Check it out: <a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3906607.stm”>Rumor has is</a> that, in Nigeria, if you answer a cell call from certain numbers, YOU WILL DIE. The article also points out that rumors like this in Nigeria are not too uncommon, and that a while ago it was rumored that if you shake hands with people, IT WILL CAUSE YOUR TESTICLES TO FALL OFF. In light of this startling news, mobs rounded up people and accused them of causing testicles to fall off of other people.
They formed mobs because shaking hands = testicles falling off. I hope they address this issue at the Republican National Convention.
Note: I have it on good authority that if you shake Aaron’s hand your testicles will fall off.
In India, the government informed the populace, awhile back, that appropriate action in the event of thermonuclear war with Pakistan was to cover themselves in holy cow dung to ward off the effects of radioactivity that would likely blanket the countryside. Now if you would, please inform me why certain avowed liberals have any faith whatsoever in humanity’s non-psychotic tendancies winning out in the end.
I was not aware liberals held such a view of human nature.
As for India, they were probably using the dominant religion to calm people down. Cow dung doesn’t do much good in a thermonuclear attack, but panicking doesn’t do any more good beforehand.
Then why are they always so “more power to the people” and all? There’s only one rational conclusion why a proverbial “load of shit” would be dished out to keep people from their tendancy to panic.
Pillage!, Plunder!, Loot!, $@^$(&!~~~!!! while breaking glass windows nearby, and so forth.
If public officers are not scrutinized, they will tend to form cabals and other similar circles of cronies. Sadly, there exists no scrutinizing body that can be made free of greed. The hope, though, I think, is that having more people scrutinizing and exercising their greed constructively will offset the greed of the relatively few who hold power.
From: Secretary Towogbola [secretary_in_chargeeeee@hotmail.com]
Subject: TREAT AS URGENT {THIS IS NO JUNK MAIL}
"EXECUTION"EXECUTION"EXECUTION"'
NATIONAL CORPORATION HEADQUATERS LAGOS.
PRIVACY. we wish to introduce our company/ourselves as a subsidiary of INTERNATIONAL ASSASINATORS AND WORLD SECURITY ORGANISATIONS,with branches in one hundred and two {102}countires.
we have received a fax message from our headquaters,new york,this morning to inform you to produce a mandatory sum of US$40,000.00 {FOURTHY THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS} only,into our account given below in nigeria within ninety six hours{96},alternatively you will be SNIPPED and GUNNED down during the period of our oncoming anniversary of fifty years.
STANDARD TRUST BANK VICTORIA ISLAND BRANCH LAGOS A/C NO. 03681173101152 {OLAJIDE .O. WILLIAMS} NIGERIA
CAUTION.
1.you are to attach and send with immediate effect,the payment slip,confirming the payment and to enable us to reconcile with our files and deploy our men already monitoring you.
2.we will as well waste no time to carry our operations,if we discover that this contact is disclosed to any second party including the following:-
{a}police {b}relation and {c}friends
3.we guarantee your saftey locally and internationally,on the completion of this contract and will not hesitate to disclose our men in your country to you and as well render our service if needed or on request.
we seek your urgent co-operation,for it is not our wish to get you eliminated.
Note : - Your death has been paid for by someone you offended sometime ago and it will be adviceable that you co-operate with us a.s.a.p.
TOWOGBOLA .A.JOHNSON SECRETARY.
But if people are naturally predisposed towards that which causes said pillaging and looting, etc., why would they be able to rationally scrutinize public officials? Likewise, why would government leaders be any better than the people who, as a whole, choose them? If leaders are the representatives of the people, why would they “appear different” (i.e., better) from them?
Your argument at the end differs from the statement you made before… If liberals do not have faith in humanity’s sanity (what little there seems to be) winning out in the end, why put the power in the hands of those people who act in such ways, and not in the comparative few who ARE sane (and yes, this assumes that morality is not based on whatever the people feel at the time, for the world’s most imfamously evil historical dictatorship was established by democracy, not conspiracy. …Remember, we live in an age where a whole lot of women enthusiastically admitted to voting for Clinton (his policies not the point, here)…because of his looks. Whichever looks the best/sexiest, they’ll vote for. Good thing we haven’t had a bona-fide incubus demon make a run for office, eh?
You claim to vote for people who have a shred of moral decency? That’s nice, but I don’t think the kind old lady down the street has much chance, even if you do convince all your friends that she’s awesome.
I never once claimed to vote for someone who has no chance…but it’s intriguing to hear you claim that the likelihood of finding such a person in our modern society is so remote as to despair of voting for anyone but the morally challenged.
Besides, for all we know that old lady once had an affair with a Mafia overlord, and is still in on the take. I.e., we live in a society that cannot really give trust.
EDIT: How would Badnarik deal with the Islamic jihad that would attack us regardless of whether we pulled completely out of the Middle East or not? There must be balance between moral sanctity and physical security.
EDIT2: A balance that I question the existence of, actually.
