U.S.A Opinion

What's wrong with lobbyists? Oh that's right there's nothing wrong with lobbying and lobbying is a good thing.

Also, I never said that there's 0 corruption, just that the amount that exists is vastly overstated on a reegular basis.



Actually everyone knew that. And so what? Mitt Romney hangs out with millionaires and has them contribute to his campaign...he is one. That's not an uncommon or horrible thing.



LA's going off on his insane theories again.



It's really amazing how LA can just put two random things together and connect them with no real evidence as to why they're caused by one another.



I gotta be honest here Lustful, you never fail to impress me with how ignorant your suggestions as to how to improve things are. Go ahead, get rid of all the immigrants. We then lose a good chunk of the work force and consumer base, and our economy plummets as many businesses become bankrupt. Why do you think the government hasn't just gone, "Ok, we have 11 million here, let's bulldoze them back into mexico and make an alligator infested moat to keep them out"? Because thigns aren't as simple as, "They're illegal, get rid of em! Murica!"



It'll be a dud, because you never know what you're talking about.

So you're not only a fascist, but a xenophobe, too? Are you sure you're not a Stormfront member?

You want to know why people immigrate to the US illegally?

This is fucking why.

I can assure you, most illegal immigrants would much rather have come legally. That way they can access government benefits, work for more than sub-minimum wage, if their employer makes them work in appalling conditions (because they steal brutal agricultural labour from millions of real Americans!) they can complain to the authorities without getting thrown out of the country, and they just generally don't have to worry about being thrown out on their ear. But when you have to go through such a Byzantine process that takes slightly less than a human lifetime, it's small wonder desperate people end up saying "fuck this bullshit" and just hop the fence. It's not like they have much to lose, since things probably won't have improved much in the aeons it would take to apply for (and probably rejected) legal residency.

The solution isn't to punish those who came here illegally, but to make legal immigration less of an obtuse soul-crushing nightmare so that they won't have to come illegally in the first place. For fucks sake, my cousin from the UK had to go through tonnes of bullshit simply to get a student visa, and if my mum wasn't a US citizen I'd probably never have gotten citizenship. That is not a good system, that is BROKEN.

Seriously? Seriously? And you say I have no idea what I'm talking about? Since I have no idea what I'm talking about apparently, I'll reference you to people who do know what they're talking about.

See Here

And here

Lobbying is an affront to any sort of "democratic" or even "representative" practice. Here, a college oriented paper for you to read.

Surely, these people know more than I correct?




Oh no, it's not overstated at all

We have become what our Founders fought against: We've become an organized crime state with laundering dirty money and vastly organized churches running the country. And to you, this degenerating state is not only okay but somehow laughably democratic?







Let's say you have a legitimate quip with "President" Romney. Oh, wait, your just an average citizen so you cannot protest this monopoly of a government.
Heck, forget the President. This is the reality with your congressional and house representatives.

But hey, what do I know? Nothing. So let's continue with the highly oligarchic political state of affairs in America.

The Founding Fathers fought against taxation without representation, if they were alive today they would see Americans face a far greater taxing system and far more obligations, with as little political response as the British overlords gave the English commoners.




Since you dared to question my intelligence, can I question yours? Do you even know what the word theory means?

Well, here's the definition: "abstract thought : speculation"

Not only is the 1986 Amnesty Law NOT a theory It actually happened

Furthermore, it's widely acknowledged to have failed and in fact encouraged illegal activities.



The Amnesty Law of 1986, and our current political climate are not only perfectly compatible, but I've just shown evidence of how they were connected.

In addition, the NYTimes is a pro-Liberal newspaper in general. Not to mention the fact the legislation was wrote under Conservative Rule.

But in case that paper isn't enough, I'll get you something else.

The Washington Post, another close Liberal ally. And this comparison of the two legislations was made in January of 13!





You've got to be honest, while being dishonest about my statements.(Or rather, you truly actually believe that's what I said in which case your reading comprehension is truly sad.).

I've never said to "get rid of all of the immigrants", there's 11 million undocumented people who currently have jobs, who currently have resources that could otherwise go to American children, young adults. To you for god sakes! The Washington Post, concurs with what I believe. Let us effectively make it so that legal immigration is pursued, to do that punishing those who've crossed the border is essential.

Since these 11 million people are taking away American Jobs, we aren't "losing" a chunk of the work force. We are nationalizing the work force! Much like how money that flows overseas is viewed as a "black hole", every time an illegal alien holds a position that could be held by an American, it should be seen as a black hole.

Just as the minimum wage prevents growth opportunities, in the name of low wage paying jobs to otherwise highly qualified Americans who are being taken advantage of by corporations!

Employment, by itself doesn't equal prosperity. Americans need to be employed to respectful wages. A combination of "immigrant" workers and the minimum wage is actually a HUGE part of this recession.

As to why the Government has not truly taken a true priority to protecting our National citizens, our legal immigrants. Simple: I believe it to be treason and high treason. Ironically, the ultimate consequence of big lobbying politics.

Liberals in general, are guilty and committed to this high treason. Against your own brothers, sisters and mothers and fathers you'd put us all at an economic competitive disadvantage and your too gullible and naive to realize it.

Corporations will win, illegals who get to slip under the cracks will win. Hispanic-Americans will win. Every other minority in America however LOSES big time, as well as the national.

The Liberal? Is too busy hording political power to even recognize it.

Also, it appears women, not necessarily immigrants(legal or otherwise) are a growing faction in the U.S. Consumer Economy





Since I've invoked people who supposedly know alot more than me, you will now be charged to do the same if you want to stick to that insult.

Right, pesonal opinion pieces and blog articles.

In any case...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/lobbying-for-the-greater-good/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/lobbyists-are-good-people_b_144288.html

http://www.princetonreview.com/careers.aspx?cid=88

So you know, lobbying is not a dirty word.

The fact of the matter is that lobbying is the best way in which the general public can influence people currently in power in order to change things for the better. Lobbying is nothing more than special interest groups sitting down with legislators and representatives and the like and saying, "Here's what my group wants." That's all it is. But yeah, it's tot's a bad thing, yeah. One of the vfew voices the general public has in the government is horrible. We should take that away and render people virtually powerless to influence their representatives, so much better that way.



It's an integral part of the "democratic" and "representative" practice. Fucktard.

Here's an article written by Stanford associates on how useful and necessary lobbying is.

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/lobbying_for_good

But here's the dumb thing. You and I can both find anyone on the internet that agrees with us. The problem is that I'm right, and you're wrong. Lobbying is a good thing, always has been, always will be. If anyone thinks that lobbying is anything less than people getting issues that interest the public to the people who can do somethign about those issues, they're wrong. Plain and simple. Do you WANt us to not be able to do anything to influence our government? Because take away lobbying, that's exactly what you're doing. Jsyk.




First comment on the article:

"Corruption" is a mighty inflammatory word, isn't it? None of the examples trace more than a circumstantial link between sources of undue influence and suppression of a disruptive business. In fact, regulatory processes (i.e., the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 at the federal level) are designed to try to insulate regulation from politics and corruption. A better interpretation is that regulations sometimes don't let disruptors do what they want to do. With regard to your examples:

Comcast/Netflix is egregious because Comcast is able to exploit a distinction between its regulated cable TV business and its unregulated Internet access business, even though both use the same physical infrastructure. The problem is (arguably) that Internet access is not subject to Common Carriage, and the FCC's authority even to enforce "Network Neutrality" regulations is in doubt. There is also a legitimate issue in that Comcast (and their bond holders) carry the very high capital cost of the access network, from which Netflix profits but does not contribute. The data volume cap is a proxy for usage-based pricing. All of this speaks to a regulatory system that never adapted to the Internet, and an "all-you-can-eat" pricing model for Internet access that institutionalizes a tragedy of the commons. No corruption in any of this, just a 17 year old law that did not stand the test of time and a 40-year old network architecture that was never designed to provide commercial service.

Uber, as a previous commenter pointed out, runs afoul of regulations that exist for consumer protection. The regulations are prescriptive in ways that do not fit the Uber business model. The taxi industry does have a right to be concerned for a level regulatory playing field. Regulations that would fit with the Uber business model, yet address concerns about racial profiling and consumer fraud are possible. If Uber would modify its strategy from playing the victim card to playing the public interest card, it could most likely negotiate a regulatory regime they could work under.

Tesla/NADA is, at worst, an ordinary case of rent seeking under existing, legitimate regulations. I don't know the legislative history behind the prohibition on manufacturer-owned dealerships, but strongly suspect that it is rooted in consumer protection. In the alternative, manufacturers would be able to strangle independent dealers and suppress competition on their products. True, it also benefits independent dealers and may therefore also be a form of rent seeking. The closure of so many independent dealers int recent GM and Chrysler bankruptcies suggests that NADA's influence is not unlimited.

You are right that the duration of copyright is an outrageous form of rent seeking. It may also be corrupt, but correlation does not imply causation. And it's not as if Disney has copyrighted the entire universe of possible anthromorphic cartoon characters.

Couldn't have said it better myself.



18 year olds who can vote and free black men? Oh sorry you're invoking the founding Fathers as if they were godds among men and had the best ideas ever again. Nobody cares what they thought, only the principles that became legislated. That's why nobody interprets the constitution by the original intent, because it's retarded to do so.



Well no church actually does run the country and money laundering is usually punished so...you're an idiot? Once again?





Nope. An average citizen can do a lot. You're just too uninformed or intentionally moronic to figure out what one can do.

Guess what one of those things I can do is? It's called starting a lobbying organization. :D



Pretty much.



Lol, oligarchy. The people of the U.S. are the government. The fact that you seem to think nobody can do anything and we're at the mercy of a few people is delusional to say the least.



Takle away lobbying and you pretty much are reinstating taxation without representation. all the power you complain the average citizen doesn't have is fixed by lobbying, yet you don't like lobbying. Do you see why people think you're an ignorant fucktard?



I've dared several times in the past and I'll keep doing it.



What I was referring to was your bullshit causation without evidence assertion that the republicans lose elections, and in a hissy fit decide to secretly ruin the country through amnesty of immigrants. That's retarded.

Also, you're referring to this right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Amnesty



Not really illegal activities, more a boom for the subcontractor market.



Not really. You essentially just said, "REAGAN AND THE REPUBS DID THIS BECAUSE THEY LOST ELECTIONS! DEY EBIL!"



/care.

This is about as stupid as when someone says, "Richard dawkins is an atheist and he said this so you should agree as another atheist!" I don't care what the political leaning of any orginzation is...doesn't lend credence to you at all.



I'm not sure if you actually read your sources LA, but all that article says is that people tried to fix immigration and it didn't work as predicted.

How does this indicate any sort of premeditated sabatoge on the part of republicans? Because it doesn't...



Of course, because their lives as immigrants don't matter if they don't go through the proper channels eh? "Their resources and money and jobs could go to AMERICANS!" Instead they're going to people who are doing the work to get the money and resources that allow them to live and not be homeless. What a tragedy that arbitrary border citizenship is not being adhered to by the letter.



You're so dumb it's hilarious.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/left-and-right-agree-immigrants-don-t-take-american-jobs-20130322

So yeah, get rid of them, all we're gonna do is lose workers. We won't be giving anyone else 'nationalized' jobs.



Well the minimum wage is a good thing that prevents people from being taken advantage of, so when you bring in irrelevant things to try and argue a point and they don't fit your paradigm I gotta say all you do is demonstrate how dumb you are.



I notice that you have no scholarly economics papers on that. Don't bother linking a source to that very bold claim until it's a scholarly one, thanks in advance.



Because not focusing on what you want them to focus on is enough to charge the government with treason.

Do you know what treason is? Because our constitution doesn't seem to agree with whatever batshit insane idea you have cooked up.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.



Well you're too stupid to have any valid points against what 'liberals' want, so I'm gonna go ahead and take your "gullible and naive" comment as being nothing more substantial than calling everyone who disagrees with you a bunch of big stupid doo doo heads.



*yawn* meaningless political rhetoric that doesn't present any actual points or explain anything.



Good. Women should be a growing consumer. It's the 21st century.



Ok.

1. I did.
2. I don't have to, but I did anyway because you're so easy to prove wrong on just about anything and I find it entertaining.

See, what you just did there is say, "These people are smarter than you so unless you have even SMARTER people I win!"

Well no. That's called butt fucking logic to the point of not being able to recognize it anymore. Come up with whatever sources you want, until you present some that actually have points to make instead of spun stories, political rhetoric, and bullshit, "The american people will lose if you don't start agreeing with me!" inflammatory nonsense, you have nothing.

This is why you will never be a politician...or at least not a successful one. You'll lose because you're dumber than all the others. I think even Ron Paul in his senile old age could probably outwit you.

I know I'm being hippocratic (sorry in advance) but thank you! Finally someone understands that the amazing atheist is a fat idealist bastard. If the rep systems were working. I promise I would up vote you right now.

Here take this mini Japanese sword and commit seppuku please ....

Allow me to point out the glaringly obvious problem with this article, beyond the fact that this person is a complete and utter idiot.



I'm going to start by addressing this because it is very very simple to prove how the quebec government is trying to get rid of english.

Allow me to link this: https://i.imgur.com/vqNI2n1.jpg

Take a good look at this picture, do you know what it says? It says that this website which is hosted from quebec, which is done in english, is voilating the law bill 101 has put forth by clearly stating that this website is not written in 100% french.

It is as it clearly states, an abuse of the language english, and a transgression under the charter of the french language.

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/03/01/foolish-language-police-make-province-a-joke
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/02/25/quebec-restaurants-language-police.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/20/quebec-language-police-video_n_2916053.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/01/quebec-language-police-ban-pasta
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/facts-and-arguments/my-battle-with-the-language-police-as-an-anglo-professional-in-quebec/article10622232/
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Abolish+Quebec+anglo+hospitals+hardliners/8217410/story.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/10/22/f-quebec-language-laws-bill-101.html
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/02/pq-english-cegep-and-french-students-not-to-be-mixed/

Do I need to link more articles about how stupid this government in and just how much they are trying to repress the english population. The guy in the article tries to make the point that the past has lead us to that point and can not be ignored. That might be true, but in his lifetime and the lifetime of his parents, NONE of them have been repressed by the law. Nor has he lived in any of the other provinced that have had a history of laws against the french. So he has literally nothing to complain about. The provincial provinces have a right to mandiate thier own legislation.

My point, it is not an excuse to repress people because others have done it. So what if ontario or manitoba passed some stupid laws. Those only affect the people of those provinces and does not give you a right to repress the people in your province. That is the logic of a 4 year old on the playground who has one of thier friends get slapped, so he goes and slaps one of thier friends. There is nothing mature about that, and there is nothing civil about it.


Edit:

Fascism needs oppression. And fascism can not exist with intellectuals. Why because people who have ideas on how to do things will always go against their own governments. If you have a community of people who decide that instead of having a centralized government, they want to have a local government appointed by the members of that community to do what is best for that community, it would be democracy breaking out in a fascist state. They could create laws to do whatever they want, have communal property, vote, etc. Fascism doesn't allow for that to happen. Because fascism relies solely on the privitization of everything under it's own regime. People can't even run the business the way they want unless the state allows it. Maybe they want to hire chinese workers to mass produce stuff but under your americanized fascism, that wouldn't be possible. You are taking away thier freedom of choice, and as soon as they start to argue against you, you take away their freedom of speech because you can't have people making free choices in a fascist state.

But then again, probably see no issue with that.

I don't feel like replying to an overtly long post of yours Biglundi(You make my posts look modest in comparison), so allow me to shorten it.



That's the basic gist of it, without all of the links and stuff.(Heck, that's the argument those links make)

Did you happen to take a look at the comments? The vast majority of them disapproved of it as what it is: Fluff. For the record, there probably are quite a deal of lobbying "companies" and "interests" for the more "better" causes.

But even those companies, which lobby for whatever cause they lobby for is an upfront to the "Democratic" Process. In other words, lobbyists shouldn't exist. Period.

If everyone "lobbied", U.S. Politics would be more corrupt then it is now. With more money being flung left and right, more courting politicians, more parties and bribes.

Lobbying is a cancer on the U.S. Political process, a citizen shouldn't have to lobby. And even if a citizen does lobby, a politician's main job is to lead through his convictions. He was elected in general for the general ideas he represented.

The lobbyist is an affront to this goal, as through money and pandering he diverts the politicians attention away from his agenda. Obamacare's actually a great example of this. The people said jobs were most important, Obama proceeds with Obamacare. Democrats lose power to the Tea Party Republicans.

Ironically, the Tea Party Republicans make the same mistake by focusing on the "obstruction" of Obama, rather than proposing alternatives to cut down the
deficit. The result being the Tea Party became insufficient.

This is merely on the national scale, the truth is every politician in sufficient power(IE: House, Senate) faces the obstructionist called the Lobbyist, who pulls the strings of the U.S. Government.

And you, are more then perfectly content with this disruptive force of government on the account that it can be used for 'good'.

Local Government doesn't face this political collusion, but unfortunately that's largely because local provinces don't have the political power to govern themselves. The vultures have no interest in a powerless body(such as a city or state government.)

Next, your comment on what I said about treason. It's ironic that you say that I treat the Founders like gods, when in fact they did "many things wrong"(a classic Liberal argument, if there was one.)

And it's sorely mistaken. Their position was heavily supported at the time by the general public of their time. There's this wonderful thing called hindsight.
The United States as a continent was incredibly weak at the time, so the Founders in political savvy understood that the Slavery Problem for example could only be solved through a resolution of the Public. After all, the Great Compromise was very difficult to achieve.

Even with the differences between the North and the South, after the civil war Abraham Lincoln reached out to the Southern Neighbors, and when Abe was assassinated, many on the South felt the same sense of loss and patriotism to stick by the country.

But I bring this up to concur with you, what the Founders did back then has no implication on our modern era. Namely, the constitutional phrase regarding treason. It needs to be tweaked a bit.

Treason:
The Act of sabotaging a nation's social, economic or geopolitical good. An Action that puts the American Public at risk.

In short, the constitutional clause only covers wartime and effects to that nature(treaties and so forth). It doesn't look at social or economic sabotages of the same level.

The country was meant to be governed through their principles, not necessarily what they did at the time. But because of their "mistakes", political think tank "experts"(incompetents) have foregone the philosophies that made this country today.

No one would in today's age think of African-Americans as "two thirds" of a person for instance, but the Founders in general opposed an open ended immigration policy. Why? Because they saw the Boston Marathon bombing some 230+ years before it happened.

They foresaw foreign agents(in much the same way of the German merchants hired by the British), who could sabotage their country. You may think it's all fine and dandy to bring 11 million(heck, millions more. Why stop there!) undocumented immigrants into the nation but there's alot of risk that comes into play.

The article you brought up in regards to the Immigrant problem, basically says that newly legalized immigrants will bring in jobs, as they are employed and make higher wages. There's a problem with this: Those jobs they "create" will be taken by fellow immigrants.

In other words, a new socio-political group has been created in the country and for this political gain of jobs to actually manifest itself, they by nature must be ahead in the line. Of course, the article in question has said these jobs would go to Americans. However, for the "new" jobs to go to Americans, these undocumented immigrants, must become documented and they must be employed.

Get it? I'll go a limb and say at the very least: Even if the successful employment of new "citizens" creates jobs, the unemployment rate will not significantly decrease(IE: Few Americans who are currently actual legal citizens will see any results). That's the very least.

I'll go on a further limb(and my suspicion): New citizens will not create new jobs, but a greater logjam on the unemployment line.

On your comment regarding your miserable interpretation on what I said. I wasn't necessarily linking Reagan and his efforts in 1986 to the present crisis. In fact, the only reason for mentioning Reagan was his efforts back then. As a reference point, little more.

What I was saying, was that TODAY'S Republicans, and todays ONLY are more than willing to sell this country out for political power. This is the type of political thought that grips Washington today:

I originally read this comment on MSNBC, which didn't clarify whether a Democrat or Republican had said them

But it doesn't matter, it doesn't make the comment any more outrageous. Do you think that I as a legal American will elect a politician to the oval office based on whether he legislated for or against illegal immigrants becoming citizen?

To be fair, I would make a judgment, albeit the opposite of the one Menendez anticipates. If said political leader voted AGAINST this sham, he has my vote. If he voted FOR it, he should resign from office the following day.

I will give Yuki this one liner, and that's it. Because I've found him detestable from the first post he made. Xenophobic, towards immigration and other cultures? Nonsense, considering I'm on a hentai forum, with a great deal of love towards the Japanese culture.

Considering my own family is an immigrated family, I hold nothing against legal immigration. In fact, I want to protect the meaning and importance of legal immigration. I do not believe every jock who wants to come here, deserves to come here.

It's interesting that you post that graphic, look at it more closely. Are any of those demands unreasonable? In my opinion, they're not. You should only be allowed in the country if you have legitimate connections to the country. If you actually have talents or something to bring to the table. This isn't a welfare nation, neither for our nationals nor for other country's nationals.

The only thing "unreasonable" about them is the length of time it takes to become a citizen. IMO, that's the only "reform" that should take place. And perhaps, a close examination among the current 11 million or so who are undocumented, legalize the most talented, the most capable and loyal. And those who don't meet the criteria, try again.

Why, Yuki? It's funny you mention Britain. Between this, racial violence, etc. Among a many host of other reasons why I don't want to copy this part of European traditions today.

You may believe we're headed on the "right path of history", but the entire European union as well as the clash of naturally different cultures begs differently. The world cannot be shaped to meet the ideals of the idealistic.

Ideals must be shaped by pragmatism. The world has always been led in the right direction by pragmatists, as people universally opposed the true right direction. Example: The World being flat is a classic. Opps, it's round.

I dream of a place where people give our rep for good reasons and not just because the other person has insulted a person they don't like.

Nope, I don't feel shame at all. No reason to commit seppuku.

No you don't understand this guy. He's trying to be an god to solutions. Just watch his video and you'll see.

You should feel shame for that.

You guys really should dig into Japanese culture deeper. If you think your just going to live a fun american live there, your gonna have a bad time.

Allow me to go ahead and do the exact thing that you did LA and demonstrate why most people don't bother with you.

Imma shorten your overly long post herp derp.



You have no idea what lobbying is. Whenever anyone who has anything to say about lobbying starts going into the notion that it's about 'money being flung about this way and that' I already know they're extremely retarded.

There are laws against politicians accepting money from lobbyists, there are laws against what you seem to think lobbying is and they're ienforced heavily. Sure every once in awhile you'll find a congressman who takes kickbacks from lobbyists, and they are then investigated and deposed FROM Congress as a result.

I want you to explain to me what you think lobbying is in the simplest terms you can, without all the 'fluff' of your political, "It is an upfront(affront you simpleton)to democracy! Liberty! Freedom! Blaaaaaaah!" bullshit rhetorical nonsense.

Because what you seem to think lobbying is, is completely different than what it is.

Yet you didn't post a single link to confirm that politicians were barred from receiving pay from Lobbyists.

I'll help out: A corrupt Lobbyist apparently doesn't think this is the case, despite you saying so.

It's so illegal, they're spending to the tune of billions!

Then, though it's a separate mechanism there's the PAC's(which the Supreme Court now ruled a 'person'. Try and tell me that's not politically motivated).

The amount of money these "special interest groups"(which you hilariously think represent and protect the democratic process) spend is enormous, through ads(Most of which, if not all of which are blatantly one-sided and misleading.) to deceive(not inform, deceive) the American voter into voting for his or her con man(or woman) of choice named a politician.

You call this a punishment?

Democracy, not only did the Fathers not want it to be one but it can't even portray itself as a Democracy in the slightest Biglundi. We have an oligarchic state.

Here's some more confirmation to diffuse any doubt of that fact

Since you insulted me by calling me retarded, I'll return the insult but I'll return it in dignity and slightly lesser in tone. You're no intellectual. You accept what you see as reality, and you don't even question it.

A true intellectual is the person who reads through the black, white and gray. Who discovers the essence of life and knowledge itself. Of course, that essence differs from person to person. But, the essence cannot be the *starting point*, or in other words what you and I learned in grade school about our democracy.

The example in my case being abortion, and my support of the Sacred Feminine doctrine. To believe that a woman, in every walk of life(animal and man) has a unique position(a rulership one in fact) and with that position comes honorable dignity.

Do you think these were starting points? Hardly. They came from my consideration of what did I view life to be. And as a child of a single parent household, I knew that the opposite is what was best.

In short, I'm a believer of the Humanist theory. I actually believe the essence of Great Intellectualism is in Humanism. After all, whether religious or scientific, we all concur the Human Body is one of a kind in our realm and thereby the rulers of this domain we call earth.

Learning all we can about our bodies, our beliefs and our ideals will allow us to push forward in the realization of all we're capable of. You spoke against the Humanist theory, and in my mind that shows where we differ as Intellectuals.

Your 'intellectualism' is about the plain, murky skies that quite frankly are as boring as watching paint dry. My Intellectualism is about discovering the truth of everything. And even if I'm wrong, because I ventured into Intellectualism I'm right.

Thomas Edison himself, is the embodiment of intellectualism

So you admit to being a corrupted individual who has no morals, no regard for human life and no regard for work ethics of others? Because you are refering to someone like thomas edison who was a crook. Everyone knows that thomas edison was nothing more than a corrupted business man who leeched all his success of others like the real genius nikola tesla. Who by the way, wanted to make electicity free which edison opposed because he wouldn't make a profit. He also didn't invent the light bulb, it was invented by two men from toronto ontario, edison bought the patent and had others make it more efficient.

I don't even believe that edison himself invented a single thing, he just bought out the patents and claimed them as his own. So much for your example of "intellectualism".

That's very slanderous of you(especially considering the guy's dead) but I cannot bemoan Lundi's naive innocence, and then not consider what you brought up. It's true that Tesla has done some very great work. Such as his work on vibrations, he developed the HARRP technology and in fact he first supposed the theological theory of Law of Attraction(Which I too, happen to believe.)

But I didn't know of any shoddy connections on Edison's part to Tesla and other intellectuals. I just brought up the story of how Edison reportedly tried time after time, failing miserably until finally succeeding.

To me, the intellectual doesn't care how many times he fails but the point in which he succeeds, he not only makes history but he transcends history moving mankind into the future.

Of course, we don't have to be as grand. But to question, to discover and to ponder is our responsibility to other people, who frankly have neither the time nor consideration(nor is it really necessary for them) to ask these questions.

I'm not disagreeing with your concept of the intellectual because I too, believe the same thing. An intellectual also does something without knowing it's impact on society at the time, but does it because of the curiousity for whatever they are commiting themselves too. Like Faraday for example, and his discouvery of electro-magnitism.

I just have an issue of your example of Edison. It is true that Tesla worked for Edison but Tesla never got the credit for the inventions that he came up with.

Such inventions that Tesla designed and built were:

1. Alternating Current
2. Light (not the invention of it, but how to harness and distribute it)
3. X-rays
4. Radio
5. Remote Control
6. Electric Motor
7. Robotics
8. Laser
9. Wireless Communications
10. Limitless Free Energy
11. Vaccuum Tubes
12. Fluoroscopy

All of these were Tesla's work but in no textbooks about science and history in north america do we read about it. Or if it is mentioned, it is highly overshadowed by Edison.

It is also worthy to note that Tesla, despite being a legal american citizen, upon his death, had all of this assets detained by the american government and kept in a secret location. Very few documents were even found and it is rumoured, although I don't know how true, that Edison followed one of the trucks and managed to steal some of the papers from it.

What I truely find odd is that in countries outside of america, they are discouvering all these great inventions by people like tesla and starting to rewrite the history books, but america is unwilling to accept certain aspects of what went on.

I hold firm that Edison was a crook, and corrupt businessman. But he was not necessarily "evil". Maybe overtly egotistical, but definately not evil. He should be given credit for his business abilities and the access he allowed inventors to have through the Edison company. But we need to give the actual inventors of "his" inventions their due credit.


Like the invention of the atomic bomb. All credited to america who invented the atomic bomb, and not about the entire team that worked on it.

Robert Oppenheimer - American Born
Emil Konopinski - Polish Born
Felix Bloch - Swiss Born
Hans Bethe - German Born
Edward Teller - Hungarian Born
Robert Serber - American Born

And it can't have existed without Enrico Fermi who was italian.

I want credit given where credit is due, not to the country, but the people.

Then, shall I invoke the example of Benjamin Franklin instead? He helped orchestrate the Declaration of Independence, and a lot of his free thinking ideas moved the English Colonies forward at a crucial point to become America.

The reason I brought up Edison, is admittedly that in that respect, I merely had knowledge from the starting point. It's also that I took this knowledge at face value and had no interest really in pursuing it further.

I mean, what's one man's autobiography to me? I live in the moment, the here and now and I fantasize about what the future might be.

But I'm sure that you can find fault with Mr. Franklin, or in truth with anybody. Another theological belief that I have, that I'll share is that there's no such thing as morality.

You yourself pointed that out, as I was shamelessly willing to potentially put innocents at harms way, in a cruel justification of numbers. I don't necessarily blame myself, or call myself "evil". Rather, if the choice is between two devils then most people choose what's termed "the lesser of 2 evils."

The right word for "morality" is "justification", what we feel we can justify and thereby accept. War is no doubt a great evil, that requires many pointless sacrifices that I myself would want to put to an end.

But if there are others willing to use that great evil to subjugate others who are powerless to it, then there must be those willing to set aside their conscious and doing the right thing. Even if that person is to be called a "devil", the world will be a better place for it.

Millardo Peacecraft(GW) was one such fictional character. After learning the truth of his heritage and becoming a Peacecraft member, he knew he couldn't necessarily lead the wish of pacifism. Thereby, he decided to lead the world to pacifism through a realization of just how terrible war is.(IE: The colony drop)

Lelouch also came to this same conclusion with his Zero Requiem plan, acting the part of world dictator and massively killing millions with the Damocles, taking over Britannia, just to be assassinated by his own hand(via Suzaku)

In real life, someone must be willing to burden the cross of sins and making the right decisions for our future. It might not necessarily be me, but I want to try making as many right decisions as I can. If I left the world a better place than when I first came, no amount of criticism can compare to the satisfaction of my heart.

Now that is a good post LustfulAngel. Something if I could, I would rep you for.

I have admiration for Franklin, we all have flaws as humans but Franklin sought what was best for the people, and that deserves as him the utmost respect.

I think we are both on the same page as our goals to make this world better as time passes.