The Bear's Key

Thanks! My search online had turned up zilch.

I've seen people respond with a rule-of-thumb to a big claim that would turn well established theories on their head. Can't remember it though. Something like: incredible/exceptional/unusual claims need incredible/exceptional/unusual proof.

How often does science prove something entirely, conclusively without any direct evidence? (if at all) Can you list any examples? And somewhat related... In the legal world, can a case can be proved entirely with circumstantial evidence? (Also examples if ya got it)

Welcome back ParanoiA. I had been saddened not having you around. Go find a mirror and puke on it. Sometimes we're so obsessed, it's possible to twist the concept of freedom so much we assume wild thoughts/motives onto people and conversations. If you as a parent had sent off your kid flashing huge bills of money, instead of warning them to hide the money from view -- knowing it's unsafe in the neighboring areas -- then you'd share blame for what'd happen. I don't know where you get the idea that the robbers are somehow excused by your irresponsibility deserving a share of blame, by the way. And, of course a woman victim shouldn't get blamed for wearing clothes that are revealing. But walking unprotected in a place where you're going to trigger the sexual desperation of very twisted mindsets is stupid, dangerous, and irresponsible. Had the woman strolled naked through such a place, it'd be repugnant for anyone to see it as permission to trespass her body. Does it mean that women didn't act stupidly? If not, your reasoning sounds awfully a bit like political correctness. Maybe you're thinking of instances where stupid guys are having conversations and say it's the woman's fault if she teases a guy by wearing something extremely revealing. That kind of conversation pisses me off too. But our conversation now isn't about personal choice of wear -- as it's perfectly legitimate for a woman to even go naked is she damn well pleased and not have to suffer harrassment or assault. But if she entered a back alley in that manner without escort or protection, it doesn't mean she's inviting what happens, but it does mean she's highly naive and incompetent of rational thought is she doesn't get it, that odds are worse in such a vacant/hidden place than it would be in a crowded street or in a daylit park. However, if she knew full what to expect and didn't get suprised by the obvious approaches that will happen, and prepared mentally to not cower and instead project herself as strongly independent -- her stance more likely to cause intimidation and ready to defend herself -- that I can respect. But whatever, if you still continue to have a problem, then I don't get your view that, when anyone's highlighting someone else's personal irresponsibility -- for example, they unwisely hadn't readied any precautionary steps for escape or defense -- it's somehow an excuse for the victim's assaulters. Don't you see when a girl at the strip club leaves for her vehicle with a bodyguard in tow? And what if she claimed "oh I'll be alright, nothing could happen". The bodygaurd will escort her regardless and possibly say "don't be so naive". Just so we're clear on the matter, a girl should wear any revealing clothes that she pleases -- or none whatsoever -- and it doesn't mean she's to blame if victimized. Although in a few cases, she needs to learn responsibilty and forethought if she believes walking naked in dangerous places is a fantastic idea. It's most definitely left. The Right are the ones who consistently demonize the ACLU. Or at minimum, the left shares its values just as do libertarians. Here's the deal. I'm not left, but I do share certain values with the liberals, and several values with conservatives, and libertarians even more. But if you happen to think libertarians are somehow immune of being a threat to liberties, you're mistaken. A naive population is as big a threat to liberties as most other threats, and I've met plenty of naive libertarians. So cut the shit (please ) and think instead how many of us can work together on solving very real problems in the world and to liberties today. Here's blunt: I respect honesty, but am unimpressed with superioty complex of political ideology. I can't help but love when people speak bluntly and unapologetically -- without of course masking it as simply a reason/excuse to talk nonsense or a veiled attempt to wield control. (not talking about you btw) My blunt opinion is this: the attitude of various libertarians seems defeatist. As if the world's this awful machine where the anti-liberty police threatens every nook and cranny. Believe it or not, such alarm does often threaten liberty because the energy from it's easily misdirected. And, that free enterprise is the miracle cure, has a preachy quality to it with too many parallels of biblical rhetoric (or prophecy) for my tastes. I'd be with libertarians if the ideology can be tempered enough in such aspects to be compatible with real life. Glad we could talk.

Ha, yeah. Well, there's a good explanation at one website for the visual phenomenon.

That's so cool, Mr Skeptic. My immediate reply to Pangloss is along the same lines. Pangloss, if you walked into a miserably poor area of town, in the evening, with necklaces full of jewels and gold dangling off your shirt, and loads of cash sticking our every pocket, while you counted an impressive stack of $100 bills, then who do you suppose people are going to blame when they hear about you getting robbed/mugged? If they'd blame you, does it mean they're apologists for people who rob or mug innocents? The difference here is that you don't get an honest re-telling by the government of what stupidity they've pulled to incite vengeance by hostile groups. And what makes you think questioning the actions/motives of people who supposedly act in our best interests somehow is making excuses for violent actions by other parties? Haven't you questioned the motives of politicians who enact laws to help out the poor? Does that mean it's apparent proof/indication whether you're for or against the poor? The same way the English have survived bombings and whatnot from the Irish Republican Army, or Europe's survived its various terrorist incidents, or the U.S. has survived its own various terrorist incidents, all of them without having gone to such extremes as we have after 9/11. Targeting the actual source: Osama bin Laden. Until caught, questioned, and faced the consequences. Why ignore anything? The Taliban were given a choice and we proceeded in after they gave bin Laden safe harbor. Really? That's quite some news. In full view? I'm guessing our military's afraid to waste its bullets? You know, the economy. And do you suggets a witch-hunt for the bad people in the world, having enough of a brain not to discuss anything sensitive over the phone, internet, ham radio, etc? Yes, names are powerful in how civilians respond to a law and the expectations created. A war on terror can never end. And there's an industry salivating at the thought of endless war/profits. No, they want to kill the few instigators of their aggression, but unfortunately the instigators chose to hide behind our flag (and safe U.S. borders) -- instigators who likely, and purposely, made it look as if U.S. policy were to blame. Thus let the profits roll in once they've stirred up the angry hornets' nest and the exterminators conveniently show up to resolve the problem they helped create. But they are. You just happen to buy into that same group's premises. The left has protected those it disagrees with. For instance, the ACLU protecting the right of the KKK to march. Amen. Don't lose our heads.

Unregulated activities by plunderers of natural resources in undeveloped nations, and by foreign policy without oversight. Absolutely correct. But they still will need funds and support. Perhaps even liking a bit of applause. They seem to get it, especially as a result of policies like Bush's. Are you going to ignore the increase of attacks (especially the ones you cited) during the "War on Terror"? Explain how anyone can possibly resolve such a war by force and conflict? Plus are you going to ignore a side effect of declaring a war that's impossible to safely declare ended? The benefit it'd have for those in power who view the military as a sacred cow that must always be enormously funded, and might use whatever strategy to achieve it (like crafting a legal policy for an endless war).

You mean opinion piece. That link you provided isn't official news. They might be remembering some news of a real event, but just them saying it doesn't make it so.

Your #1 proposal is a decent start for producing effective change. But #2 needs improvement because we need something that'll be easier for citizens to track, and where it's at, it seems open to loopholes and purposeful confusion by lawmakers. Also you need to include tax cuts as well, to be treated as spending. Oh, please. And it's never as black and white as politicians reveal it. $3.3 Trillion Embezzled Before Bailout First see the link above -- spending mostly by the Pentagon; although a smaller organization gets mention as well, but, then if you continue to read on the following two revelations.... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends. "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted. $2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million. "We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Plus, the CIA... http://www1.american.edu/salla/Articles/BB-CIA.htm#Legal In 1967, Richardson made an effort to discover the true size of the CIA’s ‘black budget’ by writing a letter to the US Government Printing Office. He requested a copy of the CIA budget “published by the Government in compliance with Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the United States Constitution.” [10] Richardson received replies from the US Treasury that essentially rebuffed his efforts and he decided to start a Federal court action against the US government. He argued that the CIA Act was “repugnant to the Constitution” since it “operates to falsify the regular Statement and Account of all public Money.” ..... Never in the history of this country has so much money been spent without the traditional safeguard of openness and in direct defiance of constitutional provisions…. Billions are spent each year by unknown entities and this amount is spread throughout the Treasury’s reporting system to confuse the public and belittle the Constitution. [12] Thus, since examining the budget would reveal the true cost of the "Black Budget", it therefore must pull money from other budgets in a top secret manner. So how do we know they don't (each year) pull a whopping amount of $$ from progressives' budgets.....yet any Dems knowing this -- only a few -- would be required by law to keep mum. And it'd be just like the right-wing, maximizing the advantage, to then blame progressive laws as inefficient and wasteful, knowing that the (few) Dems who know otherwise, legally can't refute it or discuss nationally sensitive info (taxes supposedly funding progressive agendas, instead spent on black budget) plus keeping it a secret, as well, from the majority of other Republican leaders/peers they've managed to convert against progressive spending. Reflect on something....more ways exist to corrupt a system (or anything) than exist to repair it. And that's the ultimate weakness of having secrecy in government. When it's transparent, everyone can look at how it works at every level. Corruption always wants secrecy as its companion to power. P.S. By the way, not everyone jumps on the opportunity to spend funds handed to them. Lots of money from Stimulous remains unspent, and most of the Tarp funds remain unspent as well.

That's not a good view to begin problem-solving with. The mathematical odds of solving a problem -- and every one is solvable -- increases with each new attempt you give it. But if you don't even bother with it, then your odds of solving the problem approaches zero.* So let's try it again, shall we? If the plan offered a new Amendment to the Constitution requiring all levels of government to inform us of its spending and budgets in real-time -- via internet, email alerts, whatever our fancy -- lots of the waste is gonna vanish and people might enjoy such a level of transparency. How it's done matters, but the plan wouldn't suck....just the implementation of it might, but that'd likely be due more to political sabotage than a fault with the plan. * Really true. I have direct and much experience in this. Wanna know how, just ask.

No, my point is that the U.S. shouldn't be trapped into letting Company X derail our standards of living. Foreign investments are great, but the U.S. needs to grant its "free" trade privileges with strings attached for cases where "investors" try to undermine our system. And in the present. And in the future, they'll continue to. Something to ask yourself: ever see an ordinary, worker citizen be able to dump mass loads of poison into the environment or contaminate a river's fish with mercury -- escape repercussion by law? Who's more free? Can you state a reason why the law should apply more to worker citizens than to businesses owners with more economic power? You've completely misunderstood. I had replied to this... So, again, what if a nation, lacking a Constitution, were harmed by global businesses depleting its resources, and its workers labored in deplorable conditions for meager pay so the greedy business owners -- unethically gaining products cheap -- then undercut the businesses from all Constitutional nations who do free trade unconditionally? Keep in mind that lots of businesses here in the U.S. don't exist in a vaccuum, they have variuos operations around the world, seeking to exploit the unsuspecting. They'd be as ruthless and destructive here as they are in undeveloped nations, except our Constitution stalls them. So when they up-and-leave the U.S. for other nations entirely, it's because 1) our free trade makes it possible for them to relocate without losing profits -- effectively the same as being in the U.S. except with cheap labor -- and 2) those other nations don't have a Constitution protecting its workers against the greedy business practices. Think, jackson33....reverse the scenario: what if nations everywhere allowed workers the same opportunity to escape undesirable work by freely traveling between nations, the same way businesses (via Free Trade) can escape undesirable protections for workers/citizens by moving freely between nations. Let's call it...a Free Travel Agreement. If you give it an honest thinking, you might realize why border control's so important to those businesses who pay crap and treat workers likewise. Everything's a strategy for maximized profits when $$ in law's involved.

That makes no sense.

Wake up. You forget Montreal, Colombia, Chicago & New York City (headquarters for campaigns of Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush), El Salvador, Israel, London, U.S. Statue of Liberty, Belgium, Italy, Germany, France, and Kenya. And that's in 1980. There's no "step-up". It's simply a continuation of the symptoms resulting from the unregulated activities by global thieves, who are the first to call for a war on the resulting terror incidents. I say put a stop to both terrorists, AND the unregulated activities of global thieves who inspire such hatred and then hide (from the consequences) behind our civilized nations' borders and governments.

It had seemed as if there's ocean behind it, but perhaps not. Difficult to tell. But if the object's really that far, the size is even larger than perceived in the video. Plus, why aren't such trails a more common event -- on the horizon of lands as well? Instead, everyone's response is as if they're seeing it the first time ever. Why? It's a deputy Secretary of Defense who claimed it's a "big" missile. Should be his fault. And what if a real missile had been launched, such as the Delta II rocket nearby to it about four days earlier? Should it have gone unreported if no one knew who had launched it?

Skeptic; That's not a very good analogy; Normally any person who had an affair or was involved in corruption, whether Christian or Atheist, would not get elected. On a level playing ground, as to character, if an Atheist runs as an Atheist the electorate will choose the non Atheist. But he did make a valid analogy. I believe Mr Skeptic's question is this: if the only two candidates running were 1) a politician exposed for corruption and having an extramarital affair, or 2) a politician of clean record who's atheist.....the voters' choice will be? The answer itself exposes something: it's not just about the usual/personal likes or dislikes by voters, their reasoning approaches the extreme. For the atheist is just a person who happens to not believe, rather than someone whose agenda is to further a political cause.

The goal of certain political strategists is for exactly that outcome, where our nation's forced to lower its standards in response to policies in foreign areas where global businesses exploit. Yes, which is my concern. Just think of everything a greedy minority of businesses in the U.S. tries to get away with in our lands, and nearly does. And that's with our Constitution standing in their way. I can only imagine those businesses' global romp exploiting a vast frontier of lands without such a Constitution to hinder them, draining resources and impoverishing people, making deals with tyrant leaders of such lands, and then finally exploiting the debilitated people from those areas in order to gain cheap prices which trap the western nations (via the illusion of unconditional free trade) into lowering barriers to the greedies for similar exploitation of them. Let's make something clear, it's not isolationism we're trying to achieve, but simply not to do unconditional free trade. I have much less of a problem in the U.S. doing free trade with nations similar to our code of ethics and work standards. Conditional free trade is a strategy of protecting ourselves from the kinds of abuses the greedies would do to our system if they had the chance.

Oh sure, as if church would ever allow tax-deductions to vanish. Which by the way means you and I pay for the donations indirectly via taxes even if we're not part of any church. To remove tax-deductions entirely could screw nonprofits of all types certainly.

Good point. Same thing really. It's one thing to let it occur naturally, it's another to encourage it by incentives from law. I remember practically the day the outsourcing exploded in the Bush years. See padren's reply, it covers that well. Where's the tax revenue on the goods? And how shall U.S. businesses here compete with foreign ones that gain cheap prices by keeping detestable working conditions and utterly destroying the environment? (among other nasty practices)

Two groups of people for any mysterious event: those who imagine all sorts of plots, and those who fear the strange and dismiss it as common stuff. I wouldn't know of any reason for someone to launch a missile randomly, or by error. I can suppose, however, that a plane doesn't from near an ocean's level starting point -- as the news video shows it moving.

Outsourcing + tax breaks on richest + factories closed and reopened overseas + enormous loopholes + free trade agreements = huge losses of government funds. I agree with bascule. Oversimplified. Many lottery winners are inexperienced with money, and so they likely never expected having to deal with managing their new life in such critical detail, and might've been too dependent on a false expectation of winning relief from life's everyday needs for problem-solving (now amplified by the new responsibilities of their mega-fortune). http://lotteryguide.org/static_article.php RULE 3: Seek personal growth before financial growth. Remember, prosperity is a state of mind, not an amount of money, and there are no self-made wealthy pessimists. ..... Unprepared winners make the mistake of crediting their jackpot for their future fortune before they win and then blaming their jackpot for their eventual misfortune after they win. They fail to realize soon enough that money is merely a tool of wealth, not wealth itself. The lesson is that you have to take care of the money; the money will not take care of you. If you have problems before you win, these will be magnified and intensified after you win the lottery -- not solved by it. Government needs smarter/wiser spenders, not clueless penny-pinchers.

The free trade philosophy and controversy isn't new. It's been around since the nation's founding, tarriffs being the hot issue. Don't get hung up on the name, "free trade". What's the larger picture? Go to the supermarket. Read the ingredients on any number of packages, until you notice a curiosity. Sugar, wheat, corn, soy oil, in nearly everything.....usually as the first ingredients -- which tells us (by law) a product has more of the ingredient than others down in the list. Why? Because it's cheap. And why are those specific ingredients so cheap? Because our taxes paid for much of the crop. Except we pay once on the tax bill, and we pay once more at the supermarket. Twice. Huge companies with billions of dollars are getting a welfare check from the public to grow crops, basically, and so to maximize profits, they'll cram into our foods all manners of ingredients from crops that were made super cheap -- and find dozens of creative variations and uses for them so customers aren't the wiser they're really eating the same few crops. You know, faked diversity in what you eat and nutrients. Pick up a loaf of 7-grain bread,* and you'll see wheat at the very top (or near it), and the rest of the grains we find in the "less than 2% of..." -- far below the sugar, and even often below the salt and yeast. But forget all that. Imagine a farmer in Mexico. She's not a big conglomerate, but each year her farm's crop sells to multiple regions. Until the arrival of NAFTA, that is. Once the free trade agreement gets underway, Mexico's flooded with crops paid by our taxes. Its local farms crumble under the onslaught of cheap goods -- with an unfair/artificial competitive edge given (by our tax payments) to the U.S. conglomerate "farms". Unfortunately, that's not all. Chemicals or pesticides banned in the U.S. aren't banned in the free trade nations. So we still eat them. And we used to have tarrifs protect us against the cheapness of destructively made foreign goods undercutting the honestly made products in our nation, but we can kiss that goodbye as well. So think about how everything's supposedly going to work out. Normally that'd be the case, in a nation with a Constitution like ours. But the free trade nations don't have a Constitution like ours. It's about time we started a policy of free trade with only the nations whose principles match ours in both treatment of workers and sufficient oversight/regulation of their industries and products. As I mentioned before, it's a strategy. *(Higher grain bread's the same -- in 8, 9, 10, or 12 grain breads, you find a teeny whiff of the other "multi" grains listed under the 2% and below the sugar or yeast)

1) Constitutional protections exist for workers in the U.S. (it doesn't change between states). 2) All manufactured/farmed goods anywhere carry with them a secondary negative-impact price -- usually raised/accelerated by how much further a good dips below an honest/natural price. For example, a company dumping toxic sludge in rivers or entrapping children as workers lowers the (honest) price for customers, but raises the negative-impact price for that region and/or the world. 3) Quality of life for citizens (negatively affected by various industries' bad habits in manufacturing) is protected by regulation in the U.S. 4) Slave labor's prohibited here. 5) Unions by workers that brought us overtime pay (after 40 hours), federal holidays and weekends off, job safety, etc. Free trade is a loophole -- for industry to avoid dealing with everything listed above. It's strategy.

Damn activist judges That's like calling a non-drinker an alchoholic. Judging from the tags in your post (<br> <div>), a webpage's source code is getting included when you copy & paste its text.

I sorta "cheated", playing around (twice, for more random events and to get some results I did) with a homebrew card version of the game that friends and I sometimes play at their houses. So if a few elements seem randomly joined at parts, it's because they are. It's difficult getting it to sync/flow with a real timeline of events in historical order. But it's doable, and with interesting results. The cards I mention are from a pile of events and figures I've scribbled at random over the years, in between these mental exercises. I'd gradually form rules and playtest them. Of course each new time, the game's simplistic elements matured by new knowldege I'd gained of the world and history, so it's become more realistic -- and surprisingly, less complicated. It may become multi-player as the concept evolves. Designing/playing it's even led me to consider how things affect each other in ways I hadn't realized before. And the reason I'm explaining all this is to provide an insight: the game veers steepest from reality the larger a group your "evil" team is and/or the easier to recruit. It turns out, at least in the game, a villain who leads crowds of good people by deviously misleading them is far more realistic than a villain who leads crowds of all bad people. It turns out as well, the all-powerful figure just doesn't work out: the game's elements blend more seamlessly when the people they interact with are the source of that figure's "power". Interesting, huh? Maybe a game can indeed be used to model a random social history of interactions by leaders and civilization. From my entry (at the link below), perhaps you can tell which events are from older scribblings, like Global Warming purposely accelerated to melt Greenland's ice -- thus ushering in a lush paradise of wealth for the real estate investors group who bought up its land cheaply after tremendously raising their industry's CO2's emmissions. What I used do is think up an idea based on current events and scribble it on a card, and it becomes part of the game until incompatible with later events. However, now I'm suspecting that various historical elements and time periods can intermingle safely -- i.e. remain cohesive -- the only two adjustments necessary (for the people of each different time period) would be in the realm/levels of discovery and communication, because the only part that really does change is the scenery. Anyhoo, here's my entry....

The following scenario has random little bits I've collected here and there as material for a game I'm developing based on personal mental exercises. I figure it's always good to know how a world-conquering scenario might come about. Reading it now, I almost cringed at how ruthless parts of it came out -- mostly because I'd never really attempted tying so much of it to a real world timeline of events, I'd gather. But the nature of world conquest is that it's gonna be ruthtless. I've stayed clear of gory details however. Keep in mind, this is a fantasy scenario with unrelated elements of the real world tied into a group. The ones I chose: neocons. Or in this case, alt•neocons. Enjoy your world conquest venture. Take over the world #2 It's fairly easy. You start with 5 nukes, one each hidden in cities of the alternate world. alt•DC; alt•NYC; alt•Hollywood; intersection of alts•France/Switzerland/Italy; intersection of alts•China/Russia. They detonate in the lame duck season -- and while much of alt•Congress is filled, the alt•Supreme Court's judges are hearing a case, and the alt•White House is occupied by the the alt•Prez and Vice. Of course you need the inside scoop first. That's why you're DAP: the near totally unknown "Dark Ages Party". Their goal? Drag the world back into the dark ages, benefiting the members of DAP. And their battle? It's DAP's super-rich entitlements vs world's liberty, peasants, middle class, and the other *goodie* super-rich. Definitely vs alt•liberals, but also vs alt•non-liberals who get in DAP's way. You even selected the DAP team's members... alt•Rove. (his lack of conscience mistaken for genius) alt•Cheney alt•Murdoch alt•Jeffrey (alt•Enron president) #01 alt•Erik (head of alt•Blackwater) #02 alt•biotech co. head alt•Patriot Act's spying network head #03 alt•head of voting machine co. alt•founder of Washington Times (the only 9 people in the world to know of the plan, besides you) Plus you got some toys... 5 nukes And 3 databases... #04 Total Information Awareness Info from spying with Telecommunications Data center of all blueprints for high tech military equipment -- gear, vehicles, computer tools, etc -- and secret poisons. #04-b Lastly you were automatically behind 8 events that happened... - $10 billion missing from Iraq - $50 billion missing from the bailouts - $2.3 trillion missing from Pentagon #06 - Fires in California #07 - ignoring the warnings about planes to hit the alt•towers #08 - Anthrax mailings #09 - Ignoring plight of alt•New Orleans flood devastation #10 - bees disappearing #11 DAP's motto? "Never Again" (hanging below picture of Constitution / Declaration of Independece) Why'd you nuke those 5 places? Easy. With alt•DC and two major cities gone... it kills two birds with one stone: handing DAP *instant* small government and eliminating millions of alt•liberal voters in big cities. your team sounds a warning, "the capital's unsafe so near the oceans", and relocates it to alt•Texas -- your base of operations. instead of the lame-duck alt•Speaker (now gone) being in line as alt•President, you claim it's rightfully the incoming alt•Speaker who should be next in line. And conveniently, you've gathered the newly elected (Nov 2) alt•Congressional House members to vote for their new alt•Speaker. No branches of government remain to challenge your decision, and in the chaos/urgency of a first-time nuclear emergency, you state "it's a crisis, and no time for politics. After things are under control (its double meaning amusing you), then we go back to normal procedure. Move aside, this is war, you know little of it". A sudden and decisive change of leader. DAP insists on new alt•Supreme Court nominations right away. Guess who fills the court? Appointed for life. the alt•Library of Congress is gone as well, a vast amount of precious information lost -- history, evolution, U.S. legal system, church abuses, whatever alt•liberals enjoy reading. also, DAP relocates the U.S. military HQ to either alt•Texas or the deep alt•South. you call a state of emergency, halting the internet and most electronic communication: TV, news, phones...everyone in the dark on what's happening in the nation and world. Even the mail's stopped. When the internet finally kicks back years (or months) later, it's censored by DAP in the interest of national seurity. Government's drastically changed by then. start a mass paranoia about terrorists everywhere. Whenever some people begin to question the government, dispatch the unquestioning soldiers to blow up the "terrorist" hideouts via air raid. #04 the individual States are no match for the budgets of DAP's favored industries. Regulation? Officially dead. With the 5 areas nuked... - it's DAP-Day. The world's hit by chaos, giving DAP the best opportunity to make permanent change - alt•Murdoch's NewsCorrpt rolls to action, unleashing its many worldwide stations and blasting propaganda full throttle internationally, now blaming alt•liberals for having protested against the original alt•war on terror. It crafts a new atmosphere in which alt•liberals DARE NOT protest the coming wars, and psychlogically they should feel guilty for having doubted the alt•war on terror. Explanation of numbered items... #01 alt•Jeffrey (alt•Enron president} - alt•California does things to get in the way of DAP. So right away it became important to remove its Democrat Governor (via Recall Election). To accomplish it, alt•Enron played a dirty game that started with rolling blackouts and elected a alt•Republican Governor. - $$. DAP needs lots of funding. As billions were lost in the alt•Enron scandal ---> Billions were transferred to DAP. #02 alt•Erik (head of alt•Blackwater) - alt•Iraq needed a real war, to begin digging a hole for the alt•U.S government budget, so.....a few well-picked shootings here and there, killing off independent media reporters, detonating bombs made to look as if one religion targeted another, or disguised as alt•U.S soldiers targeting alt•Iraqi civilians' families, to inspire hatred and vengeance, fueling the war. #03 alt•Patriot Act's spying network head - It's accomplished the mission that Watergate failed to: spy on alt•Dems leaders. It even went further: spy on alt•Republicans, on most any employees of the U.S. government, on media journalists, so DAP can prepare in time if anyone's snooping into their business. DAP rarely spied on citizens like you and I -- who's got time to? #04 And 3 databases... - You might've not spied on the regular citizens, but....how does one find the sleaziest, most conniving people to hire for deeds that require not having a conscience? Easy, your unsuspecting government employees will happily search the databases locating those sleazeballs for you, believing it's a good deed and that you'll probably keep a "wary" eye on such bad people. You've used the database to create a huge base of potential employees rotten to the core -- perfect for dirty missions. After DAP-Day, you'll really need to know who are the sleaziest CEOs and heads of industry in the world. DAP grants their corporations the most favorable environments to thrive under, while subduing the competition. #04-b DAP's bluebrints on military tech allows you to use the latest tech against whoever's challenging the industries or government -- tech such as: the military's latest work on invisibility suits, drone aircraft, bullet protection, surveillance through walls, bunker busters, robotic exoskeletons, smart missiles, white phosphorus, grenades, rocket launchers, biological warfare, satellite ground imagery, microwave beams, etc. However, the most effective plan is to just ensure anyone supportive of DAP is viewed as good, massively encourage people to be judgemental of "bad" people, develop a class system with loyal followers placed at its top, and create an unfavorable puplic image of the alt•liberals who'll be oppose DAP. #05 Underfund alt•Dems. - Both the wars, the economic collapse, alt•Bush's accounting tricks of leaving out war costs in budget, and the economic bailout -- all were meant to ensure that alt•Dems could do nothing when DAP handed the government back to them from 2009 until DAP-Day. alt•California needs to be given money-problems as well. Try to bankrupt the state. #06 $2.3 trillion missing from Pentagon - As said in #1, DAP needs major funding. You count the pocketed 2.3 trillion -- what can it accomplish? There's practically no limit. #07 Fires in California - See #5, then #4. Another way to keep alt•California in debt is to keep lighting huge forest fires. Hire some unscupulous bastard(s). #08 ignoring the warnings about planes to hit the alt•towers - A document like the Patriot Act can't be written so lightning fast. You need advance notice of something that's going to occur. Again, you rely on good employees to alert you of something bad, so you can downplay the intel and use time to draft a law for the opportunity the attcks will give you. #09 Anthrax mailings - sent to alt•liberal congress officials, and to regions where the alt•liberal vote's heavy, and to alt•liberal media offices in case neither were frightened enough, so that 1) your political opposition senses wisdom in DAP's upcoming policies, and 2) it escalates the perceived seriousness of the threat DAP presents. The lab scientist who mailed them is finally caught, so DAP arranges a sucide. #10 Ignoring plight of alt•New Orleans flood devastation - A perfect way to remove alt•liberal votes from a state important to DAP's mission. Your other point? States need to help themselves instead of looking to the Federal Government. #11 bees disappearing - your biotech co. head's develops a way to genetically alter certain species with two qualities -- 1) a self-dying gene, 2) it agressively tries to mate. If a food crisis occurs when bees and pollinators die off, you can engineer back-up replacements -- kept in a quarantined environment -- and sell them for a nice profit. And what if you can replicate it for soil critters, microbes, ground worms, and bugs helpful to the soil, plants, the gardener, and forestry? The whole lot extinct. Genetically altered back-up copies stored in quarantine. Then you've privatized the wilderness, DAP's industry basically owns the natural world, rented out for massive profits. Meanwhile today, research how to diminish/kill phytoplankton in oceans via bio-engineering. If successful... - DAP industries rent out their phytoplankton to mariculture/aquaculture farms. - Global Warming accelerates. - Ocean life dies, DAP substitutes it with a privatized food chain. Merchants pay you a fee on anything caught in oceans. Strategies (before DAP-Day)... - Fear, lies, sabotage, phony arguments, etc. - Before alt•Obama takes office, you "lose" incriminating email records from White House. Investigations thwarted. - Theftronics voting. {alt•voting machine co. head} Alter the secret ballot in Congress, especially when its lawmakers vote for their Party leader, and for choosing their House Speaker. Export theftronics vote machines worldwide.* - nudge foreign goverments to the right who oppose DAP's war vs Iraq -- especially liberals alt•Canada and alt•France. Help ensure the alt•Dems get back in power in '06/'08, but not enough to stop DAP's fillibustering. Theftronics work better in Primaries. Much less focus on it. - Make sure alt•Obama wins vs alt•Hillary; he's more of a risk against your plans, but an easier figure to polarize MANY others against. It's a strategic trade-off. A final advantage theftronics have is to influence elections among... - Corporations, when their Board of Directors and CEO are elected by secret ballot. - Ditto for any major organization, the U.N., the WTO, etc. - Government lamwmakers around the world (voting for their party leaders). - the Church for its leader, electronically by church officials via secret ballot. - State-of-the-astroturfing DAP has lots to spend ($2,300,000,000,000+). Its astroturf computer program opens up various text forms at the same time, while it automatically searches the internet for keywords or looks inside the comments section of news articles or detects when users post any new comments. The program, Amplifyme, makes it look as if thousands of people are sending complaints when it's really one person, while its technology allows you to bypass the usual detection methods -- like comparing IP addresses. The technology's a custom design originating from military. You have many of them being operated by DAP's pool of rotten-core employees (located via its database tools). After DAP-Day... - More fear, lies, sabotage, phony arguments, etc. - Superpower the alt•Middle East -- more voters for DAP's side -- unfriendly to liberals. -- alt•Abu Dhabi and Iraq became like another USA in commercial strength. - alt•Hollywood's gone. And the conservative alt•Bollywood reigns. - With alt•NYC in ruins, alt•Texas erects its own Statue of Freedom. And DAP helps ensure it becomes the new economic powerhub for commerce in the alt•U.S -- with its capital seat. - alt•Greenland becomes a land to settle when its frost melts in the accelerated Global Warming. alt•Denmark owns that land, so you make sure to get DAP's own elected into government there, so DAP can buy Greenland from them after the ice melts and before alt•Denmark starts going underwater from the rising sea levels. DAP wins -- almost, except... alt•Obama and some alt•Dems plus alt•Republicans knew of DAP's plans from the beginning, and now they expose it to the world. It's a risky move, but in the end triumphant -- DAP falls immediately, casting a revolution worldwide against DAP's ideology/followers. alt•liberals take over the world. And so DAP-Day never materializes or they can't detonate the nukes....but even if they still had detonated, everyone's the wiser. The End It's a tricky game to conquer the world, the path to that goal bringing destruction, misery chaos -- if done via trickery, secrecy, and force. In the game, there's another method for winning -- involving peace and not trying to eliminate the others.