Hate to inform you but most of the world elite and leaders have banking interests with Switzerland. They have more military help at their disposal than you think.

I do know that's where the money is, and for the most part, has always been, but do you think we could do that, house the cash, and be neutral?

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Um..... whatever happened to the concept of "We the People"?

Isn't that kinda the "solution" to what you're talking about?

'Cause what you're talking about, is "human nature". You're talking about the stuff like greed, and arrogance, and.... I mean, when you say, "there has to be someone on top", isn't that exactly what you're saying? The "alpha male", or the "big dog", or whatever?

So I mean, isn't this why we invented politics in the first place, so we didn't have to descend back down into the muck of "survival biology"?

'Cause I mean, this kinda thing, is the same thing as the difference between "belief" (which regulates peoples' behavior "most of the time"), and some kind of "survival emergency" which is very rare, but at which point "belief" kinda leaves the equation, and the reality becomes something closer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs (whichever "need" is primary will dominate behavior).

So, I mean, all this.... is this exactly why we have "political structures" in place, and why our genius Founding Fathers came up with this idea of a "contract"?

If you bank for both sides it is easy to remain neutral.

Switzerland is like a broker - they make money either way - it did haunt them after WWII with the Nazi cash but they still made plenty of interest on it.

Hmmm. A country known for giving the world great chocolate and gentleman's cutlery. And in the other corner, a country known for giving the world George Bush.

Kidding. I love America. But here's my thing -- I love America because America is all about NITBOA. That's Nobody Is The Boss Of Americans. There is nobody above us. Not Dick Cheney. Not the political party of the moment. We the People are the top of the food chain because we are the food chain.

If America is no longer the land of freedom, if America is now merely the land of spies and torturers, then I will take the chocolate and the swiss army knives. In a heartbeat.

I don't believe that's what America is, though. America is the land of the free.

That means no spying without warrants.

If we allow the government to spy on us without at least demanding that they make the case for probable cause and get a nod from a judge, then there's no point in fighting to protect our freedom because we've already given it up.

Garsh, that was dramatic! Calm down, you're getting your panties in a twist over nothing.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

What is that you guys like to say about the 2nd amendment? Something about your cold, dead fingers?

Let's pretend for a moment that rather than screwing with the whole rest of the Constitution, we were talking about the one part of it that conservatives like: the right to bear arms.

Every time somebody comes along and says, "Hey, we as a nation and as a collective of individuals would all be safer if we took away everyone's guns!" And statistics are cited and arguments are made and no matter what, about a third of the country (which is enough to be persuasive) says, "Screw you, fascists! You will pry the Second Amendment from our cold, dead fingers!"

Well, it just so happens that I agree with those people. About the whole Bill of Rights.

You will pry my right to live without unreasonable search and/or seizure from my cold, dead fingers. Capice? You know that zealous gleam in the eye of the NRA? Imagine that times ten. Which, not coincidentally, is probably a rough index of how many more people are ticked off by unwarranted government wiretapping than by a ban on assault rifles.

It won't be tolerated.

What??? Somebody wiretapped your grandma? Did the fed boogiemen scan your junk email? Pop a paranoid pill and calm down.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

I guess that is why America is the most migrated to country in the world, because we are a nation of freedom and the greatness our forefathers established our rules to live by. The problem is, there are many nations that don't want us to spread this great democratic process, they want the power to control the masses, like saddam, edi amin, hitler, stalin, and on and on.

I was speaking about history of man, and there has never been any time in history where there hasn't been a top dog, and we are it right now. Would any of you want that to change? World politics is a vicious game, as you can just see what happen to Bhutto, so you can either stay ahead of the game or fall behind. Wouldn't it be grand if there was an actual UN, where all nations cared about people starving in the world, that cared about dealing swift blows to groups like al qaeda, who cared about living in a free and democratic world, wouldn't that be grand. Problem is, that ain't gonna happen, as sad as that is.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

All right, I think I get it. It's kind of a "top dog makes the rules" argument, right?

And we kinda "hope" that the "top dog" is a "good" dog, so he makes "good" rules, right? That kinda thing?

All right, I mean, I "get" that, and I understand it.

M.... how can I say this, you know, from "my" standpoint, the whole brilliant thing about the Constitution, is that you get "individuals" ("joe average") to buy in to the rules, right?

I mean, the whole concept there, is that you're not gonna "clobber him over the head" with those rules, you're just gonna kinda gently show him that it's actually in his own personal best interests to adhere to those rules, 'cause I mean, if he doesn't, then he doesn't get any of the protections or services or benefits either, right?

So, I hear what you're saying, it's like, you know, "we", understand that "our" rules are a "good" thing, 'cause they "work", right? And I mean, we kinda say, "we can prove that", 'cause "we ourselves" are the example - they work for "us", right? So they must work for "you" too.....

And then the flip side of that is, that "we" consider, that any kinda "other", "different" rules, are "dangerous" in some way. THAT part.... you know.... yes and no. I mean, there are all kinds of "flavors" of representative government, some are "actual" democracy, some are kinda "pseudo" democracies like some of the European stuff, some are kinda "benevolent" dictatorships where the people just hand power over to someone 'cause he's a "good guy" (and when he really is a good guy, that works fine) -

You know, and I think the problems that arise, it seems to me, are more 'cause of "human nature", than 'cause of the particular political system. You know, like for instance, I could probably make a very good argument that the Soviet Communist system fell because it succumbed to human nature - greed and so on. And I mean, "greed" exists in our capitalist system too, right?

So, kinda, it seems to me, that this idea of "getting people to voluntarily subscribe to the rules" ("diplomacy") instead of "clobbering them over the head with the rules" ("tyranny") is important.

It seems to me, that it's an important thing, to keep sight of that distinction.

What do you think?