What do you think about this new thing

[Lonesome Jim]

Honestly I am all about this I would get this in a heart beat that is if its free! That is unless its open to the public thats a no go but I mean come on this is ground breaking technology I mean this could be leading up to what we see in television on how we walk in a room and the lighting adjust to our prefferences and the music changes to what we like. I mean I would totally do this in the name of science if people watch where I am going their choice! They will be bored I can garuntee that I sit at my computer most of the day. The most excitement they will get is timing the intervuls inbetween when I pee!

[Greenbug]

What you need to realize Greenbug, is that nobody was calling you a nutt. He was referring to the video. I have heard about this stuff for about 20 years. Its been around so long now. It's no closer to being implemented publicly now then it was 20 years ago. I can see its use for things like prisoners etc. But for Medicinal or Public use, no way will it ever make it into my arm.

Thanks IchBin,
The video is pretty outrageous (Did you actually see the whole thing?), I have also heard similiar stuff for years. Just never gave it much attention. Never really tried to hear what they say is "proof" maybe I should take that stance again, I know it would make things easier for me.

I don't know how much time you spend on reading, you seem to be pretty busy. Some good books written by credible authors

Faith & Politics by 3 time US Senate appointee and Missouri Republican.
&
Imperial life in the Emerald city This book is from Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post.

Buck Wild Also some information about how our tax dollars are being spent.
A review note about Buck wild: -JAMES P. PINKERTON, White House domestic policy aide under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush

A scathing look at how the Republican Party, once the paragon of fiscal conservativism, has embraced Big Government and become even more irresponsible with taxpayer money than the Democrats.


All good reads.

But I do disagree out one thing, I am a nut sometimes

[rbh]

i was indeed referring to the makers of the video as nuts, unless you fully back everything in the video then i guess it would apply to you as well.   all kidding aside, the video really goes to the extreme to try and prove a point and convince people the earth is about to end. i think a lot of people fear change and go out of thier way to exagerate the negatives instead of seeing the positives as well. of course i do see how this could be exploited, but no different then other things like credit cards yet we continue to use them.

to suggest that people who support the implanted chip idea are just mindless sheep is plain ignorant, because the same exact thing can be said for those that see it as voodoo. you have people who are 100% for it and can't be budged on thier position, and those that are 100% against it who preach its evil till the sun goes down. then you have those in the middle who see the good AND the bad, take both into consideration, and then make a decision of whats right for them and not what others say is right or wrong. make sense?

[Greenbug]

So yes I agree with you, assuming our Govt. is acting on our behalf. But if the stars line up this could be abused for "safety's" sake. I firmly believe we will invade Iran in the next 2-4 years, we will be attacked again to justify this action. I fear it will also be nuclear.   

I thought this was a grassroot thing about this conspiracy but if you look its everywhere, I mean everywhere all over the world. Hugo Chavez supports Noam Chomsky's "hegemony or survival" at the United Nations, same time he said Bush we the devil.  Did you hear about this? I don't care for Hugo Chavez but Noam Chomsky is no dummy, A Linguist professor at MIT. If Noam is right, this chip makes perfect senseand may not be an option for safety's sake. Just do some minimal research for yourself. Judge Napolitano just wrote another book and he is a FOX news Senior legal analyst so the steps are being set down right now to take everything (constitutional rights) from you and me.

But enough about the chip, I just wanted to get a census on this. Also to state I am the craziest one here! hands down! 

Some of the stuff I have been reading are from old school republicans they say this administration is not for the republican beliefs and are supporting big business. Allot of people don't know that because you don't see it in main stream media. What does this have to do with the chip, greedy corporations and control of people. The whole campaign for this elections are based on trust and faith of THESE people.

[eeek]

Greenbug I see your not one of the bury your head in the sand sheeple.

More RFID stuff http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=rfid&mode=site 

It doesnt matter what it is you have to ask youself "Who stands to gain" and 99% of the time its the .gov

[Greenbug]

Greenbug I see your not one of the bury your head in the sand sheeple.

More RFID stuff http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=rfid&mode=site 

It doesnt matter what it is you have to ask youself "Who stands to gain" and 99% of the time its the .gov

Thanks eeek,

I've always been somewhat comfortable with govt, I mean i vote they play there silly politics. I vote for whats best for me. I mean Govt has aways been somewhat corupt, but I had no idea to what level of corruption. The funny thing is i never gave this one thought about following up on crazy stuff I hear sometimes. This started out looking for the income tax law, and has landed me where I am at today.

I found this while looking for something else....

To Make War, Presidents Lie
October 1, 2002
Robert Higgs



When American presidents prepare for foreign wars, they lie. Surveying our history, we see a clear pattern. Since the end of the nineteenth century, if not earlier, presidents have misled the public about their motives and their intentions in going to war. The enormous losses of life, property, and liberty that Americans have sustained in wars have occurred in large part because of the public's unwarranted trust in what their leaders told them before leading them into war.

In 1898, President William McKinley, having been goaded by muscle-flexing advisers and jingoistic journalists to make war on Spain, sought divine guidance as to how he should deal with the Spanish possessions, especially the Philippines, that U.S. forces had seized in what ambassador John Hay famously described as a â€Ã...“splendid little war.â€Ã, Evidently, his prayer was answered, because the president later reported that he had heard â€Ã...“the voice of God,â€Ã, and â€Ã...“there was nothing left for us to do but take them all and educate the Filipinos, and uplift and Christianize them.â€Ã,

In truth, McKinley’s motivations had little if anything to do with uplifting the people whom William H. Taft, the first Governor-General of the Philippines, called â€Ã...“our little brown brothers,â€Ã, but much to do with the political and commercial ambitions of influential expansionists such as Captain Alfred T. Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and their ilk. In short, the official apology for the brutal and unnecessary Philippine-American War was a mendacious gloss.

The Catholic Filipinos evidently did not yearn to be â€Ã...“Christianizedâ€Ã, in the American style, at the point of a Springfield rifle, and they resisted the U.S. imperialists as they had previously resisted the Spanish imperialists. The Philippine-American War, which officially ended on July 4, 1902, but actually dragged on for many years in some islands, cost the lives of more than 4,000 U.S. troops, more than 20,000 Filipino fighters, and more than 220,000 Filipino civilians, many of whom perished in concentration camps eerily similar to the relocation camps into which U.S. forces herded Vietnamese peasants some sixty years later.

When World War I began in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson’s sympathies clearly lay with the British. Nevertheless, he quickly proclaimed U.S. neutrality and urged his fellow Americans to be impartial in both thought and deed. Wilson himself, however, leaned more and more toward the Allied side as the war proceeded. Still, he recognized that the great majority of Americans wanted no part of the fighting in Europe, and in 1916 he sought reelection successfully on the appealing slogan, â€Ã...“He Kept Us Out of War.â€Ã,

Soon after his second inauguration, however, he asked Congress for a declaration of war, which was approved, although six senators and fifty members of the House of Representatives had the wit or wisdom to vote against it. Wilson promised this war would be â€Ã...“the war to end all wars,â€Ã, but wars aplenty have taken place since the guns fell silent in 1918, leaving their unprecedented carnageâ€ââ,¬Ânearly nine million dead and more than twenty million wounded, many of them hideously disfigured or crippled for life, as well as perhaps ten million civilians who died of starvation or disease as a result of the war’s destruction of resources and its interruption of commerce. And what did the United States or the world gain? Only a twenty-year reprieve before the war's smoldering embers burst into flame again.

After World War I, Americans felt betrayed, and they resolved never to make the same mistake again. Yet, just two decades later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt began the maneuvers by which he hoped to plunge the nation once again into the European cauldron. Unsuccessful in his naval provocations of the Germans in the Atlantic, he eventually pushed the Japanese to the wall by a series of hostile economic-warfare measures, issued clearly unacceptable ultimatums, and induced them to mount a desperate military attack, most devastatingly on the U.S. forces he concentrated at Pearl Harbor.

Campaigning for reelection in Boston on October 30, 1940, FDR had sworn: â€Ã...“I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.â€Ã, Well, Peleliu ain’t Peoria. Roosevelt was lying when he made his declaration, just as he had lied repeatedly before and would lie repeatedly for the remainder of his life. (Stanford historian David M. Kennedy, careful not to speak too stridently, refers to FDR’s â€Ã...“frequently cagey misrepresentations to the American public.â€Ã,) Yet many, many Americans trusted this inveterate liar, sad to say, with their lives, and during the war more than 400,000 of them paid the ultimate price.

Among FDR’s many political acolytes was a young congressman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who eventually and, for the world, unfortunately, clawed his way to the presidency. As chief executive, he had to deal with vital questions of war and peace, and like his beloved mentor, he relied heavily on lying to the public. In October 1964, seeking to gain election by portraying himself as the peace candidate (in contrast to the alleged mad bomber Barry Goldwater), LBJ told a crowd at Akron University: â€Ã...“We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.â€Ã,

In 1965, however, shortly after the start of his elected term in office, Johnson exploited the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, itself based on a fictitious account of an attack on U.S. naval forces off Vietnam, and initiated a huge buildup of U.S. forces in Southeast Asia that would eventually commit more than 500,000 American â€Ã...“boysâ€Ã, to fight an â€Ã...“Asian boy’sâ€Ã, war. Some 58,000 U.S. military personnel would lose their lives in the service of LBJ’s vanity and political ambitions, not to speak of the millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians killed and wounded in the melee. Chalk up another catastrophe to a lying American president.

Now President George W. Bush is telling the American people that we stand in mortal peril of imminent attack by Iraqis or their agents armed with weapons of mass destruction. Having presented no credible evidence or compelling argument for his characterization of the alleged threat, he simply invites us to trust him, and therefore to support him as he undertakes what once would have been called naked aggression. Well, David Hume long ago argued that just because every swan we've seen was white, we cannot be certain that no black swan exists. So Bush may be telling the truth. In the light of history, however, we would be making a long-odds bet to believe him.


I found the link to be informative, and one I hadnt seen yet.

Thanks

GB