[Garfield 2]

I won't be voting in November. I don't live in the US

RON PAUL 2012

[IM_YOUR_GOD]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 22:34)

I don't think you understand the concept of "evidence". Belief is irrelevant, the only thing of value in this context is evidence. There is no evidence to support the NWO theory, ego it is a belief. Like religious belief, or spirituality really, nothing more. And whilst like any belief it is by definition very hard to prove categorically wrong, absence of evidence can serve reasonably well as evidence of absence in light of the lack of any verification.

The burden of proof

CODE

ev·i·dence   [ev-i-duhns]  Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing. noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Done here.

[zoo3891]

QUOTE

Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who will not vote, who will not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people will do and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.

I see that Icarus covered this already, but I came across a guy who said this on Youtube the other day. If I voted for McCain in '08, it's not my fault that Obama won, it's my fault for not being more preachy about McCain, and for not exposing Obama's "lies." If you don't vote, you had no say in anything, and if you hadn't voted in Florida that one year, but would have voted for Gore, it would have been your fault Gore didn't win Florida.

There are reasons not to vote, but you seem to have picked the weakest reasons.

[lil weasel]

You can't PROVE anything to a person who is effectively Deaf, and Blind by choice. So don’t bother with proof/evidence just keep espousing your beliefs with a bull horn if you must (just as any good Religious will.) It isn’t worth the trouble to answer those that require proff, as they won’t change their stance regarless.
Those who don’t vote make yours stronger.
People who pull the party lever are mindlessly giving up their real choice.
The U. S. of A. is a republic not a democracy regarding Presidential Elections, which makes some States votes valueless.
When in doubt scare the pants of the ‘top’ runners by voting for Green/Communist/Other minor party.

This post has been edited by lil weasel on Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 23:36

[*MURDOC*]

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:42)

Dumb here.

I actually agree with you on that.

[IM_YOUR_GOD]

QUOTE (*MURDOC* @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 23:31)

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:42) Dumb here. I actually agree with you on that.

Ok?

[Moonshield]

QUOTE (Djdevin10 @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 14:04)

QUOTE (Icarus @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 09:44) QUOTE (whatsstrength @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 01:33) Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who will not vote, who will not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people will do and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with. That's the biggest load of crap. I'm willing to bet that most people don't go in voting thinking, "Yes, I'm going to vote for this guy because he's dishonest and sleazy," but rather, they are optimistic about their candidate. Have candidates made a 180 and completely screwed over their voting base? Absolutely. Welcome to the world of politics. However, you can't blame someone for voting when they had the best of intentions for choosing their candidate. If their candidate turns on them, they have more than enough grounds to complain. If you didn't vote for them (e.g. you're a Democrat and a Republican won), you, in my opinion, have grounds to complain (if they're screwing you over, not complaining in the being a sore loser fashion). If you don't vote and hence, don't even try to participate in the electoral process, sorry, but you really don't get to criticize if the government screws you over. At least the people who went out to vote tried to make a difference, even if it didn't succeed - the key is they tried. I've always told people that even if they don't like any of the candidates, go in and spoil the ballot - a protest/dissenting vote is still a vote in my opinion. So yeah, you can make up all the excuses you want for not voting, but at the end of the day, if you don't feel like doing it and the government screws you over, tough sh*t. Also, I'm not voting in November because I'm not a US citizen. Oh like voting actually matters. In the US, we have an electoral college, which pretty much decides who becomes president, not the people. Our votes practically don't matter. Just Ask Al Gore I can't vote, but even if i could i wouldn't. sh*t doesn't matter at all.

That's just for the President. Yeah it's a broken system, but your point is kind of moot considering the slew of other representatives you vote for in America.

[trip]

QUOTE (Moonshield @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 19:26)

QUOTE (Djdevin10 @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 14:04) QUOTE (Icarus @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 09:44) QUOTE (whatsstrength @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 01:33) Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who will not vote, who will not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people will do and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with. That's the biggest load of crap. I'm willing to bet that most people don't go in voting thinking, "Yes, I'm going to vote for this guy because he's dishonest and sleazy," but rather, they are optimistic about their candidate. Have candidates made a 180 and completely screwed over their voting base? Absolutely. Welcome to the world of politics. However, you can't blame someone for voting when they had the best of intentions for choosing their candidate. If their candidate turns on them, they have more than enough grounds to complain. If you didn't vote for them (e.g. you're a Democrat and a Republican won), you, in my opinion, have grounds to complain (if they're screwing you over, not complaining in the being a sore loser fashion). If you don't vote and hence, don't even try to participate in the electoral process, sorry, but you really don't get to criticize if the government screws you over. At least the people who went out to vote tried to make a difference, even if it didn't succeed - the key is they tried. I've always told people that even if they don't like any of the candidates, go in and spoil the ballot - a protest/dissenting vote is still a vote in my opinion. So yeah, you can make up all the excuses you want for not voting, but at the end of the day, if you don't feel like doing it and the government screws you over, tough sh*t. Also, I'm not voting in November because I'm not a US citizen. Oh like voting actually matters. In the US, we have an electoral college, which pretty much decides who becomes president, not the people. Our votes practically don't matter. Just Ask Al Gore I can't vote, but even if i could i wouldn't. sh*t doesn't matter at all. That's just for the President. Yeah it's a broken system, but your point is kind of moot considering the slew of other representatives you vote for in America.

I'm not involving myself in this thread, but I just wanted to second what Moon said.

The presidential election part is f*cked, but all the others actually do count. I don't know what it is like in other states and cities, but where I live when we vote we even get to vote on 'questions'. It's fun - stuff like "should we put a park or parking lot in this location?".

Sure we and all of the world see and think the president runs the entire country. Don't forget that our system(US) is designed as a bunch of small governments. As individual people we are more directly affected by our local politicians than the president.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Garfield 2 @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:40)

I won't be voting in November. I don't live in the US RON PAUL 2012

Why?

[Typhus]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 21:09)

QUOTE (Typhus @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 13:38) Given his upbringing and his choice of church, I think he probably is a racist. On a personal level at least. is this a joke?

No, I truly think that Obama is most likely a racist. But as it doesn't negatively affect his policies it's an irrelevancy.

[Stefche]

I'm not, since I'm not American. If I would, I'd vote for Romney, though.

[finn4life]

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 08:42)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 22:34) I don't think you understand the concept of "evidence". Belief is irrelevant, the only thing of value in this context is evidence. There is no evidence to support the NWO theory, ego it is a belief. Like religious belief, or spirituality really, nothing more. And whilst like any belief it is by definition very hard to prove categorically wrong, absence of evidence can serve reasonably well as evidence of absence in light of the lack of any verification. The burden of proof CODE ev·i·dence   [ev-i-duhns]  Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing. noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. Done here.

Do you even understand what you posted? It says "Ground for belief", so you need to provide evidence to have grounds for your belief.
Here is another way of putting it "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

@Sivis, if he is too naive to have doubted himself before with all the evidence and arguments yourself and others provided AGAINST him, than he is too naive to even consider the possibility is correct.
Lets just wait it out, when the NWO never happens i will rest assured you guys were wrong, and hopefully you too will realize the naivety you have exhibited.

This post has been edited by finn4life on Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 07:28

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 22:42)

The burden of proof

Legally, the burden of proof lies with the individual who makes the charge- that would be you, who alleges that such a drive for a one-world government exists. Philosophically, as I have alleged several times, the idea of NWO is a logical fallacy as an argument through ignorance- even its title is a fundamentally ignorant misunderstanding of accepted political terminology. What's more, even if this were not the case, I have already done plenty to rationalise my counter-argument; I've addressed the logistical and technical difficulty of implementing NWO (basically an argument via Occam's Razor alleging that, all else being equal, NWO is logically unlikely as it adds unnecessary complexity for no tangible gain for any involved party); I've looked at it from the angle of someone schooled in the political sciences and questioned whether its implementation is even remotely feasible (an argument from greater perception/greater understanding) and I've also questioned the individual merits of sources of the theory (some from a position of greater understanding, as the majority of supporters do not have any formal education or understanding of politics; some from a position of rationality, as many of the ideas are utterly irrational and illogical to someone with an understanding of political science, and some by disputing the factual accuracy of their statements). So in actuality, I've done as much as one reasonably can to prove that something does not logically exist. Now its your turn to provide evidence that I cannot dispute to support your belief. And we can always throw it out to a public vote.

[IM_YOUR_GOD]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 08:24)

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 22:42) The burden of proof  Legally, the burden of proof lies with the individual who makes the charge- that would be you, who alleges that such a drive for a one-world government exists. Philosophically, as I have alleged several times, the idea of NWO is a logical fallacy as an argument through ignorance- even its title is a fundamentally ignorant misunderstanding of accepted political terminology. What's more, even if this were not the case, I have already done plenty to rationalise my counter-argument; I've addressed the logistical and technical difficulty of implementing NWO (basically an argument via Occam's Razor alleging that, all else being equal, NWO is logically unlikely as it adds unnecessary complexity for no tangible gain for any involved party); I've looked at it from the angle of someone schooled in the political sciences and questioned whether its implementation is even remotely feasible (an argument from greater perception/greater understanding) and I've also questioned the individual merits of sources of the theory (some from a position of greater understanding, as the majority of supporters do not have any formal education or understanding of politics; some from a position of rationality, as many of the ideas are utterly irrational and illogical to someone with an understanding of political science, and some by disputing the factual accuracy of their statements). So in actuality, I've done as much as one reasonably can to prove that something does not logically exist. Now its your turn to provide evidence that I cannot dispute to support your belief. And we can always throw it out to a public vote.

I find ignorance in your bravado. Quite distrubing that someone as "educated" as you say, doesnt have a tea spoon of common sense when it comes to collecting and evaluating evidence. Your not reading what I posted and surly you didn't watch the video(s). Your response was untimely - hence your ignorance to not combat the evidence i provided rather the misinterpretation of a subject that you claim to understand. What political party will gain from this goal, Who said it was a political agenda?

That being said what makes your allegations stronger than mine? Your use of words or my lack there of? Your standing in this forum compared to mine?

Its your inability to understand when you have an argument and when you have a falsifiable theory to disprove.

I said I have the burden of proof but if you cant disprove the NWO theory in which i gave you numerous sources from political leaders, world bankers admitting the charges of a new global order of government and currency.

[Otter]

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 10:00)

bravado.

?

Kids, this is what happens when you drop out of community college in your second year.

Fella, not sure you're up to the task of overthrowing the NWO.

[IM_YOUR_GOD]

QUOTE (Otter @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:39)

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 10:00) bravado. ? Kids, this is what happens when you drop out of community college in your second year. Fella, not sure you're up to the task of overthrowing the NWO.

QUOTE

bra·va·do  (br-väd) n. pl. bra·va·dos or bra·va·does 1. a. Defiant or swaggering behavior: strove to prevent our courage from turning into bravado. b. A pretense of courage; a false show of bravery. 2. A disposition toward showy defiance or false expressions of courage. [French bravade and Old Spanish bravada, swagger, bravery, both ultimately from Vulgar Latin *brabus, brave; see brave.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. bravado [brəˈvɑːdəʊ] n pl -does, -dos vaunted display of courage or self-confidence; swagger [from Spanish bravada (modern bravata), from Old Italian bravare to challenge, provoke, from bravo wild, brave]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bravado

This is what happens when you do even attempt to educated yourself.

[sivispacem]

Right, this should be good.

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

I find ignorance in your bravado.

I find bravado in your ignorance. Deeply ironic coming from someone who lost this exactly same argument previously, conceded that they lost it, accused everyone else of having been "aggressive" in their contradiction of the original thesis and then proceeded to start the exact same argument in another thread having already been conclusively rim-split in the first.

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

Quite distrubing that someone as "educated" as you say, doesnt have a tea spoon of common sense when it comes to collecting and evaluating evidence.

Oh really? Lets examine this further. Common sense is, what, the ability to methodically understand situations and to make the judgement that the majority of individuals would given no external pressure? So, please explain to me where my "common sense" is lacking. In fact, do you mind explaining to me exactly how you became so learned on the subject in question that you feel you are able to judge what the "judgement that the majority of individuals" would make given the available evidence; or for that matter what your "ability to methodically understand situations" is based on given the context of the argument? And, pray tell, even if you can justify your position based on the latter two comments, exactly what evidence have you presented to evaluate that I have not already dismissed as hyperbole, personal opinion misunderstanding or pure fiction?

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

Your not reading what I posted and surly you didn't watch the video(s).

No, I did not. Perhaps that's because I am "educated" enough to know that quite literally anyone can make a Youtube video and that, similarly, a reasonable number of people will be stupid or naive enough to take it as gospel truth regardless of what the content is. If a rational person were given the choice between believing an essentially anonymous video clip, with absolutely no indication of prior knowledge or understanding on the part of the editor or publisher, no context and no effective review process; or a peer-review article or journal written by a renowned scholar with a grounding and significant working experience in the sector on which they write, which has passed through the gauntlet of approval provided by an external moderating force, which would they chose? If you can provide a concrete reason as to why I should watch the ramblings of some tin-foil-hat lunatic given that 1) the academic consensus contradicts them, 2) the popular consensus contradicts them, 3) they are unwilling to provide context for their comments, 4) they are unwilling to provide legitimate sources, 5) they are unwilling for their work to be subject to peer review, 6) in the vast majority of cases the individual in question has no connection to the subject matter on which they chose to speak and 7) the basic principle of their thesis is built on a fallacy, then please go ahead.

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

Your response was untimely

Was it? I think it occurred at a pretty appropriate time in the context of the debate.

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

hence your ignorance to not combat the evidence i provided rather the misinterpretation of a subject that you claim to understand.

What evidence? I do not feel that out-of-context quotations constitute evidence, nor do I feel that the personal opinions of individuals who are unwilling to permit scrutiny of their views constitutes evidence. If you see scepticism about ideas that have no basis in reality, accepted academic knowledge, or lets be honest popular perceptions as valid arguments and counter-arguments then good for you, but it's not going to fly in the context of the debate. If you'd like me to present some simple-to-understand bullet point questions highlighting my misgivings about the argument you present, then please allow me to do so-

1) What would be the net benefit of an all-encompassing political structure for those in charge of administering it? As far as I can see, the costs of administration would result in it being a negative-sum game regardless of how effectively or fully it was implemented.

2) If the above can be answered, exactly how would such a system be administered in logistical terms?

3) If efforts are being made to consolidate national structures into a single transnational entity, then why are there more nations currently than at any other point in modern history, with a greater variety of political administrations and far more disparate social and political systems?

4) Can you explain the tangible links between individuals who are professed to be part of the plot? For a "worldwide" conspiracy it is very extensively centred in English-speaking, Western, democratic nations. Care to explain this?

5) If such a plot really does exist, why use the "new world order" name? It's a term that sounds ominous to anyone not versed in political sciences, you'd have though they would have picked a name that was less vague and potentially more guarded- like "democratic process" for instance.

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

What political party will gain from this goal, Who said it was a political agenda?

None, as far as I can see. The costs in terms of resources, logistics, manpower and time would be so vast as to render such a plot essentially worthless. There is no guarantee that nations would fall under the thumb of a supreme centralised power anywhere near as easily as they would have to to make such a venture even vaguely worthwhile. So exactly who else would be involved? The economic powers? Well, as anyone with the vaguest understanding of economics will tell you, markets are based on supply and demand, and wealth is both theoretically infinite and entirely subjective. So, as yourself this, what profit could any shady under-figure seek to make, bearing in mind his creation (which in one aspect would have to be politically motivated in order to provide some semblance of united order and the rule of law) would essentially edge closer to the point of economic and social implosion the larger, more monolithic and less agile it became?

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

That being said what makes your allegations stronger than mine?  Your use of words or my lack there of? Your standing in this forum compared to mine?

For the sake of brevity, I'll list the reasons that I have't already covered in the above.

1) The fact your argument is not based in common understanding.
2) The fact your argument is not based in academic understanding.
3) The fact that the main purveyors of your argument are unwilling to subject themselves to legitimate peer review.
4) The fact you appear to have no academic support for your argument to speak of
5) Because your argument lacks veracity based on 1) through 4)
6) Because I have a formal education in geopolitics, international relations and security studies to a postgraduate level.
7) Because I have significant experience working in sectors related to the above.
8) Because the majority of public opinion in this forum is on my side.

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

Its your inability to understand when you have an argument and when you have a falsifiable theory to disprove.

A personal belief does not constitute a theory. The very principle of a theory is that it requires substantiation. Myself and others have consistently disputed the validity of your substantiations and supportive evidence to the point that your theory is no longer a theory. And just like the belief in an underwater pink unicorn, or a teapot orbiting Mars, is incredibly difficult to disprove given a set circumstance, your belief is nigh-on impossible to falsify. But, in contrast to your insinuations, it is also not a theory, because it lacks a substantive base and is composed almost entirely of supposition and hearsay. And such it will remain until a gifted, well-versed and impeccably educated individual with a reasonable grounding in the subject submits a sourced peer-review argument complete with substantive evidence to support the idea of NWO. If you can show me an instance of an individual who is willing to place their career, their academic profile and their reputation on the line to defend this idiotic bilge then I am all ears. But until that point, your argument is nothing more than a personal opinion.

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

I said I have the burden of proof

Then why have you entirely failed to answer a single question asked of you? Why have you failed to present this proof? Why is everything you presented so worthless in the context of the argument? I don't like to be flippant or crass, but when push comes to shove my views- hell, even my personal views- have more support in the academic community than every NWO conspiracy theorist combined.

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

but if you cant disprove the NWO theory

The same way that one cannot disprove the existence of invisible beings, or deities, or unicorns that live underwater.

QUOTE (IM_YOUR_GOD @ Thursday, Jun 21 2012, 19:00)

in which i gave you numerous sources from political leaders, world bankers admitting the charges of a new global order of government and currency.

"Political figures use political term shocker". Seriously, are you that stupid as to fail to understand that "new world order" has an accepted political definition? Please explain to me how anyone who understands this basic fact- the same basic fact which demonstrated that the entire bloody conspiracy theory is build on a fallacy- and yet fail to comprehend the fact that politicians and people who operate in the political spectrum use the terms. It is, if I can use a crude analogy, like claiming that Gynecologists are involved in a conspiracy as they keep using the word "cervix". So, in light of that, I will ask a question I have asked you previously and never got an answer. Given that "new world order" has an accepted political meaning, can you provide a single quotation, in context, uttered by a political leader or public figure of standing and merit, which cannot be explained by this definition?

[Icarus]

I almost feel bad watching this. It's like putting a professional boxer with a high school geek with no muscle mass into the squared circle and watching the carnage ensue.

[*MURDOC*]

I have never enjoyed reading super-long posts quite so much, bravo.

[Antinark]

Don't listen to him IM_YOUR_GOD, his intellectual elitism, clear diction, astute rationality, comprehensive debating skills and dashing good looks can only mean one thing...

He is the NWO.