I would vote for a technocracy, but it would have to be very gradual transition over 100s of years due to the mass unemployment and insecurity that would be caused over an instantaneous changeover of these systems.

Yeah it would be a good system. Only problem is you would have to mass exterminate all the prople that weren't involved in the essentials of society. You can't support such a high population when everything is focused on zero growth. That mean no more appliance revolution which appeared as a guard against another great depression happening. You would have farmers and food workers(although this could be replaced by machines), scientists, and minimum amount of manufacturing for essential equipment (although this could be replaced my machines also) and essential industries like power generation, infrastructure etc. Three classes of society (possibly one only human), not based on income but employment. Basically an advanced castle system. But who knows maybe someday we have have 3-5 billion scientists, it would speed up our knowledge and development thats for sure.

I would like to be able to live for more than 122 years (highest age ever achieved, if you don't believe in fairy tales), but I sure as hell don't want to live forever.

Because no matter what you beliefs system is. When people aren't ready to die yet, they would torture a Jew to death while screaming "hail Hitler" or "Allah Akbar", if they genuinely thought it would give them some longevity. Basically eternal life is such a flawed idea I have no idea why anyone finds it appealing. Maybe they don't understand the concept of eternity. Even if you could live it in paradise. Sure it would be a blast for maybe the first 10000 years, but what do you do then, after the first 1000000 years, then the first 1000000000 years, an eternity later, then the next eternity after that. You would want it to end so bad, but you can't your torture is to liver forever. Maybe Lucifer got so bored he defied god just in the hope of getting killed. Our mortality is the envy of God/s, and they wouldn't subject us to the same kind of treatment they have to go through. Why the hell would god make famines and floods etc, its not to test us it because they get bored playing Sim Earth.