gvg

But think about it, who has more money? Oil/Logging/etc. or conservationalist institutions? Especially noting that most of those types of organizations are not for profti. Where would they get the money? Right now most are funded by gov. Oh, and your theoretical research question: Most people didn't (and still don't think) stem cell research is worth it. Or Alternative energy. They used to think medical research was against god. Some still do. etc etc Doesn't mean they're right. but according to you, if no one wants to pay, that makes it the right thing to do. Recently theoretical phycisists were able to collect anti-hydrogen particles for 16 minutes (a new record). Do you realize what could be accomplished if this thing was developed? But by your logic, if nobody cares about it, we'll let it die. just like medical research. And alternative energy research. The general public is uneducated. Many think anything scientific is unevil, and most of them (like the Koch brothers) are very rich, so ther goes that. Prayer would end up being the answer. I hope i made sense. i am so tired right now cause of my finals ALL AROUND ME. but you get what i mean right?

People still want to drill for oil in Alaska. You put too much trust in businessmen. They would easily cut it all down, use the hor water for stuff, dig it up to find natural resources, and then resell it to someone who would develop it into, say, a shopping mall. (for instance, http://www1.american.edu/ted/alaska.htm) I love the optimism, but reality says otherwise.

Private Sector accountability! That is the funniest thing I've read today. Seriously? Let's begin a list: -wall street -insurance companies -places like Walmart and Nike that use foregin slave labor and pay their employess less than living wage (especially walmart, which doesn't allow unions even) i could keep going, but you get the point. These are things the gov. has done nothiong about, so it's easy to see what will happen woithout one at all. Companies care not about accountability, but profit. Oil companies in NY are currently trying to make it legal to frack, which destroys land, pollutes it heavily, and harms humans. They are only stopped by gov. enforced laws. To the private sector, the ends justify the means. Social darwinism runs amock. Com one, man. The private sector invented these things. Accountability my a**. You'd see more outsourcing, more slave labor, more pollution, more abuse. There would be no end. It's horrifying to imagine. I would much prefer to trust the president, say, or a politician than a CEO of any major company or cartel (like that of Wall Street) with my life. I kid you not. i would never trust those slimy, scaly, disgusting, horrible excuse for humans like those on Wall Street.

But think- if there is no gov., and no one wants to pay the debt, who will pay the debt? it won't matter how our economy is- when no one pays the debt, they'll get us. Think about it. At least now we are actively paying off the minimum of the interest payments each year. Could you imagine if we stop? (which is what would happen without a gov., after all who would WANT to pay otherwise?) So yes, WITH a gov., what you say has merit. (I still disagree- after all, the british controlled us and we bought only their goods really- China could do the same. But that's besides the point). But I am reffering to what would happen in UtF's gov. free world. No one would pay, thus why would that go 'unpunished' by China? But that was just an example anyway. I just mean in general a militaary prevents us from being screwed. In a world without our military, all it takes is something like WW2 Japan (who was able to take over China after all) to come along (if N. Korea gets their act together, they are a viable option. Easily.) to develop and we're done. You think the soviets wouldn't have gone and expanded to include us in their communist empire? (Like they did with Poland) I'm giving specific examples here, but you know what I mean: We need a military. It is a large reason (or at least was) a major reason for us getting to where we are. Again, i don't like war, and I wish it wasn't needed. But even the swiss, the definition of nuetrality, have a decent military and force their citizens into service. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland Yes i know it's wikipedia) Do I want that? No. But the military is necessary. We wouldn't exist at this point without it.

They chose to fight for their country. They have no choice as to where they go to fight. i blame the politicians behind such wars as Iraq, i blame the system. Those at such hideous things as Abu-Gharib, as well as such politicians as George Bush (who promoted the use of torture, which is against international law) should be arrested on war crimes. But remember, it is the war itself that kills innocent people, not US soldiers (almost all of the time of the time), and certaintly not on purpose. Do I like war? Hell no. I find it to be a hideous, disgusting practice- yet in our world it is necessary. Think WW2, think revolutionary war. These things are important. And no, we do not need 700 billion- we definitely need to cut out some waste and unnecessary items. But we need a military. My fears are not superstitious. just look at what happened with Europe. Hitler (equivalet to some of the crazies still out there, and i have no doubt China would do the same if we didn't pay up and they had the chance, as would appear in your society since the military would be a joke without everybody paying) used the fact that he had supreme military might to go and take over Europe. We saved them because we were stronger. And Japan attacked us! We weren't taken seriously until Japan attacked us and we kicked some a**. Who has attacked us since then? (Besides terrorists I mean). We need a military, and a strong and large one, for defense. Using it as it was used during the cold war and in the years following was an abuse of our military might, but it is needed. Otherwise, we are vulnerable.

Isn't that satire? And whatever works for you is fine with me.

OK... in response to your attack on the military... Yes, there are a few bad apples always (Abu Garib, for instance); I get it, and it's a good point. But these people give their lives in an effort to help their country. They di it when we were attacked by the Japanese in WW2, they fight terrorists abroad. And yet you call them murderers? Really? Don't you realize that having the strongest military in the owrld is what prevents us from being in more wars? China would have already taken us over to 'repay' our debt to them if we didn't, because i doubt that Europe (our allies in Europe obviously) would be able to help us in that situation (not for nothing, but we had to help them in WW1 and WW2 so that they weren't taken over). And yet they are murderers? No, they aren't. The murderers in the system appear when higher-ups allow it to be so, and you know what? That has more to do with the generals then the soldiers themselves. But it isn't the whole military; it is only those who know that their actions will go unnoticed and unpunished due to their anonymity. But this is simply something that has to be rooted out, and those responsible brought to justice (as they often are when they're discovered). But calling the entire military murderers? That shocks me. Horrifies me actually. With no military, china would invade very soon, as i said, to pay back our debts (hell, the soviets would have taken care of us a while ago). We would be defenseless, and wouldn't last that long. Just look at the great societies of mesoamerica, or the Iriquois confederacy. Their militaries weren't strong enough. And no, I don't condone what the colonizers did, but I'm showing you an exampke. militaries are essential.

I dunno if we're going to do satire. Hmmmm..... Well, write it anyway. Couldn't hurt if we added it on =) Or (just a suggestion) we'll see if you can be on when we do it, and you do it over the interenet? But yeah, write it. Definitely. My dad would be great to do that sort of thing =)

Yes UtF, that is what you said. You're mad about being forced into a 'social contract' because you are born here through no fault of your own, yet you are OK with the statement above? THAT is hypocritical. At least your social contract can lead to your well being and not condemn you to being poor like what happened to the surfs in feudalism.

Thanks guys! And Peace, don't worry, it's not that random =)

For anyone who wishes to subscribe, my brand new youtube account is thecommonersview And my blog on blogspot is thecommonersviewtherealamerica.blogspot.com Thanks everyone, i can't wait till this gets off the ground =)

Just one thing.... Hmmm..... pay alittle every once in a while, like, I dunno, once a year.... don't care where else the money goes, as long as you get what you need when the time comes.... Public Health Care system. It's exactly as you described. And not for nothing, but it seems like yu don't care where else the money goes. So why do you care if you end up paying part of the Afghanistan War? Or for a school in Alaska? Or whatever? Taxes do what you said: You pay a little once a year, you get what you want, and you say you don't care if it goes for a fingernail operation, so why should it matter where your taxes go? And lookie here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml They aren't even completely mandatory (although in my view, the thing this shows has to be fixed, but that's beside the point)if over 40% of the people don't pay them. So... WTF? I know you'll say I'm not understanding you, but you seem to have contradicted yourself.

Obviously, I understand this. I don't think i said that I would support it's illegality. Just because i don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. The point here is choice: are you for the choice of an already living human or do you support a mass of cells? That's what the fetus is, no matter what it will become eventually. No one seems to care that a chicken egg would turn into a chicken. But it currently is not. The human wins out over the will eventually possibly be human. It is a cell. That's all. And oviously, your skin cells are pretty special, because I believe i read somewhere that they used stem cells from the skin or something like that to grow other stuff. It could be a new human, but it is assigned the job of keeping THIS human alive. But it is already living. That's the difference. Choice> organ, no matter what it may eventually be. That's what this issue is about.

I don't have time to reply to all of your comment, but I did notice this: And this is where I cal BS. EVer since the 70's wealth in America has moved upward due to the lack of gov. preventing it from doing so. We have the largest rich-poor gap in the industrialzed world, but we also have the most billionaires. 400 people own 155 million people's worth of wealth. I see no charity. People are greedy. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are (off the top of my head) the only two rich (and i mean billionaire/multi-millionaire rich) guys who are full on kick a** philanthropists. And i respect them for that. But most are not. Oil merchants don't give. Wall Street doesn't give. The insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies. None of them give a damn about us. Corporate America is all about profit; that's why it was them who came up with social darwinism. You are too trusting of the charitability of people. Hell, the only real reason most people are charitable (i am still referring to the well-well-off here) is BECAUSE it gives them tax cuts. Some are doing it because it's the right thing to do. most aren't. Also, many private charity funds are not properly managed, especially if they also deal with international stuff. So, my three biggest issues that i most want to discuss: 1. People are jerks 2. Unfettered free-market is unsustainable/monopolies 3. It will lead to a feudal system, which I will admit is a hell of a lot worse. Your system puts two much trust itnoo private industries. i mean seriously, competting weapons manufacturers? I see military coup in the making. Those are my three, and I'm sure more will come up. Oh, and apology accepted =)

Aaryan: Actually, i haven't made one yet. We are still planning, and will probably start in the summer. Peace: Video would be good. Text will work too, on this thread or on the actual video.

AAryan: No, I don't care. We'll probably do a segment involving online comments and what not, so I was going to ask for this stuff anyway. Just for the hell of it: Agree: 4 (and i'd expand it to most drugs. What you do in private is your business), probably 7 (they are quite suspicious), and absolutely 8 Not so sure about 3... we might need a little of both, maybe a gov. baseline of 30-35 or something and let them go from there... Disagree: 1, 2, 5, 6 (I say give em working papers. They can stay here, they get taxed, and they are under minimum wage laws) When i start posting videos, I'll tell Brainden a couple of topics we'll deal with on each successive video.... you guys give your opinions, we select a few comments and include it in our show.

I opposed number 2 in my school debate class and won =) I'll look at the news later. Thanks people =)

Please do, anything helps. =)

I think what needs to be remembered is that the fetus is not a human being yet, nor is it scientifically alive until around 6 months. All it is is another organ, except it's an organ that gives nothing back to the body (yes, it will be a human eventually, but we must remember that it isn't until six month.) So, let's just see where everyone stands: 1. Would it be OK with you if it was a threat to the mother's life? 2. If it was rape? 3. If it was already dead? (I only put this here because there are some nutjobs who want to force the mother to go through with the miscarriage). All three are yes for me, and I'm sure that at least the first will get a resounding yes from most people. So now we move on to the rest of the abortions. I personally, as i think I said before, hate abortions. I don't like it. I would much prefer to allow the child to be born and have it be adopted (if it wasn't one of the three above cases). But this issue (most of the time) is not pro- or anti- abortion. It's pro- or anti- choice (pro-life is a disguised version of anti-choice). And since the fetus is not a human until later on (I'm against late-term abortions except in extreme cases), and is really only a parasite that isn't even fully alive by scientific standards, then I think we should let the mother exercise her right of choice over her body. If she wanted to remove her tonsils, would you care? What if she wished to remove a tumor? Or a parasite? For me the answer is no. Thus, until it becomes human, I have no problem with it. Some say not until it can suffer, which is a little earlier than when it become human. This is fine too. But let's be honest with ourselves: Life does not begin at conception. That zygote is not anything more than a human cell, and if you wish not to kill that, well, I hope you've never rubbed or scratched or touched your skin. I hope you haven't bitten your tongue, or rubbed your eye. And i hope you haven't had any periods (for women obviously); as Carlin points out, most fertilized eggs don't ever attach, and are released from the body "during those delightful few days she has" . So unless anyone would like to actually counter this point, I return to my original thought line: It's not human until later, it can't suffer until later. It's nothing more than a tonsil or a parasite. So, yeah, that's why i'm pro-choice (which does not, as some conservatives and pro-lifers claim, mean I am pro-abortion).

I LOVE those shows =) i dunno if we'll do satire, but what the hell, tell me anyway. We can always change our plans.

UtF: I think Dawh covered what I mostly wanted to say, but i will add on. First, PRIVATE INSURANCE IS A LEECH. They can ban you if you're born diseased, they can deny for the smallest things. They are HORRID. They basically condemn people to the type of 'violence' you seem to want away. As Dawh said, we are seen as a good or bad society based on how we treat the lowest among us. Your system beneifts the rich and powerful. Unregulated free markets are great for the rich and the mighty. But not for the rest of us. he US economy was held hostgage and destroyed by the non-regulation of wall street. 50 million individuals lack health care, including those disabled athletes talked about in the 'rubbish' video (how is it rubbish by the way? because it doesn't agree with you?) and the crowds of people lined up in the US to get help from a third world organization. You condemn those who need help to never get it, preventing their offspring from getting it, and theirs, etc. Great example: Western Europe during the Middle Ages. Yes, there was still a gov. But already with the extremely libertarian government that there was, you were born in the position you died. And so were your children. And theirs. Getting rid of gov. completley doesn't end these problems, it augments them. Economic ostra whatever as a punishment only harms the worse off. A wealthy man, even with a family, or even someone who lives alone and makes an upper middle class wage,, will look at this system and laughed. They've won, basically. The wealthy man who was convicted of murder will simply leave, and his family will move with him to a different area. The man who's alone will do the same. But the father of the poor family who is economically ostracized because he stole some food to help his family will watch in horror as his family dies slowly due to the lack of a support system that would help them if a government exists. The small business owner will watch as his life's work comes crumbling down because he can't compete with the growing company next to him, who, as corporations do today, will have a lawyer that knows how to get around a contract that would have prevented the growth of a monopoly. Not everyone is a contract lawyer. You forget this, you underestimate human nature, you show a blind eye to the powers of corporations in unregulated areas. You dismiss the demise from withing of unregulated free markets, you are the anti-robin hood (leaving the poor to die as the rich grow wealthier). And you know what? Quite frankly, I'm tired of you insulting dissenters. The point of this forum is to discuss. People are going to disagree. Nobody here thinks taxes are violence, or slavery, or whatever (as Dawh said). You dismiss any evidence, like my video, as rubbish or claim that it couldn't happen due to X, Y, and Z (which wouldn't work). You are getting to be annoying and insulting, and if you do not wish to debate with me anymore, fine, I'm done too. I will simply watch, and attempt to support the other when i can, but as you are through with me, i am through with you. I am through with your ad hominem arguments, your dismissal of everything else. I am done.

He ceraintly would. He certaintly would =)

Just to talk anout Obama's plan: It didn't do enough. He had a chance, with a supermajority in the house, to do basically whatever the f*** he wanted. Of course, he didn't know that the democrats are about as unified as the NY Mets, while the Republicans, even in the minority, worked together. It was better than nothing, yes, but it had a lot of watered down bulls*** thanks to some laws that at least need to be limited. I would go more towards a single-payer system, like Bernie Sanders Medicare for all plan that was passed into law in Vermont yesterday. (see here: http://www.vermontforsinglepayer.org/vermontpassessinglepayerhealthcareworlddoesntend) It's a European style system. Because of some federal laws, it won't go into effect until 2017 (they are trying to get it reduced to 2014), but when it does, every single citizen of Vermont will have healthcare as a right (as it should be). If this were implemented nationwide, it would reduce costs; after all, in Europe, where many are under this type of system, they pay half as much as the US does under our current fully privatized system (mostly because it's so damn expensive, people don't buy any, and when the problem augments, EVERYBODY feels the pain. See Bernie Sanders' interview on Real Time with Bill Maher (it's on youtube) where he kinda explains it. And yes, if you haven't noticed, I love Bernie Sanders, and would pay to have him be one of the NY senators (not the state one of course, the Federal one)). Yes UtF: The private system costs people twice as much =) Free Market lost one there. Anyway, enough of my rant. If I was old enough to vote when Obama reruns, I wouldn't want vote for him. I would try and get Bernie as a write-in, though I know that would do nothing. WHich is why I would, in the end, have to vote for Obama. I shudder to think of any of the Republican candidates in office in 2012. Oh, here's the video: