Top Government Insider: Bin Laden Died In 2001, 9/11 A False Flag

[AE14]

What is so funny is that all these Ron Paul supporters actually think he could or would stop this. A Paul presidency will do little to nothing to change where we are and what is bound to happen. His followers are starting to become Jonestownesque with regards to how he will save us from going to war with Iran.

What is neglected is how shortsighted his foreign policy is, specifically when dealing with Israel and Iran.

 

[ax1]

What is so funny is that all these Ron Paul supporters actually think he could or would stop this. A Paul presidency will do little to nothing to change where we are and what is bound to happen. His followers are starting to become Jonestownesque with regards to how he will save us from going to war with Iran.

What is neglected is how shortsighted his foreign policy is, specifically when dealing with Israel and Iran.

I dont think your speaking of all Ron Paul supporters. Im fully aware his presidency not being a quick fix, but what the concern here is taking steps in the right direction and supporting the ideas we believe in even if it comes down to failure. We already won because we planted the ideas and message to a large population of youth, and the youth is our next potential future leaders/support.

I couldnt agree any more with Ron Paul's foreign policies, the current protocol has been nothing but a global disaster, still is a global disaster and quickly becoming further a global/domestic disaster.

 

[AE14]

I dont think your speaking of all Ron Paul supporters. Im fully aware his presidency not being a quick fix, but what the concern here is taking steps in the right direction and supporting the ideas we believe in even if it comes down to failure. We already won because we planted the ideas and message to a large population of youth, and the youth is our next potential future leaders/support.

I couldnt agree any more with Ron Paul's foreign policies, the current protocol has been nothing but a global disaster, still is a global disaster and quickly becoming further a global/domestic disaster.

agreed, i most certainly was not trying to generalize. However, there are some that treat this guy like he is a savior and he is not. His presidency would be 4 years of nothing

 

[ax1]

agreed, i most certainly was not trying to generalize. However, there are some that treat this guy like he is a savior and he is not. His presidency would be 4 years of nothing

I agree with you 100% on the first part, but not the second part. There are people who become fanatics, this is something that was seen with Obama 4 years ago they turned him into some kind of hippie pot smoking Bob Marley like he was going to....never-mind you see where Im getting at. But yes people need to calm down with pre-determined conclusions.

No political leaders should be treated as a savior, but rather as someone who is going to do the job.

The second part cant really be answered by neither of us. Im just concerned with the election and whether or not I still want to vote for someone labeled a Republican or not.

 

[Kristofer68SS]

labels shmables there all the same in my book.

 

[ax1]

TITLE 50—WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 32—CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM

Invalid Link Removed > Invalid Link Removed > § 1520a
Invalid Link Removed | Invalid Link Removed

§ 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents

Invalid Link Removed

(a) Prohibited activities The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) Exceptions Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

(c) Informed consent required The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

(d) Prior notice to Congress Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.

(e) “Biological agent” defined In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[carpee]

I'm looking into reading How Do You Kill 11 million people: Why the Truth Matters more than You Think.

it doesn't seem like its political or even have an agenda. just examines the misdirection it takes to do these kinds of things

 

[EasyEJL]

What is so funny is that all these Ron Paul supporters actually think he could or would stop this. A Paul presidency will do little to nothing to change where we are and what is bound to happen. His followers are starting to become Jonestownesque with regards to how he will save us from going to war with Iran.

What is neglected is how shortsighted his foreign policy is, specifically when dealing with Israel and Iran.

What makes it short sighted? Do you really believe Iran is pursuing nukes to use them? I don't. Even if they did, Israel has plenty of their own. Our constitution calls for protecting OUR country, not anyone else.

 

[EasyEJL]

what other country do we support besides israel that has such a terrible record? Israel's supreme court equivalent just last week or so upheld the law prohibiting an israeli from marrying a palestinian. And israel has held territory taken during war, and won't negotiate in good faith to return the land. What other country would we tolerate this from?

Its just like how liberals excuse any behavior from minorities that would be intolerable from the majority. "You can't blame them, they've had such a hard time and been mistreated so long"....

 

[ax1]

Debate Audience Protests CNN Attempts To Exclude Ron Paul

Crowd boos and jeers, demands Paul be allowed to answer

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
January 20, 2012

A remarkable scene unfolded during last night’s CNN hosted South Carolina debate when not once but twice, the audience had to intervene to ensure that Ron Paul be included in questions, as host John King attempted to skip over the Congressman following answers from the other three candidates.

Even more remarkable was the fact that both times the questions were related to medical issues and Ron Paul is the only qualified doctor among all the candidates.

Between the sideshow of Newt Gingrich’s infidelity and yet more mudslinging and circus like back and forths between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, Ron Paul did his best to speak on real issues such as cutting foreign military spending, protecting the borders and the need to reform the government-run health care system.

However, when it came to two key questions it was left to the audience to remind the CNN anchors that Ron Paul was up on the stage and that voters wanted to hear him speak.

The first instance occurred when King somewhat reluctantly threw Ron Paul the question “would you repeal Obamacare?” following answers from the rest of the field.

To wild ironic cheering and whooping from the audience acknowledging that Ron Paul had finally been included in the question, the Congressman exclaimed “PHEW, I thought maybe you were prejudiced against doctors and the doctor that practiced medicine in the military or something!”

Watch the footage:
[video=youtube;JBYtIHXXEDw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBYtIHXXEDw&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

The second instance of CNN completely ignoring Paul occurred when King attempted to switch subjects from the issue of abortion without asking for Ron Paul’s thoughts.

“All right, let’s take another question,” King said after hearing from the other three candidates only. “Let’s take a question now from social media…”

Only when the audience began to boo and jeer, asking for Ron Paul to be afforded the opportunity to answer, did King allow the Congressman to speak.

“…before we move on, you want in on this issue?” King said to Paul, “They want you in on this issue…” King added, addressing the audience.

“John, once again, it’s a medical subject. I’m a doctor,” Paul protested, drawing cheers from the crowd before giving his thoughts.

Watch the footage:
[video=youtube;5tMYnU4gUeo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tMYnU4gUeo&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

The blatant attempt by King and CNN to bypass Ron Paul, represents yet another example of the mainstream media downplaying and sidelining the only real anti-establishment candidate.

With Rick Perry having dropped out earlier in the day, there were just four candidates left on stage, yet Ron Paul was STILL afforded significantly less speaking time than his GOP *****s.

However, Paul still gave a strong performance, topping all the post debate analysis polling.

Following the debate, Congressman Paul sent an email to his supporters regarding his debate showing.

“My debate performance tonight is already turning heads.” Paul wrote. “What the crowd saw tonight was my opponents savaging each other over and over in a desperate attempt to defend their Big Government records. Me? I wasn’t touched once. Because quite frankly, I can’t be. I’ve spent 30 years fighting against establishment politicians – like my opponents – to finally put an END to politics as usual.”

 

[AE14]

What makes it short sighted? Do you really believe Iran is pursuing nukes to use them? I don't. Even if they did, Israel has plenty of their own. Our constitution calls for protecting OUR country, not anyone else.

Its very naive. To be a quasi-isolationist in the 21st century is not only short sighted, it is dangerous. The world no longer exists as one nation and another nation, it is a global society that, for right or wrong, we have taken a strong leadership role in. We need someone (none of these tools qualifies and neither does O) who sees foreign policy for what it is, and our friends and enemies for what they are.

 

[EasyEJL]

Its very naive. To be a quasi-isolationist in the 21st century is not only short sighted, it is dangerous. The world no longer exists as one nation and another nation, it is a global society that, for right or wrong, we have taken a strong leadership role in. We need someone (none of these tools qualifies and neither does O) who sees foreign policy for what it is, and our friends and enemies for what they are.

Ok, still its niave how? And how is it shortsighted or dangerous? You are puffing off the same mainstream media adjectives without any nouns

How does (particularly given that we are in a global society) having bases scattered everywhere help? We are never going to have a large scale land attack again. We don't need huge staging facilities because we aren't fighting conventional war, and never will need to again. Note I say never will NEED to, but profiteers in our government may end up with us in one. All our ground presence does in other countries is irritate some of them, and make profits for the chinese since we have to borrow money from them to keep those bases open.

You can't expect me to believe that from a constitutional standpoint those bases are legitimately a part of "protecting our borders" when we are invaded by illegal aliens at the rate of something over 500,000 a year and do nothing.

 

[AE14]

Ok, still its niave how? And how is it shortsighted or dangerous? You are puffing off the same mainstream media adjectives without any nouns

How does (particularly given that we are in a global society) having bases scattered everywhere help? We are never going to have a large scale land attack again. We don't need huge staging facilities because we aren't fighting conventional war, and never will need to again. Note I say never will NEED to, but profiteers in our government may end up with us in one. All our ground presence does in other countries is irritate some of them, and make profits for the chinese since we have to borrow money from them to keep those bases open.

You can't expect me to believe that from a constitutional standpoint those bases are legitimately a part of "protecting our borders" when we are invaded by illegal aliens at the rate of something over 500,000 a year and do nothing.

How does it e? Access and proximity.

Your other point is arguing something entirely different.

You are sounding more and more like the paulfanatics with the msm comments.

 

[EasyEJL]

How does it e? Access and proximity.

Your other point is arguing something entirely different.

You are sounding more and more like the paulfanatics with the msm comments.

Access and proximity for what reason? Does that access and proximity keep us any safer? I don't see any case that it does. Again, no more conventional warfare is going to happen. We don't need huge warehouses and vast storage scattered everywhere "just in case". They can't even quite count the total of bases, its always just an estimate, somwhere around 1000 bases in 130 countries. How important are these bases if we aren't even sure how many there are? Those same resources could be used here in the US to ACTUALLY secure our borders instead.

going back 200 years we've actually been attacked here in the US twice. Even looking at our last few wars (between WWI and now) that access and proximity has been of almost no real use. We've got something on the order of hundreds if not over 1000 bases scattered across 139 countries.

Removing a significant majority fraction of that military presence, and stopping borrowing money from china to send as aid back to china (and others) would have 0 impact on the safety of US borders and would not be isolationism. Isolationism would be dropping diplomatic ties, stopping legal immigration, raising import duties, etc.

 

[AE14]

Access and proximity for what reason? Does that access and proximity keep us any safer? I don't see any case that it does. Again, no more conventional warfare is going to happen. We don't need huge warehouses and vast storage scattered everywhere "just in case". They can't even quite count the total of bases, its always just an estimate, somwhere around 1000 bases in 130 countries. How important are these bases if we aren't even sure how many there are? Those same resources could be used here in the US to ACTUALLY secure our borders instead.

going back 200 years we've actually been attacked here in the US twice. Even looking at our last few wars (between WWI and now) that access and proximity has been of almost no real use. We've got something on the order of hundreds if not over 1000 bases scattered across 139 countries.

Removing a significant majority fraction of that military presence, and stopping borrowing money from china to send as aid back to china (and others) would have 0 impact on the safety of US borders and would not be isolationism. Isolationism would be dropping diplomatic ties, stopping legal immigration, raising import duties, etc.

I have no problem limiting some of the bases, but keeping a presence is important for the "just in case". We are a global superpower in an interdependent global community.

If we do limit some, then we can focus more on domestic issues (which we should)

Also, please remember that Dr. Paul is the same guy that 4.5 years ago denounced evolution. Claiming he doesn't believe it. Wrong guy to lead in the 21st century. He will never get my vote

 

[ax1]

I have no problem limiting some of the bases, but keeping a presence is important for the "just in case". We are a global superpower in an interdependent global community.

If we do limit some, then we can focus more on domestic issues (which we should)

Also, please remember that Dr. Paul is the same guy that 4.5 years ago denounced evolution. Claiming he doesn't believe it. Wrong guy to lead in the 21st century. He will never get my vote

We are a global superpower...right now, but how we planning to keep paying for it?

The issue with evolution he states that there is no conclusive scientific evidence, which is true. Its really just a theory (in regards to Darwin's theory for starters). Anyways I really dont mind Christians, its just the ones that manipulate religious for political pull that bother me such as Perry. Ron Paul believes in personal freedom to believe what you wanna believe and his persistence in government staying out of peoples lives and beliefs is attractive.

 

[wontstop985]

evolution... Its really just a theory.

Just like gravity -- ​I wonder if he doesn't believe in that too!



(For the record, I don't think his lack of scientific understanding would affect his policies since isn't a "shove my ridiculous views down your throat" type of politician.)

 

[ax1]

Just like gravity -- ​I wonder if he doesn't believe in that too!



(For the record, I don't think his lack of scientific understanding would affect his policies since isn't a "shove my ridiculous views down your throat" type of politician.)

Normally people refer to Darwin's theory of evolution, which is just a theory which is what I meant to refer to in my comment. Evolution is scientifically proven, but where people are stuck at are its origins which there is no conclusive scientific evidence just theories and some people such as Dr. Paul think its god which doesn't bother me if he believes that. With science nothing should ever be concluded anyways and skepticism has to be a part of science....so where Im getting at is there never will be a conclusive answer (hope that didnt make my comment even more confusing, lol)

 

[AE14]

Normally people refer to Darwin's theory of evolution, which is just a theory which is what I meant to refer to in my comment. Evolution is scientifically proven, but where people are stuck at are its origins which there is no conclusive scientific evidence just theories and some people such as Dr. Paul think its god which doesn't bother me if he believes that. With science nothing should ever be concluded anyways and skepticism has to be a part of science....so where Im getting at is there never will be a conclusive answer (hope that didnt make my comment even more confusing, lol)

I understand where you are coming from, but Paul disputes it outright in a 2007 speech. That is just odd for an intelligent guy,who has spent a great deal of his life in a field related (sciences). I have my other personal issues with Paul and his policies. Even if he won, which he won't, his presidency would be a failure.

 

[ax1]

I understand where you are coming from, but Paul disputes it outright in a 2007 speech. That is just odd for an intelligent guy,who has spent a great deal of his life in a field related (sciences). I have my other personal issues with Paul and his policies. Even if he won, which he won't, his presidency would be a failure.

I study a little world religions and psychology in college (and free time), its just something people cling too, whether they are right or wrong its their right to do so and its non of my business to change their minds although discussions are cool.

I can imagine many possibilities how Ron Paul's presidency would be a failure, but as far as Im concerned most of them already have been a failure and its one bloody corporate dictator after another (No saying Ron Paul will go down that way) so he can join the club, lol

 

[wontstop985]

Normally people refer to Darwin's theory of evolution, which is just a theory which is what I meant to refer to in my comment. Evolution is scientifically proven, but where people are stuck at are its origins which there is no conclusive scientific evidence just theories and some people such as Dr. Paul think its god which doesn't bother me if he believes that. With science nothing should ever be concluded anyways and skepticism has to be a part of science....so where Im getting at is there never will be a conclusive answer (hope that didnt make my comment even more confusing, lol)

Evolution cannot be rigorously proven in the same sense that gravity can't be proven. In fact, the theory of general relativity may be wrong (remember that Newton was wrong before Einstein), and our understanding of gravity may be incorrect or incomplete, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous to "not believe" in gravity (or evolution).

What I'm saying is: you can believe that our current model of evolution is not complete or fully correct, but to reject it outright is completely outlandish.

I don't really see how it matters much in the context of his campaign, though.

 

[ax1]

Evolution cannot be rigorously proven in the same sense that gravity can't be proven. In fact, the theory of general relativity may be wrong (remember that Newton was wrong before Einstein), and our understanding of gravity may be incorrect or incomplete, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous to "not believe" in gravity (or evolution).

What I'm saying is: you can believe that our current model of evolution is not complete or fully correct, but to reject it outright is completely outlandish.

I don't really see how it matters much in the context of his campaign, though.

This is an example on how people pick Ron Paul's quotes apart and focus on only parts of statements.

"I just dont think we are at the point where anyone has absolute truth on either side"

[video=youtube;6JyvkjSKMLw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw&feature=pl ayer_embedded[/video]

It sounds like he is a bit more open minded that what some may lead to believe. He is arguing his case of the "unkown" of where our origins came from. He of course believes in the creator...someone like me just believes in the infinite continuity of life (evolution, with no original creator) but I dont really know anything for sure how things happened way back when and science can never concretely prove origins but rather come up with theories of the origins. Dr. Paul isnt accepting the Theory of evolution but he is finishing his statement with acknowledgment that perhaps nobody really knows.

He, unlike many politicians states in his comments that its an irrelevant for a presidential candidate's to be decided on this scientific matter which is true imo. I dont feel that his belief's in a scientific area effect his reasoning for his political decisions, nor do I feel his religious beliefs influence his policy making (outside of perhaps it influencing basic ethics.)

 

[wontstop985]

This is an example on how people pick Ron Paul's quotes apart and focus on only parts of statements.

"I just dont think we are at the point where anyone has absolute truth on either side"


It sounds like he is a bit more open minded that what some may lead to believe. He is arguing his case of the "unkown" of where our origins came from. He of course believes in the creator...someone like me just believes in the infinite continuity of life (evolution, with no original creator) but I dont really know anything for sure how things happened way back when and science can never concretely prove origins but rather come up with theories of the origins. Dr. Paul isnt accepting the Theory of evolution but he is finishing his statement with acknowledgment that perhaps nobody really knows.

He, unlike many politicians states in his comments that its an irrelevant for a presidential candidate's to be decided on this scientific matter which is true imo. I dont feel that his belief's in a scientific area effect his reasoning for his political decisions, nor do I feel his religious beliefs influence his policy making (outside of perhaps it influencing basic ethics.)

He said that there is "no absolute truth [proof?] on either side" of the evolution argument. There is also no absolute proof that you physically exist, that the earth exists, or that you are an independent entity. This type of argument is completely nonsensical in any practical way.

Proving anything absolutely is extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean there isn't overwhelming scientific evidence on one side of the argument and practically no scientific evidence on the other side, as is the case in the evolution vs no evolution argument.

 

[EasyEJL]

He said that there is "no absolute truth [proof?] on either side" of the evolution argument. There is also no absolute proof that you physically exist, that the earth exists, or that you are an independent entity. This type of argument is completely nonsensical in any practical way.

Proving anything absolutely is extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean there isn't overwhelming scientific evidence on one side of the argument and practically no scientific evidence on the other side, as is the case in the evolution vs no evolution argument.

Those like gravity are all things you can directly demonstrate the truth of. Evolution is based on extending selective breeding based on a relatively small amount of fossil evidence and can't be demonstrated by it's nature over the span of recorded human history. It is more reasonable than creationism, but given how academia has treated evolutionary theory it's not much different than academia treats dietary theory based on Keyes research. If you attempt suggesting any other explanation than accepted evolutionary theory, you are effectively black balled. At it's core evolutionary theory is based on research from life processes being manipulated by an outside agency (selective breeding) which places it not that far out of the realm of intelligent design or some other outside influence

 

[wontstop985]

Those like gravity are all things you can directly demonstrate the truth of.

No, you can't.

You can demonstrate the existence of gravity under specific conditions, but you can not prove the general theory of it. The same goes for evolution.

 

[ax1]

At it's core evolutionary theory is based on research from life processes being manipulated by an outside agency (selective breeding) which places it not that far out of the realm of intelligent design or some other outside influence

Outside influence such as extra-terrestrials, but then they themselves are a part of evolution even if they created us. We may have been a part of intelligent design the same way a scientist today can create new breeds of animals such as the spider-goat (Im not kidding about the spider-goat, lol).

 

[EasyEJL]

No, you can't.

You can demonstrate the existence of gravity under specific conditions, but you can not prove the general theory of it. The same goes for evolution.

you can't actively demonstrate the existence of evolution in any conditions. You can only demonstrate selective breeding. You can demonstrate actively gravity, self existence, existence of the earth, etc.

 

[EasyEJL]

Outside influence such as extra-terrestrials, but then they themselves are a part of evolution even if they created us. We may have been a part of intelligent design the same way a scientist today can create new breeds of animals such as the spider-goat (Im not kidding about the spider-goat, lol).

well, but are they? or was there and has there been near continuous tinkering with the circle of life on the planet? I'd like to sit down with someone who knows more about biology and ask them to help through some of the mental issues I have on evolution I'll lay out my big ones

1. as already mentioned, no answer as to how life started
2. for evolution to work, an identical survival positive mutation has to either simultaneously occur in a large population (to be genetically passed on) which given how mutations work seems virtually impossible statistically
3. beyond the smaller survival positive mutations, the larger ones seem even more prone to odds of them being passed down being 0. Like the first fish that had capability to survive breathing air instead of getting oxygen from water. Both sides are as statistically unlikely - that exact genetic mutation occuring in enough of the population that it bred true or that one single fish having enough offspring to significantly change the genetic makeup of the pool of fish.
4. We haven't been able to define what "survival positive" really means for any species or environment. So far as i've seen, there isn't any evidence that intelligence is survival positive. We can only look backwards and say that creatures that are here now "through evolution selected survival positive genetics" but somehow it sounds like a logical fallacy. You are using the fact that creatures survived as proof that evolution crafted them to survive which seems like some of the epidemiolical studies showing that mortality rates are higher with using multivitamins.

 

[ax1]

I'd like to sit down with someone who knows more about biology and ask them to help through some of the mental issues I have on evolution I'll lay out my big ones

Thats subject to bais and/or personal understanding when it comes to science majors, scientists in regards to evolution. Discussion and debate is certainly encouraged but there are no definitive answers, its always a infinite process of seeking more knowledge and the best scientists do no conclude on anything, ever imo.

 

[EasyEJL]

Thats subject to bais and/or personal understanding when it comes to science majors, scientists in regards to evolution evolution. Discussion and debate is certainly encouraged but there are no definitive answers, its always a infinite process of seeking more knowledge and the best scientists do no conclude on anything, ever imo.

well, and thats part of my problem with it, its a politically entrenched "given as a fact" theory now, like the american heart association diet is. There's no validity to the AHA diet but politically you can't fight it.

 

[Kristofer68SS]

damn it, i love this thread even more that Easy is here.

fukn A

 

[wontstop985]

you can't actively demonstrate the existence of evolution in any conditions. You can only demonstrate selective breeding. You can demonstrate actively gravity, self existence, existence of the earth, etc.

Here is a definition of evolution: Evolution is the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations.

​

Given that we can easily sequence DNA, what is the problem?

(That's a rhetorical question.)

well, but are they? or was there and has there been near continuous tinkering with the circle of life on the planet? I'd like to sit down with someone who knows more about biology and ask them to help through some of the mental issues I have on evolution I'll lay out my big ones

1. as already mentioned, no answer as to how life started
2. for evolution to work, an identical survival positive mutation has to either simultaneously occur in a large population (to be genetically passed on) which given how mutations work seems virtually impossible statistically
3. beyond the smaller survival positive mutations, the larger ones seem even more prone to odds of them being passed down being 0. Like the first fish that had capability to survive breathing air instead of getting oxygen from water. Both sides are as statistically unlikely - that exact genetic mutation occuring in enough of the population that it bred true or that one single fish having enough offspring to significantly change the genetic makeup of the pool of fish.
4. We haven't been able to define what "survival positive" really means for any species or environment. So far as i've seen, there isn't any evidence that intelligence is survival positive. We can only look backwards and say that creatures that are here now "through evolution selected survival positive genetics" but somehow it sounds like a logical fallacy. You are using the fact that creatures survived as proof that evolution crafted them to survive which seems like some of the epidemiolical studies showing that mortality rates are higher with using multivitamins.

I would suggest you go to the library and check out a couple of textbooks on evolutionary biology and biological anthropology - your questions are answered there. You might also enjoy a book or two on general relativity and one on metaphysics.

 

[EasyEJL]

Here is a definition of evolution: Evolution is the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations.

Given that we can easily sequence DNA, what is the problem?
(That's a rhetorical question.)
​

change in genetical composition doesn't equal creation of new species, try again. And a shared piece of genetic code doesn't equal one creature is a descendant of another. You and I probably share a fair bit of genetic code, it doesn't mean that either of us is the source of the other.

I would suggest you go to the library and check out a couple of textbooks on evolutionary biology and biological anthropology - your questions are answered there. You might also enjoy a book or two on general relativity and one on metaphysics.

reading some of Alan Watts metaphysics books, they are entertaining. on the rest, yawn, standard tactic of protectionism of ideas with limited proof - try and treat the person on the other side as an idiot. You are just parroting what you were taught, just like dieticians parrot the AHA diet for "health"​

 

[wontstop985]

change in genetical composition doesn't equal creation of new species, try again. And a shared piece of genetic code doesn't equal one creature is a descendant of another. You and I probably share a fair bit of genetic code, it doesn't mean that either of us is the source of the other.



reading some of Alan Watts metaphysics books, they are entertaining. on the rest, yawn, standard tactic of protectionism of ideas with limited proof - try and treat the person on the other side as an idiot. You are just parroting what you were taught, just like dieticians parrot the AHA diet for "health"[/LEFT]

I'm sorry you are so completely lost regarding understanding evolution.

 

[ax1]

Obama Accused of Contempt of Court in ‘Birther’ Hearing

Secretary of State warns Obama – miss hearing “at your own peril”

Invalid Link Removed

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, January 27, 2012

President Barack Obama was accused by prosecution lawyers of being in contempt of court after failing to show up for a ‘birther’ hearing in Georgia that seeks to establish whether he is eligible to appear on the state ballot in November.

Channel 2 News Atlanta
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed, so-called ‘birthers,’ those who claim there is evidence to suggest Obama was not born in the United States, hailed a judges decision to hear the case as a potential roadblock to Obama even being permitted to run for a second term in the White House.

​

“Lawyers for area residents mounting “birther” challenges told Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that Obama should be found in contempt of court for not appearing when under subpoena to do so. But Malihi did not indicate he would recommend that and cut off one lawyer when he criticized Obama for not attending the hearing,” Invalid Link Removed.​

“It shows not just a contempt for this court, but contempt for the judicial branch,” lawyer Van Irion told Malihi.
Earlier this week, Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, requested that Secretary of State Brian Kemp suspend the hearing, claiming it was not a legitimate issue and insisting he and his client would boycott the hearing. However, Kemp fired back, warning that the hearing was necessary under Georgia law and that Obama and Jablonski’s failure to participate would be “at your own peril.”
Attendants packed the Georgia courtroom yesterday for the trial brought by residents who affirm that Obama was born in Kenya, making him ineligible to be US President.

The ‘birther’ argument was addressed by the White House in an unprecedented acknowledgement of the controversy surrounding the issue last year when a document purporting to be Obama’s birth certificate was released to coincide with the publication of bestselling author Jerome Corsi’s book, Where’s the Birth Certificate?

Corsi and other skepticsInvalid Link Removed by the move however, claiming that the document is a forgery created using modern computer techniques and has numerous discrepancies with a genuine 1961 birth certificate created by a typewriter.​

Invalid Link Removed that the supposed social security number contained on the document was never issued to Obama and in fact belonged to an individual in Connecticut.

​

One time Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump repeatedly raised questions surrounding Obama’s background during the spring of 2011 before going cold on the issue, a move Corsi claimed was an organized political stunt to neutralize the issue.​

The judge in Georgia is expected to make a final ruling on the case after February 5, by which time attorneys are required to file their briefs.
​

 

[ax1]

Charlotte Iserbyt: The Miseducation of America

The Secret History of Western Education - The Scientific Destruction of Minds

Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt served as the head of policy at the Department of Education during the first administration of Ronald Reagan. While working there she discovered a long term strategic plan by the tax exempt foundations to transform America from a nation of rugged individualists and problem solvers to a country of servile, brainwashed minions who simply regurgitate whatever they're told.

Part one of our exclusive interview with Iserbyt breaks down how conditioning/training under a corporate agenda has replaced traditional education, leading to a deliberate dumbing down of Americans. Iserbyt further explains how Reagan signed agreements merging the U.S. and Soviet systems under the United Nations banner, turning over education and many other areas of public policy to global control.

This 74 minute exposé is a must see for anyone who wants to truly know why the education system is deliberately crafted to produce human drones with no critical thinking whose only skills are to be subservient, trust authority and follow orders.

Short Preview

[video=youtube;5ZxM34BQxQ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZxM34BQxQ4[/video]

Charlotte Iserbyt: The Miseducation of America Part 1-Full

[video=youtube;ezTIYd5UFRY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezTIYd5UFRY[/video]

 

[ax1]

Government School: Six Year Old Guilty of Sexual Assault After Playing Tag

Kurt Nimmo
January 30, 2012


In politically correct San Francisco, a six year old boy was charged with sexual assault after playing a game of tag on the playground.
The child was accused of brushing his best friend’s leg or groin while the two were playing on the playground at Lupine Hills Elementary in Hercules two months ago, according to Invalid Link Removed.

[video=youtube;48_WcEdrHjs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded& v=48_WcEdrHjs#![/video]

The parent of the child said his son was held in the principal’s office and interrogated. The school coerced a confession from the child. He was suspended and a sexual battery charge was placed on his permanent school record, even though there is no such thing as sexual assault for a six year-old in California.
Only after the boy’s parents hired a lawyer and threatened to sue did the school back down.
The case is another example of control freak public school administrators treating students like Invalid Link Removed. So-called “zero tolerance” for “sexual abuse” – from students who are too young to even know what sex or sexual abuse are – provides an excuse to lord over impressionable children and acclimate them behaviorally for years spent in the education-prison system that is public school.
Invalid Link Removed

School are Constitution-free zones writ large. Students around the country are subjected to searches of lockers, cars and personal possessions in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
In numerous cases, school officials around the country have subjected children to traumatic experiences that will harm them for life – from Invalid Link Removed for playing with Nerf “guns” to Invalid Link Removed to conduct Invalid Link Removed in schools.
Police are now Invalid Link Removed students in school hallways, something that was unheard of a generation ago.

And while school officials claim students are engaged in sexual abuse and perversion, more often than not it is Invalid Link Removed and Invalid Link Removed who are the perverts. In California, state bureaucrats are in the business of the Invalid Link Removed who come in contact with children.
The Invalid Link Removed at Penn State underscores the fact that pedophiles gravitate toward schools and government jobs where sexual abuse is often tolerated and covered-up. Add to that the documented fact child protective services around the country are involved in Invalid Link Removed and we have more than enough reason to never trust government with the education and management of our children.
Government mistreatment and exploitation of children is epidemic and no more so than at the de facto world government headquarters, the United Nations. In 2007, it was reported that the U.N. was investigating itself for involvement in a Invalid Link Removed.

In 2005, Invalid Link Removed had the chance to grill then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld about Pentagon contractor Dyncorp’s buying and selling of young women and children. Dyncorp and Halliburton subsidiary KBR have been Invalid Link Removed.
McKinney was ultimately run out of Congress and nothing became of the human trafficking accusations, thus again demonstrating that the pedophile and human sexual slave trade instinct of government is largely above reproach.
For the ordinary parent, the only sane option is to remove his or her children from government indoctrination mills and the prison complex and homeschool them.

 

[AE14]

Considering I am a school administrator i can say that this story is obviously an overreaction and discipline needs to be given to the administrator that doled out the punishment.

However, this story seems to allude to the idea that this overreaction is more common. Which is just not the case.

 

[Kristofer68SS]

The architect for the newest high school in our district was/is a prison designer/architect.

I have been told this by several people in the contracting business in my area. I havent checked the records, but I believed them after the building was complete.

 

[AE14]

When hiring someone for construction of a large structure, it always is logical to bring someone in that has experience with doing so.

 

[rugger48]

The architect for the newest high school in our district was/is a prison designer/architect.

I have been told this by several people in the contracting business in my area. I havent checked the records, but I believed them after the building was complete.

So what? I dont see what the problem is.

 

[ax1]

I just totally forgot what I was going to post.

 

[ax1]

19 Crazy Things That School Children Are Being Arrested For In America

By:
The American Dream
1/31/2012




Invalid Link Removed


With each passing year, the difference between America's prisons and America's public schools becomes smaller and smaller. As you read the rest of this article, you will be absolutely amazed at some of the crazy things that school children in America are being arrested for. When I was growing up, I don't remember a single police officer ever coming to my school. Discipline was always handled by the teachers and by the principals. But today, there are schools all over the country that have police officers permanently stationed in the halls. Many other schools will call out police officers at the drop of a hat. In the classrooms of America today, if you burp in class, if you spray yourself with perfume or if you doodle on your desk, there is a chance that you will be arrested by the police and hauled out of your school in handcuffs. Unfortunately, we live in a country where paranoia has become standard operating procedure. The American people have become convinced that the only way that we can all be "safe" is for this country to be run like a militarized totalitarian police state. So our public schools are run like prisons and our public school students are treated like prisoners. The United States has Invalid Link Removed by far, and our schools are preparing the next generation to either "do time" in the prison system or to live as good little slaves in the Big Brother prison grid that is being constructed all around us. But what our schools are not doing is giving these children the critical thinking skills that they need to live as free citizens in a nation that used to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave".
Of course very few people would deny that the character of American schoolchildren has changed dramatically over the decades. Back in the 1950s, some of the biggest school discipline problems were gum chewing and hair pulling. Today, kids bring knives, guns and drugs with them to school. Gang activity is rampant in many of our schools and in some schools kids are even Invalid Link Removed.
So there is definitely a discipline problem in our schools.

But what is going on in many areas of the country is absolutely ridiculous. For example, in 2010 alone police down in Texas issued an astounding Invalid Link Removed tickets to school children.

Yes, if a kid pulls a knife on someone the police should get involved, but teachers and administrators should be able to use some common sense and handle the vast majority of discipline problems that happen themselves.
What you are about to read is absolutely going to amaze you. The following are 19 really crazy things that school children are being arrested for in America....

#1 At one public school down in Texas, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Bustamantes was recently arrested Invalid Link Removed.

#2 A 13-year-old student at a school in Albuquerque, New Mexico was recently arrested by police Invalid Link Removed.

#3 Another student down in Albuquerque was forced to strip down to his underwear while five adults watched because he had Invalid Link Removed. The student was never formally charged with doing anything wrong.

#4 A security guard at one school in California broke the arm of a 16-year-old girl because Invalid Link Removed after cleaning up some cake that she had spilled.

#5 One teenage couple down in Houston poured milk on each other during a squabble while they were breaking up. Instead of being sent to see the principal, Invalid Link Removed and sent to court.

#6 In early 2010, a 12-year-old girl at a school in Forest Hills, New York was arrested by police and marched out of her school in handcuffs Invalid Link Removed. "I love my friends Abby and Faith" was what she reportedly scribbled on her desk.

#7 A 6-year-old girl down in Florida Invalid Link Removed after throwing temper tantrums at her elementary school.

#8 One student down in Texas was reportedly arrested by police Invalid Link Removed in class.

#9 A 17-year-old honor student in North Carolina named Ashley Smithwick accidentally took her father's lunch with her to school. It contained a small paring knife which he would use to slice up apples. So what happened to this standout student when the school discovered this? The school Invalid Link Removed and the police charged her with a misdemeanor.

#10 In Allentown, Pennsylvania a 14-year-old girl Invalid Link Removed by a school security officer even though she had put up her hands in the air to surrender.

#11 Down in Florida, an 11-year-old student was arrested, thrown in jail and charged with a third-degree felony for bringing Invalid Link Removed to school.

#12 Back in 2009, an 8-year-old boy in Massachusetts was sent home from school Invalid Link Removed because he drew a picture of Jesus on the cross.

#13 A police officer in San Mateo, California blasted a 7-year-old special education student in the face Invalid Link Removed because he would not quit climbing on the furniture.

#14 In America today, even 5-year-old children are treated brutally by police. The following is from Invalid Link Removed that described what happened to one very young student in Stockton, California a while back....

Earlier this year, a Stockton student was handcuffed with zip ties on his hands and feet, forced to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation and was charged with battery on a police officer. That student was 5 years old.

​

#15 At one school in Connecticut, a 17-year-old boy was thrown to the floor and Invalid Link Removed because he was yelling at a cafeteria worker.

#16 A teenager in suburban Dallas Invalid Link Removed after being ticketed for using foul language in one high school classroom. The original ticket was for $340, but additional fees have raised the total bill to $637.

#17 A few months ago, police were called out when a little girl Invalid Link Removed during a physical education class at an elementary school down in Florida.

#18 A 6-year-old boy was recently charged Invalid Link Removed for some "inappropriate touching" during a game of tag at one elementary school in the San Francisco area.

#19 In Massachusetts, police were recently sent out to collect an overdue library book Invalid Link Removed.
Unfortunately, what is going on in our schools is a reflection of the broader society as a whole. Our schools are being turned Invalid Link Removed because our entire society is being turned into a Invalid Link Removed.
Our nation is rapidly heading down the toilet, and the children of this nation do not have a bright future to look forward to.
If the police really want to find some criminals, they should start investigating some of the sickos that are in charge of some of these classrooms.

It seems like almost every day now there is a news story about some public school teacher that is involved in some kind of really perverted stuff.

For example, just check out what police down in Los Angeles recently found that one teacher Invalid Link Removed....

A former Los Angeles elementary school teacher has been arrested for felony molestation of nearly two dozen students, accused of gagging children and putting live ****roaches on some of their faces. Deputies say the crimes were committed on campus.

​

Sickos who do that kind of stuff to kids should be punished very severely.
America's schools are changing, and not for the better.

Personally, I went to public schools all my life, but I would not recommend that anyone send their kids to public schools today. There is just way too much crazy stuff that goes on.

And our kids are learning less than ever in these public schools. As I have written about previously, many of them are coming out of the system Invalid Link Removed. Instead of teaching our kids how to think critically and examine all sides of an issue, these schools are Invalid Link Removed and pushing particular social and political agendas on them.

There are a few public schools out there that are still good, but the vast majority of them are horrible. They are not producing the leaders of tomorrow and they are not preparing the next generation with the tools that they need to survive in a complex world.
So is there much hope that our schools can be turned around?

Invalid Link Removed

Source:
Invalid Link Removed

 

[rugger48]

I seen that posted on another forum before, if I remember some of those stories are BS.

 

[ax1]

I seen that posted on another forum before, if I remember some of those stories are BS.

Its possible. Some were reported by mainstream media such as cnn and cbs, some are evidence by other means.

I can tell you the system is so screwed up with children. I remember not long ago a Judge in PA was sending children to juvenile detention centers for irrelevant matters and he was caught being lobbied to by the private company that owned the center.

Whats going on with one of my nephews (13 years old) right now in NYC public school systems angers me. The school even called the cops to have him arrested and the cops even were scratching their heads trying to tell the school that they cant arrest him over nonesense and now he has been suspended and has court cases, their sending child protection to my sisters because they think he is abused (trust me he is not at all, and they agree now), etc...Its not only recent issue, but when he was 5 or 6 the school system wanted to put him on prescription medicine just because he was very active and he like to run around alot.

 

[AE14]

Here is a problem....some of these stories are nonsense and others are let. The legit ones are very troublesome, and proves that there are some evil people working in education just like all other fields.

Being in education for a decade I have seen quite a bit, from teachers who truly hated kids, to administrators who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves let alone kids. Those are in the minority however.

 

[ax1]

Here is a problem....some of these stories are nonsense and others are let. The legit ones are very troublesome, and proves that there are some evil people working in education just like all other fields.

Being in education for a decade I have seen quite a bit, from teachers who truly hated kids, to administrators who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves let alone kids. Those are in the minority however.

I do agree that when it comes to individual teachers, those "terrible" ones are a minority. The system as a whole I feel is terrible but thats another topic.

I wouldnt want anyone to think that if I expose corruption of teachers and school officials that Im picking on select individual's as an example of the whole. Really, I feel that these cases although a minority should be reported publicly as a reminder to parents that just because you hand your child over to someone who is labeled to have a level of authority that their guards should be held down.

 

[ax1]

The architect for the newest high school in our district was/is a prison designer/architect.

I have been told this by several people in the contracting business in my area. I havent checked the records, but I believed them after the building was complete.

I thought about this one for a bit...really an architect isnt directly handling children, he is just contributing to building a school. The other question is, what did he go to jail for? Marijuana? Tax evasion? DWI? What Im saying is although a community may jump with countless whispers on how a "criminal" designed a school, really many people go to jail who are no threat whatsover to children and really are victims of their own irresponsibility of not following law (definition of law is another topic, many are stupid.)

In my community the head of board of education was arrested at the end of last year for having pounds of Marijuanna mailed to him for his own personal use. It made the front cover of the paper, it was a big deal. Really? A big deal? Im more concerned about the ones running our education who are on legal prescription medicines than a pot smoking hippie (if you see him, yes he is a hippie), if anything it may help his career if consumed in a responsible manner.

Ive had a college professor where the first day of school she was saying how her husband went to a Halloween party dressed as Peter Pan one day and came out of the closet and left her, and that she is on all kinds of prescription medicine, etc...This woman was weird, she belonged on the front cover of a paper exposing what the pharmaceutical industry can do to people not a pot smoker who was totally capable of professionally doing their job.

 

[rugger48]

I thought about this one for a bit...really an architect isnt directly handling children, he is just contributing to building a school. The other question is, what did he go to jail for? Marijuana? Tax evasion? DWI? What Im saying is although a community may jump with countless whispers on how a "criminal" designed a school, really many people go to jail who are no threat whatsover to children and really are victims of their own irresponsibility of not following law (definition of law is another topic, many are stupid.)

In my community the head of board of education was arrested at the end of last year for having pounds of Marijuanna mailed to him for his own personal use. It made the front cover of the paper, it was a big deal. Really? A big deal? Im more concerned about the ones running our education who are on legal prescription medicines than a pot smoking hippie (if you see him, yes he is a hippie), if anything it may help his career if consumed in a responsible manner.

Ive had a college professor where the first day of school she was saying how her husband went to a Halloween party dressed as Peter Pan one day and came out of the closet and left her, and that she is on all kinds of prescription medicine, etc...This woman was weird, she belonged on the front cover of a paper exposing what the pharmaceutical industry can do to people not a pot smoker who was totally capable of professionally doing their job.

I think he was saying the guy who designed the high school previously designed prisons, not that he was in prison.

 

[ax1]

I think he was saying the guy who designed the high school previously designed prisons, not that he was in prison.

lol...wow, I take it back then what a evil guy he must be, lol