In Closing..

[ilikekicks]

Theres a wide selection of individuals from various viewpoints that I have come upon in my life. One thing they all cannot decide upon or agree upon is where our liberty comes from. Some would say our liberties come from the laws and what we legislate upon one another.. Think about that concept.. forcing one view upon a bunch of people.. Is that really how liberty works? Is that how liberty really comes about? Some would say just leaving others alone to do as they please without any interference at all would be the most generous way of letting everyone have their liberties.. until it effects someone else, then what? What too many people never recognize is what function we ( you and I ) have as individuals in insuring we ALL have the liberties to use as we see fit. *WE* choose for ourselves. Ive seen many people complain about not being able to go out in heels. Not being able to wear certain pants. Not being able to do something that is well within our grasp/limits and we always have an excuse or a ' fear ' as our reasoning to not exploit our liberties. This isnt with just what we wear, but its an aspect of our lives. Fear of rejection, fear the wife will think were gay, fear that so-and-so will say ' blah blah blah '.. If your social standing in a conversation is more important then being yourself and enjoying your liberty, where does that leave us stand as an ' individual '? How about as an ' Intellectual '? How about just as ' Joe Schmoe ', the guy from down the street? How can anyone complain about a homophobe or a redneck when we as individuals have fears of even putting on a pair of shoes? Do the math on that one : We will chastise one person of being afraid of a whole group of people when a simple heeled shoe is a ' no-no '? We all wish to believe society as a whole has made so much progress, that people today are smarter, that we as humanity have such a drive to make life better.. Life.. it requires the basics of food and shelter.. How many people do we know could survive if the power went out long term? How many would survive if the markets didnt have food for a week? Are we really that smart? Have we really evolved and become great ' critical thinkers ' as some have touted? Reality is, theres no such thing as ' human rights '. What there is though, is an ideology that states we should help each other out when there is a need of somekind. Liberty only happens when people THINK. On many websites, the word ' N i g g e r ' isnt allowed. Redneck, Bigot, homophobe, tea bagger, radical, christian loon and many others are though. I have seen such terms used here in describing groups in absolute spite. One sided conversations. Who is willing to even recognize this happens? Not too many in ' fear ' they will be labeled or outcasted. Its ' division '. In ' division ', theres no thinking and no liberty. Many will sit and wonder : " why is it Im not accepted while wearing heels? " or why they have a fear in being found out.. The answer : Look inside yourself, at yourself, THINK for yourself.. You already know the answer to the question. Half the problem starts with us as individuals and we do nothing to remedy nor take our half the fault. Its always the ' rednecks ' fault or ' that damn bible thumpers fault '.. heaven forbid they have been provoked by some idiot with a pen and paper writing laws.. but we should allow one side to push the other.. just as people believe they cannot express themselves in whatever shoes it is they wish to wear in fear that someone wont accept them.. The reason I can go where I want to with what I wish to wear is I already know Im half the problem, and half the solution. If someone wishes to be a ' redneck ', good for them. If they wish to be a ' gangsta ', good for them. If they want to be gay and yell ' Were here! Were queer! ' more power to them, have a parade! ( they already do ). When you as an individual stop making excuses for why it is you havent achieved what you wish to wear or where you want to be in life, you'll start finding the answers in EVERYTHING, not just what you wish to wear but your whole life. In closing, be well and try to succeed in all of life that you can. Its for YOU to decide, nobody else. Take care, Dan.

[Foxyheels]

I can't disagree with anything you put, we really are the only thing that prevents our own true freedom in this modern society. I hope I'm wrong but I feel that's you saying goodbye to us.

[dww]

I thought the very same thing. But I hope not.

[Curt]

I'm going to miss all your great stories. We are all going to miss you here. Ashley.

[Heelster]

_{Dude - - if your gonna bug out, drop me a message so I can at least catch up with you sometime in the future. I was hoping too last time I was in your neck of the woods except I spent more time running around the local hospitals as you may recall.}

[Dr. Shoe]

"One man's freedom is another's oppression".

Is Liberty really about doing what we want? Think another way, Liberty is selfishness, isn't it?

Or is it?

If we do something that oppresses other people then you are taking away their liberties aren't we. If we do things that do no harm to other people then that is a true democratic Liberty.

Take a favourite one here: Gun ownership. A freedom to bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution. However, being allowed to carry a gun is an opportunity to oppress others who choose not to.

Yes, freedom is about choice but it's also about responsibility.

Is it a right or a privilidge that has to be earned?

Great post BTW ILK.

[Shafted]

"One man's freedom is another's oppression".

Is Liberty really about doing what we want? Think another way, Liberty is selfishness, isn't it?

Or is it?

If we do something that oppresses other people then you are taking away their liberties aren't we. If we do things that do no harm to other people then that is a true democratic Liberty.

Take a favourite one here: Gun ownership. A freedom to bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution. However, being allowed to carry a gun is an opportunity to oppress others who choose not to.

Yes, freedom is about choice but it's also about responsibility.

Is it a right or a privilidge that has to be earned?

Great post BTW ILK.

Here I stand floored. Somebody outside the US finally gets it.

Understandably, I am somewhat reluctant to expound on this.

I don't own what would be conventionally considered a firearm, although it is classified as such in my state I do own an crossbow. It's just as deadly as any conventional firearm (if not totally devastating at close range with a broadhead). It may seem strange to some why I chose a crossbow. But in reality, it's a really neat machine (I think gun owners can understand this), capable of helping us provide for ourselves when others or government can't.

I am not one to step into the future and burn my bridges behind me.

[ilikekicks]

I can't disagree with anything you put, we really are the only thing that prevents our own true freedom in this modern society. I hope I'm wrong but I feel that's you saying goodbye to us.

Not quite ' goodbye ', but I've choosen to limit my time online. Not specifically *this* site, but the whole damn thing.

From my ' travels ', I have seen a lot of division and hatred towards others coming from all different directions and nobody/none of the sides realize the liberty they put in jeopardy for others AND themselves.

I want no part of it as its not at all what ANY of us really are. If any one of us was actually part of such in their soul and core of beliefs, they would be of the worst part of humanity and surely, nothing worth associating with.

I'm going to miss all your great stories. We are all going to miss you here.

Ashley.

Again, the stories and my time is limited. ' Harvest ' is coming fast and my new lifestyle has me working 14-16 hour days, 6 and a half days a week. I do this with burnt hands to boot.

_{Dude - - if your gonna bug out, drop me a message so I can at least catch up with you sometime in the future. I was hoping too last time I was in your neck of the woods except I spent more time running around the local hospitals as you may recall.}

Yes, I do recall such. In fact, I went to ECMC ( same place of your relative ) and spent 3 days in their Burn Unit along with 7 or 8 Canadians. Unfortunate they werent REAL Canadians as 3 of the lot didnt know much at all about the Maple Leafs and none of them ( not a single one ) had been to a game for years!

"One man's freedom is another's oppression".

Is Liberty really about doing what we want? Think another way, Liberty is selfishness, isn't it?

Or is it?

Liberty is based solely on selfishness. In the same breathe of air, its also based on the exact opposit of selfishness as the wish for others to be free/do as they please is also put forth.

If we do something that oppresses other people then you are taking away their liberties aren't we. If we do things that do no harm to other people then that is a true democratic Liberty.

Not true. Theres no ' democracy ' in ' liberty '. Democracy is nothing more then Tyranny of the majority. Recent examples are the A.C.A. in the U.S. , the NDAA, Prohabition, the ' War on drugs '.

Think of this for an example : A woman is alowed to have whats termed as an ' Abortion '. Thats fine by me, its HER body. Yet in the same note, its illegal for her to do ' tricks ' and make a living. Why is that? Well a ' democracy ' or ' majority ' says its ok to go to a clinic and have a procedure that may or may not have consequences and sometimes even have others whom werent involved in the act pay for it. Yet when I was a single guy, and had the funds, that same woman wasnt allowed to render services.. So much for ' democracy ' as it is nothing more then others telling an individual their limits to where they can excel and putting no limits on how far they can fail.

" Theres always a confused soul that thinks that one man can make a difference. You have to kill him to convince him otherwise. Thats the hastle with democracy. "

Take a favourite one here: Gun ownership. A freedom to bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution. However, being allowed to carry a gun is an opportunity to oppress others who choose not to.

Not at all. There are people whom carry around hammers. Carpenters. Surely, they could beat someone. How about a baseball player? Heaven forbid they are a designated hitter or a pitcher! Im sure a 100mph fast-ball could do some deadly deeds to someone elses noggin. I dont think I need to say anything about knives or bats as they are quite often used in the U.K. .

What about those people whom use public transportation? Surely, a person whom owns a car ( 3000lbs of steel ) can do quite a bit of damage ( and they have in all to many instances in the past ).

Its not the ' tools ', its the ' mentallity ' behind those things/instances. There needs to be a reason or a thought before the tools are put to use.

The same applies to all of our liberties. We all need to understand that If I want to wear a certain shoe, I have to allow others to do the same. If they choose not to do such, thats well withing their liberty to do so. If someone else wishes to own that car, baseball bat, baseball, knife, gun, crossbow, YSL Platformed Jackstand.. thats for them to do so and theres no chance for them to oppress me.

Yes, freedom is about choice but it's also about responsibility.

Is it a right or a privilidge that has to be earned?

In almost all my views, I believe in ' rights ' and the purposefull allowence of ' liberty ', but there IS a cost.

Theres no legislation, bill of rights, Constitution or ' affiliation ' that will guarentee that there are freedoms for all. There is an ' understanding ' and nothing more.

MANY people are waking up to the thought. They have known this for many years of their lives but have been ( and I mean this ) absolutly stupid, idiots, morons as they have tried to take from others while saying it was ' best for all '.

An old saying :

They came for the black man and I didnt care, Im not black.

They came for the Jew and I didnt care.. Im not jewish..

They finally came for me because there was nobody else!

' Nobody else ' is now in great peril as they have oppressed everyone else down into a hole and only have ' their ' cliche left to deal with. Inhouse fighting so to say.

Ive tried to reach out to others but have come to the conclusion that people ' dont want to hear it ' and shout ya down. I wish them the best and Ill go about my life ' way out here ' taking care of myself, family and friends. Being self sufficient is teh greatest responsability of all. Others count on you and you count on them. Its how a community should work. People looking out for one another.

Its done without ' laws ' or ' legislation ', but knowing that we each have a roll to play and that we each are as important as the next person. All have a purpose, not just a few.

Great post BTW ILK.

Thank you.

Here I stand floored. Somebody outside the US finally gets it.

Understandably, I am somewhat reluctant to expound on this.

I don't own what would be conventionally considered a firearm, although it is classified as such in my state I do own an crossbow. It's just as deadly as any conventional firearm (if not totally devastating at close range with a broadhead). It may seem strange to some why I chose a crossbow. But in reality, it's a really neat machine (I think gun owners can understand this), capable of helping us provide for ourselves when others or government can't.

In all actuallity, a crossbow is much better for several reasons.

1.) stealth.

2.) can make your own ammo from local surroundings.

3.) easy maintenance, doesnt require a machine shop.

4.) if you do miss, odds are you will have a second shot ( again, stealth, they are quite quiet. )

5.) no special permits needed in most areas.

6.) laws reguartding such items really arent that bad ( YET! They will be soon enough. )

I am not one to step into the future and burn my bridges behind me.

Im not burning bridges. Im leaving people to do for themselves. I'll have no input into what they do nor will I try to influence it in any way/shape/form. Such is a futile effort from what I have learned.

[meganiwish]

Democracy is nothing more then Tyranny of the majority.

Hear hear!

[Shafted]

Here in the US, it seems that large majority are completely ignorant. They think the US is a democracy. It isn't and never was. It is a republic.It is just one example of the mass ignorance in this country.

[Heelster]

Here in the US, it seems that large majority are completely ignorant. They think the US is a democracy. It isn't and never was. It is a republic.It is just one example of the mass ignorance in this country.

It's amazing how many people do not realize that or understand it.

[ilikekicks]

Here in the US, it seems that large majority are completely ignorant. They think the US is a democracy. It isn't and never was. It is a republic.It is just one example of the mass ignorance in this country.

Its not the U.S. Its Humanity in general. Its a ' mindset '.

The real answer to the question of ' Will men in heels ever be openly accepted or a trend? ' is going to be ' NO! Absolutely not! ' why? Because the men whom wear heels or claim to want to wear heels in public wont put forth the effort to have such happen.

Its not so-much as ' ignorance ' as it is a common disability that is APPLIED to the masses. Its a ' communications breakdown ' that is intentionally put forth.

Fuel economy? How about fuel efficiency, a term used for quiet a few decades to describe how far something will go within a certain measure of consumption?

Just what is a ' White Hispanic ' as in the recent Zimmerman trial? Someone is either white OR hispanic, your not both. Is Obama a ' White African American ' then?

Heres a good one. ' Health Care '. We should all care about out health, I agree. But why the spin off of what Medical Insurance is? Ah.. the ' insurance ' word scares people away.

When you have a society of people whom BELIEVE they are on the same page, but they arent, things will never work.

The masses arent ' ignorant ', they are intentionally divided and fed truckloads of brown fertilizer.

A good example of how things are ' spun '.

I burned my hands with that blaster. I went to ECMC. The parking lot was full of Canadian Plates on the cars. 98% of all the Canadians know swear they have the best ' health care ' systems ( The term HOSPITAL would be better fitting ). Why would they come to the U.S. for Medical Attention ( not health care, MEDICAL ATTENTION )? Why do they pay ( in many instances ) out of their own pocket?

I say this because its truthful and it really puzzeled me when I saw all those plates on all those cars.. there were more from Canada then New York in that parking lot!

Check this out:

http://www.ecmc.edu/...nadianpatients/

"

Cross over to faster care

ECMC is proud to serve our Canadian neighbors. At ECMC, you can expect prompt, professional treatment in a variety of specialties, from cardiac care to renal care and beyond. In addition to the finest physicians and nurses available, you’ll also find professionals who can help you with the Ministry of Health to determine the best way to get the treatment you need."

They are lead to believe they have something that is so great.. yet when the situation is looked at and evaluated with a conscious mind, they leave the system they support as a diehard and with 15% of their incomes that are forcibly taken through taxation to pay for!

We were all told how bad our Medical System was and it needed this great overhaul. Now the Canadians ( and others from around the world whom used to come here! ) are going to loose good, quality medical attention and many here in the U.S. will be going bankrupt.

Im betting MANY people whom read here would go as far as to say everyone has a ' right ' to ' free medical care ' and call it something like a ' human right '.

How would anyone have such a ' right ' if all the doctors just up and quit? Its well within their ' rights ' * the doctors to quit ) to do such. In actuality, nobody has such a ' right ' to medical anything. We have an ' option ' and thats about it.

To even say such will bring on the ire and hatred of those ' die hards ' as *I* shouldnt be allowed to say something ' like that '.

Shafted.. ' those people ' arent ignorant. They are SLAVES.

They are zealots in wishing to push their views upon everyone else when they really dont even understand what their views mean outside of what they have been ' promised '. They have been lied to for so long, they couldnt recognize the ' truth ' and if they did know what such was, they wouldnt care anyway as they are numb to it.

Heelster..

It's amazing how many people do not realize that or understand it.

Have you ever seen the ' Matrix ' movies? Its what I use as a comparrison. Theres very few people that are ' unplugged '. Are they really ' ignorant ' when the system they live in is ' correct ' for them? By definition, ' ignorant ' means : the state or fact of being ignorant: lack of knowledge, education, or awareness.

Its the ' awareness ' part that I draw my perspective from. ' Those kind ' arent really aware at all. Its not that they DONT have the Knowledge or Education, they lack the awareness needed to see things for how they really are.

We ALL know so many like that and even at points in our own lives, we arent aware of what it is that we are doing or what we really should be doing.

[Dr. Shoe]

Firstly, you live in a Democracy (as we do) because you are able to say that without being censored. It's not perfect but that's how it is. What would you suggest, a dictatorship? Communism? Absolute Monarchy? An Oligarchy? Or pure Anarchy? In most "Democratic" countries, the hiarchy of government is based on a political meritocracy. You vote for the people in Town Hall (Local Council here in the UK), they do a good job so they stand as an MP (Member of Parliament). Then as an MP they could get chosen to be either a member of the Cabinet (the government decision makers) or a member of the Shadow Cabinet (the would-be decision makers in the opposition parties). If they do a good job as a minister and their party thinks that they could lead their political party to victory at a general election then they get elected as party leader. Yes, I know it's slightly different in th US. Yes, we do get fed bullshit and lies, we get people who say one thing and do another. This is down to human nature. Supposing everything was decided by referendum, what do you think life would be like in the US? How many people would vote to pay 30% in taxes? No one. Who in their right mind would vote for $3 a gallon tax on gasoline? Sometimes decisions have to be made for the good of the country as a whole, not for special interest groups.

[at9]

I will cite Winston Churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Apart from representative democracy, as practiced in many countries there is also the somewhat theoretical concept of direct democracy. This would require the enfranchised citizens to vote directly on each proposed measure. I hate to think of the consequences. While representative democracy is a sort of dictatorship of the majority it is at least somewhat buffered. Direct plebiscite could easily end up as something akin to mob rule.

[Shafted]

If you have elected representatives and senators, it IS a republic not a democracy. They are democratically elected by the people except for the president (due to the electoral college). It's spelled out verbatim in our founding documents. A democracy would be by popular vote, and eliminate politicians. It's no big secret that the US is a republic. Democracy is not much more than mob rule. The freedom of speech has nothing to do with what form of government is in place. It's just a matter of if it's permitted.

[Dr. Shoe]

Indeed.

What I was going to say (but I was dragged away before I could finish) was that these people who live in countries with religious rulers feel they are much better off because any political responsibility is taken away from them. When done well it can be good for everyone, Saudi Arabia is one such country and as long as you follow the rules you will be fine and free to do almost anything you like as long as it does not involve alcohol or drugs. Many jewellery shops are left unlocked while their owners go to pray and out of the two prisons only one of them is at capacity. We think that chopping off the hands of thieves is barbaric but it's hardly ever practiced.

Now, we would like to see all countries have "democracy" whether they are republics or not but that's no different than the Soviet ambition for a communist world.

Moreover, whether your country is a Republic or not has nothing to do with how the head of state is chosen, a republic is a country ruled by (and not necessarily run by) an elected official. Eire is a republic but the president is directly elected by the electorate, it also has a prime minister who actually runs the country. A Monarchy is a country where the head of state is "chosen" by right of successsion like our own Queen. In some countries, the monarch runs the country like a US president would do and in others they take a back seat like the Irish president does.

[ilikekicks]

Firstly, you live in a Democracy (as we do) because you are able to say that without being censored.

Not true. I can say as I wish, even if there are repercussions because I might wish to speak. There are laws and forms of censorship, yet I still speak. YOU still speak. Others still speak. *I* dont live in a ' democracy '. If such were true, the electoral college wouldnt be needed nor would the thought of it coming to control the elections have ever started.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority, yet in 2000, the Electoral college put in a looser of the majority vote.

It's not perfect but that's how it is. What would you suggest, a dictatorship? Communism? Absolute Monarchy? An Oligarchy? Or pure Anarchy?

Something closer to anarchy then what is presently employed. People hear the term ' anarchy ' and they have grand visions of riots and people going around looting and killing. The basis of Anarchy is very simply put as ' self rule '.

So long as someone isnt harming another or their properties, why shouldnt individuals be allowed to take control of their own lives?

In most "Democratic" countries, the hiarchy of government is based on a political meritocracy. You vote for the people in Town Hall (Local Council here in the UK), they do a good job so they stand as an MP (Member of Parliament). Then as an MP they could get chosen to be either a member of the Cabinet (the government decision makers) or a member of the Shadow Cabinet (the would-be decision makers in the opposition parties). If they do a good job as a minister and their party thinks that they could lead their political party to victory at a general election then they get elected as party leader. Yes, I know it's slightly different in th US.

Its WAY different. Its more about a popularity contest, not the achievements or good one has done.

What you mentioned in local surroundings is how my nation was originally established. States could do things as they saw fit. Today, not so much.

Yes, we do get fed bullshit and lies, we get people who say one thing and do another. This is down to human nature.

Its more closely associated with ' Philosophy ' and money here in the U.S.

Supposing everything was decided by referendum, what do you think life would be like in the US? How many people would vote to pay 30% in taxes? No one. Who in their right mind would vote for $3 a gallon tax on gasoline?

I say this in all sincerity and meaning every word of it.. New Yorkers! They will tax the hell out of anyone whos prosperous and create more ' programs ' for those whom they deem ' unfortunate ' in order to buy off a voting block. I *tried* to run a small business but when over half your profits are taken away, theres little left for the workers. So instead of people earning something, its taken from their employers and the workers then have to check with the state to see if they are worthy of some form of ' compensation '.

How is that ' liberty ' for anyone involved?

I would almost throw in the ' Residents of Detroit ' from what I have looked into thus far.

Sometimes decisions have to be made for the good of the country as a whole, not for special interest groups.

And the individual? What about them? Should one ideology be promoted over another with the use of force ( government )? Thats the ' absolute ' of democracy in its defined form.

If you have elected representatives and senators, it IS a republic not a democracy. They are democratically elected by the people except for the president (due to the electoral college). It's spelled out verbatim in our founding documents. A democracy would be by popular vote, and eliminate politicians.

A survey of local kids graduating high school in Western New York didnt know what the electoral college was.

It's no big secret that the US is a republic. Democracy is not much more than mob rule.

I wouldnt call it ' mob rule ' as most people think such is ' anarchy ' ( again, so much for having a common language with terms that arent hijacked ). I call it ' tyranny ' as thats what it is.

The freedom of speech has nothing to do with what form of government is in place. It's just a matter of if it's permitted.

Permitted or not, it doesnt matter. People will protest and say what they wish. Theres a band in Russia right now, all girl punk band, whom are sitting in cells and locked away for speaking their minds. The laws mattered not to them and they used their vocal chords to express their descention.

Indeed.

What I was going to say (but I was dragged away before I could finish) was that these people who live in countries with religious rulers feel they are much better off because any political responsibility is taken away from them.

Very true.

When done well it can be good for everyone, Saudi Arabia is one such country and as long as you follow the rules you will be fine and free to do almost anything you like as long as it does not involve alcohol or drugs. Many jewellery shops are left unlocked while their owners go to pray and out of the two prisons only one of them is at capacity. We think that chopping off the hands of thieves is barbaric but it's hardly ever practiced.

Are the women in Saudi Arabia allowed to wear heels out in public? Can they wear whatever attire it is they wish? Are they allowed to be agnostic or atheist? Are they allowed to have a job?

Women are to have a male guardian. Its a requirement. Women arent allowed to vote. They arent allowed to drive either. Women have absolutely no power at all in the countries ( supposed ) political process. Many men are left out of the process too! I *think* ( taking a guess here ) that women in Saudi Arabia are less then a quarter of their total work force.

It was the Same in the U.S. until WW2 ( the employment stats ).

Now, we would like to see all countries have "democracy" whether they are republics or not but that's no different than the Soviet ambition for a communist world.

Being honest.. If another country wants to be a ' democracy ', good for them. Let the folks there decide what it is they wish to do. If they want a monarchy or theology.. thats fine too! Its their lands to decide what they wish to do with it.

Moreover, whether your country is a Republic or not has nothing to do with how the head of state is chosen, a republic is a country ruled by (and not necessarily run by) an elected official. Eire is a republic but the president is directly elected by the electorate, it also has a prime minister who actually runs the country. A Monarchy is a country where the head of state is "chosen" by right of successsion like our own Queen. In some countries, the monarch runs the country like a US president would do and in others they take a back seat like the Irish president does.

True. But in a ' Republic ', Matters of the State are put on public referendum. Things are out in the open, unlike a democracy in which the ' rulers ' can basically do as they please until the next election cycle where one would HOPE to throw them out.

The forms of Governments you brought up.. not weather they are right or wrong, but the fact that they exist.. MANY people in the ' public education ' system in the U.S. arent taught what they are nor if they even exist.

I look at the present ' U.S. Government ' a lot like the Roman Empire. Corruption starting at the top and working its way down. The liberties of the people are ' legislated ' away under the guise that a ' better equality ' is just around the corner.. yet those ' promises ' or ' dreams ' never happen. In the same process, those whom make these promises are always brought back and repeat the same thing, over and over again..

If anything, its more of an ' insanity ' then a democracy.

[at9]

When do you think this was written?

For might makes right,

And till they've seen the light,

They've got to be protected,

All their rights respected,

'Till somebody we like can be elected.

By an American in 1965. Plus ca change.

[meganiwish]

People hear the term ' anarchy ' and they have grand visions of riots and people going around looting and killing. The basis of Anarchy is very simply put as ' self rule '.

Quite so. Anarchy, from the Greek anarkhos, meaning without a ruler. We shouldn't be surprised, perhaps, that the rulers were quick to taint the word with visions of chaos and mob rule which simply don't exist in the word's etymology. Nor, indeed, according to available evidence, in the real world. Actually, people get by fine without leaders. We just behave sociably because we're a social animal. It's true that in practice there's never been such a thing as a non-hierarchical society, but that's another issue.

The ruling classes have always been quite aware of this. Our Prime Minister's 'vision' of 'the big society' is nothing more than an attempt to have his cake and eat it. He wants to govern while at the same time claiming that government has no function. Once upon a time they felt the need to pretend. We should be concerned that they feel safe to drop the humbug.

[nyenor]

In reference to #14 I seem to recall that many years ago British comedians Peter Cook and Dudley Moore starred in a movie based on this very idea.

[Dr. Shoe]

Not true. I can say as I wish, even if there are repercussions because I might wish to speak. There are laws and forms of censorship, yet I still speak. YOU still speak. Others still speak. *I* dont live in a ' democracy '. If such were true, the electoral college wouldnt be needed nor would the thought of it coming to control the elections have ever started.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority, yet in 2000, the Electoral college put in a looser of the majority vote.

Actually, what I meant was that you are allowed to be critical of the way your country is run. Try that in Iran or Soviet Russia, or even in "democratic" Russia. I'm quite sure that if the US electorate had known how it was going to turn out then I'm sure you would have had a female President by now... BTW, why did they vote for him twice?

Here in the UK, we don't vote directly for the person who runs the country either, we vote for our local repesentative of the party of which the guy who ends up in charge is the leader of.

Something closer to anarchy then what is presently employed. People hear the term ' anarchy ' and they have grand visions of riots and people going around looting and killing. The basis of Anarchy is very simply put as ' self rule '.

You can't have "almost anarchy". You are either "without rule" or you have rule (an is Greek for without and archy means rule). Under an anrchy, there would be no governement running the police to protect you. What happens if you get robbed? You might be able to protect yourself but what about your mother, grandparents? There'd be no schools, no street lighting, no hospitals. What you mean is that you want less state control.

So long as someone isnt harming another or their properties, why shouldnt individuals be allowed to take control of their own lives?

You do have control of your life, you just have to follow the rules. Try wearing the clothes you wear somewhere like Turkey for example!

Its WAY different. Its more about a popularity contest, not the achievements or good one has done.

What you mentioned in local surroundings is how my nation was originally established. States could do things as they saw fit. Today, not so much.

Indeed. However, what is popularity? Think about it.

I say this in all sincerity and meaning every word of it.. New Yorkers! They will tax the hell out of anyone whos prosperous and create more ' programs ' for those whom they deem ' unfortunate ' in order to buy off a voting block. I *tried* to run a small business but when over half your profits are taken away, theres little left for the workers. So instead of people earning something, its taken from their employers and the workers then have to check with the state to see if they are worthy of some form of ' compensation '.

Yes but would the people of New York vote for all this? Someone in the state legislature has decided that this is a good way to run it. You can bet your boots that the "disadvantaged" would vote for a bigger share of rich peoples' earnings whilst the wealthy would vote to keep more of their money. BTW, aren't workers wages an operating exense? Surely you pay tax on what's left after paying staff? if not that's a very screwy way to run an economy.

And the individual? What about them? Should one ideology be promoted over another with the use of force ( government )? Thats the ' absolute ' of democracy in its defined form.

But should an individual's ideology be forced on others because he has the biggest gun (or hammer or baseball bat or car or whatever)? At least a government does maintain some kind of equilibrium.

A survey of local kids graduating high school in Western New York didnt know what the electoral college was.

Why would they? They probably either skipped class or fell asleep. We had to take politics as a mandatory subject when I was in a US high school... I forget what the classes where actually called.

I wouldnt call it ' mob rule ' as most people think such is ' anarchy ' ( again, so much for having a common language with terms that arent hijacked ). I call it ' tyranny ' as thats what it is.

Scrap government and tyranny is what you'll get.

Permitted or not, it doesnt matter. People will protest and say what they wish. Theres a band in Russia right now, all girl punk band, whom are sitting in cells and locked away for speaking their minds. The laws mattered not to them and they used their vocal chords to express their descention.

This is precisely what I was talking about. They have less freedoms than you think you have. You live in a surprisingly liberal country though not nearly as liberal as the UK.

Are the women in Saudi Arabia allowed to wear heels out in public?Yes. Can they wear whatever attire it is they wish? Yes. Are they allowed to be agnostic or atheist? Many probably are in private. No one is compelled to go to mosque. Are they allowed to have a job? Yes but most choose not to because they don't need to. Even the "poor" in Saudi have a good standard of living. In Kuwait, you only have to be born there to have shares in the national oil company, I gather it's the same in Saudi.

Women are to have a male guardian. Its a requirement. True. Women arent allowed to vote. Only the head of the household is allowed to vote but the government is chosen by the Sheiks anyway. They arent allowed to drive either. This is a bit of a myth, but their religion discourages it. Women have absolutely no power at all in the countries ( supposed ) political process. Many men are left out of the process too! True.

It was the Same in the U.S. until WW2 ( the employment stats ). Women didn't need to.

Being honest.. If another country wants to be a ' democracy ', good for them. Let the folks there decide what it is they wish to do. If they want a monarchy or theology.. thats fine too! Its their lands to decide what they wish to do with it.

True. But in a ' Republic ', Matters of the State are put on public referendum. Things are out in the open, unlike a democracy in which the ' rulers ' can basically do as they please until the next election cycle where one would HOPE to throw them out.

What Republics like Ireland or France Or Germany Or Italy Or Russia Or Switzerland Or Israel Or Greece Or Turkey Or Egypt Or Zimbabwe? I don't think any of these countries have referendae, certainly not on a regular basis. The only referendum the Irish have ever had (AFAIK) was whether to adopt th Euro. The people voted no. So the referendum was run again and still the people voted no. When it was run a third time Yes got a slim majority but only 28% turned out to vote.

The forms of Governments you brought up.. not weather they are right or wrong, but the fact that they exist.. MANY people in the ' public education ' system in the U.S. arent taught what they are nor if they even exist.

Why should they be? Being able to define 8 different forms of government won't get them a job, not even knowing that a Republic is normally a democracy won't either unles they want to work on Capitol Hill.

I look at the present ' U.S. Government ' a lot like the Roman Empire. Corruption starting at the top and working its way down. The liberties of the people are ' legislated ' away under the guise that a ' better equality ' is just around the corner.. yet those ' promises ' or ' dreams ' never happen. In the same process, those whom make these promises are always brought back and repeat the same thing, over and over again..

If anything, its more of an ' insanity ' then a democracy.

This is probably true. Bear in mind that regardless of your ideology, you would do the same. BTW, how do you know the President's corrupt? He might be the only honest guy in Capitol, you have no way of knowing because the dishonest ones would tell you differently and you wouldn't believe him if he told you he was honest.

If you don't like it, why don't you change it? Run for a place in City Hall. Bear in mind the words of the Bard of Stratford, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Talking of which:

Some college students were debating socialism in class. Their professor suggested that when they take the next paper, he average out the grades. The better students protested but being in the minority they decided that the grades should be averaged. the better students studied as before but when the papers came back, they had all got a C+. The students who normally get As were disappointed but thos who normally got Ds thought it a result. After th next exam, they all got C-. this was not as good as before and the C+ students were now disappointed. The next time the papers came back everyone had got Fs. Without the reward to succeed, the capable ones no longer wanted to put in the effort and so the averages slumped. This is why communism fails every time.

[ilikekicks]

Actually, what I meant was that you are allowed to be critical of the way your country is run. Try that in Iran or Soviet Russia, or even in "democratic" Russia.

If one speaks out about the U.S. Government, Their agencies use means of force against you. Be it the IRS or others whom just dont wish to agree with your views.

Tyranny is quite present, yet, all too many turn a blind eye to it.

I'm quite sure that if the US electorate had known how it was going to turn out then I'm sure you would have had a female President by now... BTW, why did they vote for him twice?

Many wont like this answer but its 100% truthful.

In 2000, too many people voted for a guy whom had what I would call a ' poor ' track record. The guy decided to go on a bombing spree ( which is still ongoing 10 years later ). There were other methods that could have been used but werent.

It was just a ' one time instance ' of a failure of ' common sense '.

Then it happened again.. TWICE as you pointed out. The REAL truth to the present guy was a mixture of resentment, anti-colonialism, racism and a failure of ' common sense ' once again.

Here in the UK, we don't vote directly for the person who runs the country either, we vote for our local repesentative of the party of which the guy who ends up in charge is the leader of.

That wouldnt work in the U.S. .

The U.S. is ( sort of ) like 6 different countries/cultures all under the same flag.

You can't have "almost anarchy". You are either "without rule" or you have rule (an is Greek for without and archy means rule).

I stated ' closer to anarchy ' then ' almost anarchy '. I wish for less ' rule from outside of my own self governance '.

Under an anrchy, there would be no governement running the police to protect you. What happens if you get robbed? You might be able to protect yourself but what about your mother, grandparents? There'd be no schools, no street lighting, no hospitals. What you mean is that you want less state control.

I need not of streetlights, schools nor mainstream hospitals.

You point out ( thank you! ) some of the specifics in whats really wrong.

People today are ' indoctrinated '. They arent ' educated '. If the systems you mentioned didnt exist, natural selection would happen more freely. Some will cry foul saying ' how dare you say such about those whom are disadvantaged ' or ' under privileged ', ' poor ', ' minority '.. ( add whatever divisive sub-group one wishes to use ).. I say let everyone be FREE to choose for themselves and either make something of their efforts and learnings or let them fail by their own means. Let people have their dignity again and be productive instead of put into a trend.

You do have control of your life, you just have to follow the rules. Try wearing the clothes you wear somewhere like Turkey for example!

I presently have 5 turkeys. They will be tasty, this I guarantee you! I have fed them wearing whatever I wished and they havent complained at all.

You mentioned ' rules '.. WHOS rules?

Heres some rules :

- There are laws saying if your child isnt pumped full of chemicals, they arent allowed into a ' school system '. Those chemicals have been PROVEN to cause autism and other very problematic medical conditions. As a property owner, with no kids at all ( that I know of ), I have to pay for a school system that is ( more then likely ) using a set of ' rules ' that is going to harm children and teach them how to put on a condom and be ' socially acceptable ' then reading/writing/math/history as a ' main course ' of EDUCATION?

- The rules regarding car emissions in ' New York ' is another. The law states I cannot put an older engine by year in a vehicle. So, If I own a 2006 years/make vehicle, I cannot use a 2005 engine or older in it due to ' smog ' or ' bad air '. This also includes a ' green ' engine. I cannot put a battery or ' hybrid ' type engine in! Furthermore, Ethanol usage ( supposed to be ' greener ' then gas/petrol ) isnt as common at the pumps when 25% of all the cars in the state ( That number is off if you ask me but the states DMV/Department of motor vehicles uses that figure.. Its their lie, not mine ) are capable of using it.

The problems with all these ' rules ' are they they just dont make any sense what-so-ever.. yet they are ' unfunded mandates ' in the department of ' intellectual honesty '.

Indeed. However, what is popularity? Think about it.

Doesnt matter whats ' popular ', its whats ' lawful ' ( supposedly ).

Yes but would the people of New York vote for all this? Someone in the state legislature has decided that this is a good way to run it. You can bet your boots that the "disadvantaged" would vote for a bigger share of rich peoples' earnings whilst the wealthy would vote to keep more of their money. BTW, aren't workers wages an operating exense? Surely you pay tax on what's left after paying staff? if not that's a very screwy way to run an economy.

Heres how it works. People dont see this and thus why the problems are happening.

I would go get a contract for work. A job is done, the fee is charged and the money comes to the business.

The way it worked ( math ) for each dollar the business brought in on that contract, after wages were paid and materials were bought, there was 51 cents left over. Call it half.

Of that ' half ' left over, I still had to pay the states ' Workers Compensation ' program while was ' per employee ' and was levied at 28cents per dollar per hour. I also had to pay the State tax, Federal Tax, SSI tax, State DUI tax..

I ' broke even ' ( usually ) and the company itself saw about one half a cent per dollar profit. So on a job that paid 1000$, after the ' State ' took ' Their Share ' and the Feds took ' Their Share ', the company itself saw 10$.

This is why a lot of small companies do this thing called ' Off the Books '. They have someone work for them without wage reporting or any form of lawful contracting. They give someone cash and have them work. Its done a LOT with Illegals here in the U.S. and in the construction industry in the states it wouldnt surprise me if at least a third of all those working in it are ' Off the Books '.

The Problem with the whole ' economy ' is over-regulation which takes way earnings in all directions, pools the money into a system that doesnt know how to use it properly, then builds a debt that draws interest that needs to be paid.

That debt is then sold off in bonds which draw even more interest and expands the debt to a greater measure.. Its a huge black hole..

But should an individual's ideology be forced on others because he has the biggest gun (or hammer or baseball bat or car or whatever)? At least a government does maintain some kind of equilibrium.

Man came from evolution, Sam Colt just made them all equal.

You have a bad impression in regards to firearms. Lets put this into a perspective to show how it really is.

Im all of 5'10". I dont weigh much ( as can be seen from my vids/pics ). In your analogy, if someone is 250lbs, 6'4" tall and studied MMA all their lives.. wheres the ' equilibrium in that? Should I just go down the street knowing that big guy is going to tear off my pants and Ill have rectal problems for a long time?

What nobody wishes to understand is a notion of common sense. The problem is with the individuals, not how someone is born or what tools they possess ( thats all a hammer, knife, car, firearm, baseball bat or bottle of gin really is ).

Ideology is forced not due to whom has the biggest gun or most firepower, but whom possesses the most skill and can be the most effective. I'll use the Taliban against the Russians in Afghanistan.

Why would they? They probably either skipped class or fell asleep. We had to take politics as a mandatory subject when I was in a US high school... I forget what the classes where actually called.

In these parts, its called being taught ' political correctness '.As you asked above about one persons ideology being forced upon another, its mandated in the education systems here.

Scrap government and tyranny is what you'll get.

Vote in government and you'll get the same in many instances. How about Egypt with their military taking out the guy voted in? Some would say thats aweful, some here in the States wight the same for our own lands.

This is precisely what I was talking about. They have less freedoms than you think you have. You live in a surprisingly liberal country though not nearly as liberal as the UK.

Your definition of ' liberal ' is kind-of ' off '. My country isnt ' liberal ', its not even ' progressive '. Its full of shit ( being 100% honest ) and trying to paint a picture of something that its really not.

What Republics like Ireland or France Or Germany Or Italy Or Russia Or Switzerland Or Israel Or Greece Or Turkey Or Egypt Or Zimbabwe? I don't think any of these countries have referendae, certainly not on a regular basis. The only referendum the Irish have ever had (AFAIK) was whether to adopt th Euro. The people voted no. So the referendum was run again and still the people voted no. When it was run a third time Yes got a slim majority but only 28% turned out to vote.

As honest as it is.. What they do in any of those countries you listed is up to them to decide.

Why should they be? Being able to define 8 different forms of government won't get them a job, not even knowing that a Republic is normally a democracy won't either unles they want to work on Capitol Hill.

I say this in all sincerity.. as Buffalo NY has a 47% passing rate ( 53% failure rate ) in their public schools.. Being able to define 8 forms of government would mean they could at least READ AND WRITE by some measures!

This is probably true. Bear in mind that regardless of your ideology, you would do the same. BTW, how do you know the President's corrupt?

Do You want a whole biography? Seriously?

He might be the only honest guy in Capitol, you have no way of knowing because the dishonest ones would tell you differently and you wouldn't believe him if he told you he was honest.

2 things that seem like ' jokes ' but are really true -

1.) how can you tell when a political type is lying? Their lips are moving.

2.) never laugh at a political joke : Too often, they are elected to office.

If you don't like it, why don't you change it? Run for a place in City Hall. Bear in mind the words of the Bard of Stratford, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Talking of which:

Me? Run for Office?

Think of this : On this small site, about footware and fashion, I have drawn the hateful ire and was called a ' redneck ' by someone whos never met me nor even had a decent conversation with the both of us involved..

Im all for letting people be free, yet expressing such, people will hate or have great disdain for you. Its very sad but its the mental state of indoctrination that has fallen upon humanity.

The ' Matrix ' really does exist but its not machines of computers controlling us. Its a very few people whom have an Ideology and wish everyone else to live by it. Love it. Embrace it.

To which I say " Stained Glass window.. here I come.. with bricks in hand ".

Cheers!

[Dr. Shoe]

If one speaks out about the U.S. Government, Their agencies use means of force against you. Be it the IRS or others whom just dont wish to agree with your views.

Like I said, try it in Russia. Sing a protest song about the way the US is run and it sells multi-million copies. Do the same in Russia and you get locked up. Do it in Turkey or Israel and you get locked up there too.

Tyranny is quite present, yet, all too many turn a blind eye to it.

Because it's easier to play along with it.

The U.S. is ( sort of ) like 6 different countries/cultures all under the same flag.

England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle Of Man nd the Channel Islands...

Ok, I'm cheating a bit as the last two are British dependancies but not part of the UK.

I stated ' closer to anarchy ' then ' almost anarchy '. I wish for less ' rule from outside of my own self governance '.

Like I said, you either have anarchy or you don't. You cannot have almost anarchy or near anarchy or closer to anarchy. What you want is less state control, probably until you need the police so you don't get a near hernia from your powerfully built guy giving you a wedgie or when you need the military when Canada or Mexico (or both) decide to invade a much weakened USA.

I need not of streetlights, schools nor mainstream hospitals.

Might be handy to see you assailant coming, or when you want your kids educated or you fall ill.

People today are ' indoctrinated '. They arent ' educated '. If the systems you mentioned didnt exist, natural selection would happen more freely.

Or read rule of the strongest. The definition of tyranny.

- There are laws saying if your child isnt pumped full of chemicals, they arent allowed into a ' school system '. Those chemicals have been PROVEN to cause autism and other very problematic medical conditions. As a property owner, with no kids at all ( that I know of ), I have to pay for a school system that is ( more then likely ) using a set of ' rules ' that is going to harm children and teach them how to put on a condom and be ' socially acceptable ' then reading/writing/math/history as a ' main course ' of EDUCATION?

Now you're talking sense. In the UK, if you want your child immunised against measels say, they have to have MMR. Separate vaccinations are not available! I believe that MMR makes the recipient more susceptible to suggestion hence the belief that it can cause autism.

Man came from evolution, Sam Colt just made them all equal.

Not really. He made the better shots and those who could draw quicker more equal tan those who were less skilfull.

Im all of 5'10". I dont weigh much ( as can be seen from my vids/pics ). In your analogy, if someone is 250lbs, 6'4" tall and studied MMA all their lives.. wheres the ' equilibrium in that? Should I just go down the street knowing that big guy is going to tear off my pants and Ill have rectal problems for a long time?

I am 50 years old, I am slightly shorter than you and probably weigh the same. I have never been attacked in this way. Besides, just about all of the stabbings and shootings in the UK were perpetrated by people taking weapons out to protect themselves. Be honest, if you were to get into an argument with a neighbour which remained unresolved, would you go home and get your gun to enforce your point of view?

Vote in government and you'll get the same in many instances. How about Egypt with their military taking out the guy voted in?

Because he was trying to force his own ideology on the people he governed. Notice how he has as much support as he has opposition. You can please some of the people some of the time etc.

As honest as it is.. What they do in any of those countries you listed is up to them to decide.

...Like they did in Egypt.

Me? Run for Office?

Why not? If everything you say is true and you have a genuine desire to change it ten you'd get a whole load of support. You'll be president in 10 years.

Think of this : On this small site, about footware and fashion, I have drawn the hateful ire and was called a ' redneck ' by someone whos never met me nor even had a decent conversation with the both of us involved..

Im all for letting people be free, yet expressing such, people will hate or have great disdain for you. Its very sad but its the mental state of indoctrination that has fallen upon humanity.

Or is it the freedom you want?

You compain about politial correctness but then complain that someone was not political correct about you! In Europe, we have something called "'uman rights". We complain when some little undeserving toe-rag gets thousands of pounds in compensation when his 'uman rights was infringed but then when ours is infringed we complain and expect someone to do something about it!

Cheers!

Some good posts here BTW, I'm enjoying this debate.

[ilikekicks]

Im going to try and keep this in context

Like I said, try it in Russia. Sing a protest song about the way the US is run and it sells multi-million copies. Do the same in Russia and you get locked up. Do it in Turkey or Israel and you get locked up there too.

Maybe from not living here and being someplace else ( another country ), you havent see whats comes to fruition as far as ' censorship ' goes.

I used the past example of the term ' redneck '. Such is allowed yet is on-par with the term ' nigger ' yet one is accepted and teh other isnt?

There are MANY terms/words that can be used by one group of people, yet another cannot? I thought language and communication was for uniting people yet in my nation, its used for divisive purposes on a daily basis.

Because it's easier to play along with it.

Id rather not play along with Tyranny and rather put an end to it.

England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle Of Man nd the Channel Islands...

Ok, I'm cheating a bit as the last two are British dependancies but not part of the UK.

Alas, you have welfare doles too. Quite common these days.

Like I said, you either have anarchy or you don't. You cannot have almost anarchy or near anarchy or closer to anarchy. What you want is less state control, probably until you need the police so you don't get a near hernia from your powerfully built guy giving you a wedgie or when you need the military when Canada or Mexico (or both) decide to invade a much weakened USA.

This is what our Second Amendment is for. I know, you might not like firearms as many others about the planet hold the opinion that such items shouldnt be allowed to a ' common person ', but with 250,000,000 firearms and lord knows how many other weapons about, I dont think ANY nation would want to invade the U.S. . The USSR wouldnt have had any problem running over Europe during the ' cold war '. The U.S. forces there would have been a mere speed-bump at best. The problem with what you stated - Canada or Mexico invading , it just couldnt happen. Not even with all their armed forces between the 2 acting in a joint measure. I say such with great confidence and resolve as I happen to be just 1 of hundreds of millions to know what would happen if another nation TRIED to invade.

As for the ' powerfully built guy ', I dont worry about him at all. He can go about his day so long as he threatens nobody. *IF* he makes a physical threat towards myself, make no mistakes, 230 grains pushed by 15 grains of Unique from a Colt MarkIV will stop them. Some would say to the different but there is one gentleman whom still Limps. Nothing Im proud of, but if your going to physically assault someone, your kneecap could be the cost of such a barbaric action.

Unlike other nations, mine was founded on individual liberty. We are ( should be were as in the past tense ) allowed to defend ourselves from those whom would prey upon us. Its yet another liberty that is being taken.

Might be handy to see you assailant coming, or when you want your kids educated or you fall ill.

Educating our children is OUR responsability. As is feeding them and making sure they are clothed. They arent ' orphans ' or ' wards of the state ' as a whole. Its one of those things called a ' responsibility '.

I did ' fall Ill ' and damaged my hands. *I* used my own medical policies or ' health insurance ' ( not ' health care ' ) to pay for it. Not anyone else, but I paid for my own actions. In the same instance, others should feel obligated to take care of themselves as well. If they dont, and they have the same misfortune as I did, thats for them to realize and deal with. Not you nor I.

Or read rule of the strongest. The definition of tyranny.

Not true. Theres no ' strongest ' individual. There are those whom can manipulate and out think others, but theres no ' pure alpha ' amongst all of us.

Now you're talking sense. In the UK, if you want your child immunised against measels say, they have to have MMR. Separate vaccinations are not available! I believe that MMR makes the recipient more susceptible to suggestion hence the belief that it can cause autism.

So, the state has its way and forces a problematic instance and because someone else feels its a needed thing, we all should suffer for it? I dont think so. Let other individuals go about taking their injections for whatever it is they wish, leave myself and others out of it if we so choose.

Not really. He made the better shots and those who could draw quicker more equal tan those who were less skilfull.

Not true. My comment was " Man came from evolution, Sam Colt just made them all equal.". What wasnt addressed is that it doesnt matter how we are born. It doesnt matter if someone is 9 foot tall and 500 pounds or if they are some little petite woman of 100lbs soaking wet and 5 foot tall. Genetics are ( more or less ) out of the equation.

I am 50 years old, I am slightly shorter than you and probably weigh the same. I have never been attacked in this way.

I will say I have been shot twice. I have been stabbed twice. Just as there are places in the U.K. that you wouldnt walk at night, there are MANY of them in the States. I would love to see ANY member of this site go South of 8mile Road in Detroit after dark. Camden N.J. . East L.A. .

You and I live in 2 different cultures. There are MANY differences between us and our perspectives.

Besides, just about all of the stabbings and shootings in the UK were perpetrated by people taking weapons out to protect themselves. Be honest, if you were to get into an argument with a neighbour which remained unresolved, would you go home and get your gun to enforce your point of view?

Nope. I would just walk away. Been there many times.

As the impressions made by the U.S. media that the United States is a ' bunch of gun toating rednecks ' or that its the ' wild west ', they are really full of shit and its very few whom are exploited for their misgiving events.

The real driver behind all the statistics ( Im being fair here and including everything ) isnt ' gang crime ' or even ' self defense '. ' Suicide ' is the largest statistic in all of the whole ' gun violence ' arguments.

If people are that bad off, they can use a car, a knife, pills, drowning.. theres MANY means for the same result.

In the U.S. , every year, 700,000+ people die from medical malpractice or wrongful medical procedures ( including prescriptions ). over 50,000 die from drunk drivers whilst another 250,000 are maimed or suffer long term injuries.

Yet everyone worries so badly about the 20,000ish from ' gun violence ' compared to the million+ of others.

People are ' conditioned ' to believe some things and completely avoid even mentioning or allowing others into the conversation. This happens with more then just ' firearms ' topics but ' environmental ', ' financial ' or ' social ' entities as well.

Because he was trying to force his own ideology on the people he governed. Notice how he has as much support as he has opposition. You can please some of the people some of the time etc.

True.

...Like they did in Egypt.

Not to be rude, but what happens in Egypt isnt a concern of mine right now. Some would laugh at the thought of the U.S. falling into chaos as a Nation, but I believe its right around the corner. There are MANY whom feel this way and know of its coming. Egypt? I hope they sort things out and do well for themselves. Its their land and their people to decide for themselves how they wish to live.

Why not? If everything you say is true and you have a genuine desire to change it ten you'd get a whole load of support. You'll be president in 10 years.

Again, your missing my whole point.

It doesnt matter whom is elected ' president '. Such office is already bought and paid for by one group or another. Your of the age where you should be able to remember a guy named George Soros whom short-sold and made a billion pound sterling while your people were taken. I believe it was called ' black wendsday ' and happened in the early 90's. He owns one political party in the U.S. . The other is owned by Grover Norquist and his conglomerate.

' We the People ' dont have a voice on the ballot due to the 2 mentioned individuals, Unions and Corporations.

Or is it the freedom you want?

You compain about politial correctness but then complain that someone was not political correct about you! In Europe, we have something called "'uman rights". We complain when some little undeserving toe-rag gets thousands of pounds in compensation when his 'uman rights was infringed but then when ours is infringed we complain and expect someone to do something about it!

Whats a ' unam rights '? Better yet, whats a ' human right '? Unlike many others, I dont believe such exists. If such were true, they would be inalienable and not infringed upon. You and I have ' lawful rights ' and our liberties. Nothing more.

Some good posts here BTW, I'm enjoying this debate.

You and I can sit and gab all day long and respect each others differences. Theres no has slinging or ' name calling ' as were both capable enough to understand that it would do no good or offer anything of substance to each other or ourselves.

In heart, we both want the same thing. we just want to live out our lives doing as we please in what we enjoy so long as we harm nobody else. Theres nothing wrong with that

Edit : BTW - I bet I weigh more then you do in present. Ive gone from 145-150ish pounds to about 165. Put on some muscle working on the farm

[ilikekicks]

More to what I would mean Dr. Shoe .

http://news.yahoo.co...-195030107.html

Ive never watched the program but whats being represented is at the heart of some of the stances I hold.

If someone wishes to live in the middle of no-where and bug nobody, survive on their own.. why not let them? Why impede and inject into their lives something they might not care for nor wish? Why force something onto someone whom wishes nothing of it. Is it because of ' their own good ' when clearly they are doing just fine on their own?

Is the thought that ' others know better for someone else! ' that imposed upon a certain elements belief system that the ' right ' ( as some people feel it is ) to dictate should be allowed?

Just food for thought.

[meganiwish]

You're very right, ILK, but you must remember, you chaps have the luxury of space. All the land I could get was an allotment, five rods. A rod is 5 yards, so that was 25 yards by 5 yards. One can keep oneself in greens, potatoes and soft fruit, but you can't live on that.

I can appreciate that you see your personal freedom as of primary importance, but do you really not feel the need to defend others' freedom too? Might I quote John Donne at you? In fact I'll just give you the poem whole. http://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html (John Donne's rather nice: http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/mourning.php http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/sunrising.htm It's nice to know that there was a poet 500 years ago who disliked getting up in the morning as much as I do.)

Sorry, I didn't mean to digress.

[ilikekicks]

You're very right, ILK, but you must remember, you chaps have the luxury of space. All the land I could get was an allotment, five rods. A rod is 5 yards, so that was 25 yards by 5 yards. One can keep oneself in greens, potatoes and soft fruit, but you can't live on that.

Therein is a problem. 125yards square to grow on? Theres no way to be self supportive. You are ( more or less ) left to the whims of the market place and whatever they deem is of what worth, and without much choice in the matter.

I *used* to be in such a situation and decided to ' leave ' and walk away from it. Ive had the liberty to say ' I should provide for myself and not be forced to rely upon others to provide something for me or my family '.

It is the ultimate example of personal responsibility and one that is truly of ' free choice '. Much of the whole globe has had such taken from them and they have been forced into a position where such a choice is not available in any form of measure.

I can appreciate that you see your personal freedom as of primary importance, but do you really not feel the need to defend others' freedom too?

I believe I do ' defend ' others liberties by allowing them to live as they choose so long as they dont infringe upon my decisions to provide for myself. Its universal and used to be easily recognized by most of all people roaming the globe. In modern times though, such is disregarded and in a lot of instances, speaking out against infringement is frowned upon.

Might I quote John Donne at you? In fact I'll just give you the poem whole. http://web.cs.dal.ca...try/island.html (John Donne's rather nice: http://www.luminariu...ne/mourning.php http://www.luminariu...e/sunrising.htm It's nice to know that there was a poet 500 years ago who disliked getting up in the morning as much as I do.)

Dont know of him, I'm not into poetry by any means.

Sorry, I didn't mean to digress.

No digress at all.

The real problems that I see are individuals not even recognizing when others are saying ' be free, live your life! Enjoy it! Make your own choices and live by them! ' and when an ' establishment ' says ' hey! were here to help you! ' ( when in actuality, they are causing more harm then help ).

[meganiwish]

I think the thing is we need to help each other. The admirable American tradition of individual self-reliance is possible for you because you have the space. Britain in the year 1000 sustained a population of about 1 million. Now it's 60 million. Your population is, what, 300 million? But Britain would almost fit into Florida. Imagine if 20% of your population moved to Florida. In the years before and after your revolutionary war, much of Europe was torn by revolution too, but with a difference. Yours was about representation, Europe's were about bread. The fundamental problem in Europe will forever be equitable distribution. That's why our outlook is so different from yours. Of course, one doesn't necessarily need central government for equitable distribution, and it could be argued that they've done a lousy job of it, but you do need some kind of communal agreement. We all need to be in it together. Our PM knows that, even though he might not believe in it. By the way, does the big grin mean I'm back in your gang in the playground?

[ilikekicks]

I think the thing is we need to help each other. The admirable American tradition of individual self-reliance is possible for you because you have the space.

Its not just about ' space ' , but the space between our ears. Instead of joining on to a cause because its ' popular ' or ' correct ' or in fear of being labeled some title thats undesirable, people cave-in and ' go with the flow '.

Britain in the year 1000 sustained a population of about 1 million. Now it's 60 million. Your population is, what, 300 million? But Britain would almost fit into Florida. Imagine if 20% of your population moved to Florida.

Florida has 19million people. There are 316million people ( estimated ) to live within the US boarders. I would take a guess without doing the math and call it close to/not far from the 20% number you have mentioned.

In the years before and after your revolutionary war, much of Europe was torn by revolution too, but with a difference. Yours was about representation, Europe's were about bread. The fundamental problem in Europe will forever be equitable distribution. That's why our outlook is so different from yours.

Equitable distribution? Equality, distributed?

Here is where a lot of differences between many people are exposed.

Everyone knows I can play guitar and even go as far as to teach musical theory.. yet its worth nothing in comparison to planting and growing crops. A football player ( american Football , NFL ) or a Baseball player makes millions every year, yet those whom serve our communities in hazardous jobs make a crumb comparatively and put their lives out there.

Theres many different people from many different backgrounds and most are told that what we do is soooo important.. yet in reality, theres many things we really dont need but just desire to have.

When we can recognize such, whats a necessity and whats a ' desire ' and what really matters is when we can actually appreciate things for exactly what they are and not misconstrue these thoughts from being anything but ' irrelevant '. Such would offend many, but its actually a clarity for some of us.

An example :

Most would say they need a fireman or a police officer. Where I presently live, by the time a fireman gets here to put out a fire or offer aid, the house would be gone and those requiring aid would surely bare the same fate as the house. The same for law enforcement. By the time a Police Officer/Constable arrived, I would be dead, my wife raped/dead and whatever is of value would be long gone. My nearest ' neighbor ' is over a mile away, they see things the same as I .

What I do need are seeds. Seeds for crops, tractors to till the fields, Diesel for those tractors, sunlight and water..

Where many people see the vision of dollars/pounds, I see little to no need for either as food grows here. Its a commodity that really is ' ripe ' for trading ( pun intended ).

The problem as I see it is PEOPLE in ' groups ' have causes that really arent worthy as they go too far beyond the ' basics ' of necessity of life. Where you speak of Europe's problem being ' equitable distribution ', I believe the problem is inside of the individuals whom choose not to provide for themselves.

Of course, one doesn't necessarily need central government for equitable distribution, and it could be argued that they've done a lousy job of it, but you do need some kind of communal agreement. We all need to be in it together. Our PM knows that, even though he might not believe in it.

I will be honest. This is straight from the heart..

For as little of time as I have lived where I presently do, Ive come to love the place. Its not just the lifestyle, but the people.

Where some wish to use the term ' redneck ' towards being hateful to others, Ive come to actually appreciate quite a few whom could probably be put into that catagory and in return, I cannot stand the ' big city ' mentality anymore.

In Buffalo, especially in the downtown area, at night, if your car breaks down.. dont be too surprised to find your car looted by the next morning if you have to leave it. Out here? Mine was towed by a gentleman to his driveway by his tractor ( wasnt far from his driveway ). If I get lost, and stop someplace to ask for directions, Odds are I might get invited to dinner and conversation before Im sent off on my journey. The shirt on anyones back is almost freely given. Sundays are spent with families and the markets are all closed ( except walmart and you hope nobody sees you going there on sunday! Youll be talked about forever and in not so kind words! ).

Sunday mornings, these people go to churches for services. Im not really a ' believer ' but went anyway just to ' fit in ' a bit. Didnt care for the services but the feasts afterwards.. all that good HOME COOKED food.. I can deal with a preacher for that kind of grub all day long! Make no mistakes, I love my eats and in quantity! My plate was never empty!

You cannot have that in a ' city '. It will never work because of the mindset indoctrinated into the people of them.

Gang crimes? Kids vandalizing places? Rape? Homicides? I about grew numb to them living in the city setting. Out here? .. The greatest ' crime ' thats happened that I can recall is some idiot ( not from out here ) took their ' 4x4 truck offroading ' up a condemned logging road. They rolled it off a cliff and it finally stopped after landing on a chicken coup. It was the talk of the town for weeks!

By the way, does the big grin mean I'm back in your gang in the playground?

What playground? Theres some 12,000 acres out here that I can saddle up and go riding on, any day/time of the week that I choose. I just need to stay out of the crop fields.

I need to buy a horse as the ATV gets boring.

[meganiwish]

Florida has 19million people. There are 316million people ( estimated ) to live within the US boarders. I would take a guess without doing the math and call it close to/not far from the 20% number you have mentioned.

I need to buy a horse as the ATV gets boring.

And I thought you boys were supposed to be good at maths 19,000,000 is just over 6% of 300,000,000. 20% would be 60,000,000. ( So I was close with 300 million. What's sixteen million between friends? Well, about 5% I suppose. Or two Londons. Small potatoes!)

We used to have a television company here years ago called ATV. They made, among other things, a soap opera set in a motel called Crossroads. It was, indeed, exceptionally boring