2005-02-16 [bluesoulsearcher]: well in that case *waits for an anarchist to show up*

2005-02-19 [David_1]: yeah im hear to argue that point

2005-02-19 [David_1]: i feel that you are wrong in a way thta calling anarchist hipocrits. we are not hipocrits for a reason because when we say we want no government were just being blaighten and undesriptive in our goals theres actually a lot more behind it. what we really want is to form a diferent government one more lead by the people not one by this high council of a media and political controlled society called the man who decides who we are goint ot be for the reast of our lifes

2005-02-19 [Hependipherous]: er... anarchism by definition means "no government" not I think what you're looking for is a truer democracy... not this democratic republic we've got set up now.

2005-02-19 [Draconius]: hey we arent hypocrits, we just believe that the rules of man are stupid.

2005-02-19 [Balthizar]: we doesny? yet anarchists are hypocrits in the fact that they want no government, and no system....but the lack of a governemnt is a system..its called anarchy

2005-02-19 [Hependipherous]: quite paradoxical... makes no sense.

2005-02-21 [Solitiaum]: *listens quietly, nodding at balth's and heppy's statements*

2005-02-21 [bluesoulsearcher]: Oh, Bal, don't go with that line of reasoning, that whole God's Rock argument is really intellectually limiting. [David_1] you are describing egalatarianism...but here's a Platonic question for you...is rule by a tyrannical mob any better than rule by one tyrannical man?

2005-02-21 [Solitiaum]: No, its worse. One tyrannical man can be brought down much easier than if said man has a tyranical mob...

2005-02-22 [David_1]: yeds i think it is more politically just for a tyranical mob to abolish a man than just one person anad u are probaby goint to argue thats what a jury is your wrong because in the end that is what the judge decides still leaving it to one man

2005-02-22 [Solitiaum]: Well anyway, as long as no one here starts denying the Holocaust Im happy... -_-

2005-02-22 [bluesoulsearcher]: lol I wasn't going to go that far, David. Sairahiniel is correct, the tyrannical mob is no better, and in fact worse than the tyrannical man, who can be so easily toppled. I would take a corrupt judge over a corrupt jury any day of the week, because at the end of the day he is still just one man. I am, however, still a democrat, and my reasons for why lie in the Federalist Papers, particularly those addressing the question of factions. As for the Holocaust deniers, I firmly believe the horrific reports of the citizen-soldiers who liberated those camps, and any American who says otherwise, is free to practice the free speech those troops died for, but is also a liar.

2005-02-22 [Solitiaum]: You should get on the alt revisionism news group... Its a google thing I think, but youd have great fun listening to the delusions of one we call silly lying little Tommy...

2005-02-22 [bluesoulsearcher]: I've probably heard them all ready. A couple of the guys in my fraternity were deniers, plus I saw that documentary called Dr. Death, about the expert in execution who snuck into the old death camp sites and made claims that the Holocaust was overblown. 

2005-02-22 [Solitiaum]: Have you heard the one abut how the moon landing was faked? LMAO!

2005-02-22 [Hependipherous]: They say it was in Arizona and they slowed it down to make them move like that. It's stupid. o.0

2005-02-23 [Solitiaum]: And they say here that the technology didnt even exist then to take those photos.

2005-02-23 [bluesoulsearcher]: I actually have heard all the stuff about the moon landing being faked. NASA sent out a statement to explain the discrepencies such as the flag being unfurled in an airless world, so on and so forth. I haven't heard about the technology question, but I would respond to it as such...the technology was available to send them to the moon, the technology was available to orbit the earth, and the technology was available to take detailed photos of the USSR, China, and Cuba from U2 spyplanes operating at 70,000 ft. How exactly would it be impossible to take some close range photographs on the moon? What kind of technology do you need that wasn't already being used?

2005-02-24 [Hependipherous]: Wasn't the flag rigid plastic or something? They knew it would look bad on tv ahead of time... with the gravity being so low and there being no atmosphere...so they made it rigid.

2005-02-24 [bluesoulsearcher]: I can't remember what the explanation was, but if you go onto NASA's website they should still have somewhere on there.