Astronomically align the galactic center back then WITHOUT Galileo telescopes, Kepler trajectories or Newton mass.

Codex. Burnt by Spain, France and Britain.

Visit the right museum for universally accepted proofs. Even carved.

They didn't predict an end, they "speculated" on a mathematical idiom based on time tracking devices of their own making where churches & cathedrals didn't gather crowds on catholic Sundays.

Fair deal, when taken in *A* (Yours or/and mine, btw) rational perspective without any biased Mayan empire failure, although quite successfully reborned into something that vanished by epidemics and wars.

Nobody can/could/will predict world's end, ever.

Don't you think that if Obama actually was trying to institute a dictatorship or kill everyone over the age of 65 or whatever, he would be doing a bit of a better job of it? So far, he's attempted to institute a stimulus package, energy reform, and health care reform. It seems like Obama The Dictator would be.... i dunnow.... declaring martial law or whatever.

No one on earth knows what exactly 2012 stand for it only stand for the end but the end of what no one knows exactly only the mayan themselves knows exactly what 2012 means when they predict it.

Obama is bi-racial.

Why is it that everybody always go right towards passive aggressive when someone disagrees even a little bit?

Notorious, your first post had undertones of political paranoia, and this thread has already been through the conspiracy phase...

I must confess that i have almost no idea of what you mean by this post, in particular: "If you knew anything about ruling systems or the psychology of the masses you should understand what a figure head is and how decisions are made."

A figure head is someone like the emperor of japan, the pope, or the royal family of the U.K., an important cultural symbol, but someone with almost no political power. The president has power, it is checked by the legislative and judical branches, but it is there.

What does the "pyschology of the masses" have to do with "how decisions are made"? In government, decisions are made based on the perceived needs of the nation and its people.

In being bi racial that means he has some black in him. In other words he's black, he's white, he's whatever else he is. So when i say he's black i don't mean he's totally black i mean he's got some black in him so he's black.

"I must confess that i have almost no idea of what you mean by this post, in particular"    It's a simple statement. Study the topic and you will understand more about it as with anything else. 

Those are good examples of a figure head if you prefer to stick to the most basic kind. The president represents a collective group of ideas from people both in public and behind the scenes. He does not just represent himself. He is the figure head of American government.

I'm sure you know what i mean by the masses so i won't insult you with a definition but you must understand that while in a group of individuals we all have our own minds, people tend to think as a collective when presented with the idea of the group. It's a little known fact that if one hears multiple people say that same thing it is easily accepted as truth wether or not it is true. Media can do this stuff. Did we truly have a need or was it a percieved need to invade iraq? What about about going to Kosovo? If thats so then why haven't we gone to Dar-Fur? Why on Osama Bin Ladins warrant for arrest it is not stated that he is wanted for the attack on the twin towers?

I just like to ask questions.

I agree. Color of skin doesn't define who you are. It does, however, provide you with a set amount of experiences due to cultural differences. Our personalities are pretty much developed through what we experience. We tend to identify with those who look like us or represent similiar lifestyles as us. It's just the way it is.

Anderson, you've definately ran with this one.

When i speak of psychology of the masses it has everything to do with politics. Go and study the science of psychology, where it came from and where it's heading. Find out why the schools teach certain psychological principals as opposed to others. Also while your out there learning about yourself, take a look into mass marketing and persuasion. If you understand how your own mind works then you may be able to pick up on the effects of multiple minds at work. Then if you'd like go ahead and study political science. By then you should be ready to take office in any political arena.

Please clarify your meaning when you say "psychology is a science, it is the study of the mind. If you mean the mindset of the people, then you have a limited point." I'd like to know what specifically this was in reference too and what your specific point was. It seems as if you've assigned meaning to my statement while making an assumption and without providing sufficient back up too your claim.

This study you speak of is 1 of many. I like to run my own experiments from time to time too see if its all dribble or real. In life a lot of these situations arise and you can just reflect on your own expience too see if its real or not. I'm a bit unsure of what your stance is with that statement. Are you trying to refute my previous statement or agree? To me it looks like agree.

"It was a perceived need based on intelligence gathered by multiple allied countries and validated by the C.I.A. Invading iraq had NOTHING to do with the events on September eleventh. There was intelligence that stated there were WMDs in the country, a violation of several international treaties and a threat to the entire world. May i also mention that the U.S. was not the only country that went in to iraq? and that the C.I.A. was not the only intelligence agency that believed the false intelligence."

Look at what you're saying! You have succefully made a statement and then ran the counter arguement too that very statement in one paragraph! If it was a perceived need based on intelligence gathered by multiple allied contries and validated by the C.I.A. then i guess the fact that when Iraq was invaded and NO weapons of mass destruction where found, the C.I.A.'s claim as well as multiple allied countries had become INVALID. Simply put, the term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' was phrase used to stir public support and rally the troops to go into Iraq for the Oil, and maybe to also get a tronger foothold in the middle east. But thats my personal objective belief. 

Blamed for the death of someone is not a charge, murder is a charge. Attack on the twin towers is not a charge, so then whats the legal name for a terrorist attack? It doesn't matter what you call it. If he did it they will say he did it and put it on his warrant, which they haven't done. Oh yeah and btw i don't watch TV and i'm not apart of any activist groups nor do i believe in any free-thinking movement. These are all assumptions you've made because you feel as if i'm telling you that you're wrong for living your life the way you have. I'm indifferent. 

There will be no end of the world. Just the end of one idea and the beginning of another. I wouldn't be surprised if Stardock ran things.

You ran with it again.

Study psychology, marketing, political science and then you'll understand.

Find out what i mean rather than to apply a definition to what i've said that will fit your arguement.

I thought i clearly said i believe Iraq was invaded for oil and to get a stronger foothold in the middle east. Maybe that translates to popular demand in the world of captains. Maybe rally the troops means somethin else too.

I can tell you how this thread was derailed. I said what i said. It was misinterpreted. I explained myself. It was misinterpreted. I explained myself again. It was misinterpreted. I explained again! It was overly misinterpreted. And now here i am for the last time but without further explanation because it will just be misinterpreted again.

To close this derailment i'll just say this. Take a look into what a GMO is and what it does. Understand the long and short term effects and then decide what you will about your own health. All i want is for people to eat better.

....Bless to all......as we await the end.....

or is it THe Beginning?

Hey bud. I can't get mad at you because you sound just like a lot of people i know who don't really take a look and keep runnin back to the books rather than to see with there own eyes. A minor in psychology does not = a major in psychology, marketing, or political science. But then again i'm not here to refute your accomplishments.

I'm gonna keep it simple so try to stick with me here. If a batch of GMO apples consist of 20 apples grown in the same amount of time it takes to grow 12 organic apples thats a great thing because there are more apples. But its only great if the nutritional value from the 20 apples is greater than the 12 organic apples. In a batch of GMO anything, no 2 items will ever be consistant in the amount of nutrients it contains. Organic products are products that do not vary in nutritional content as nearly much as GMO's. To be frank on a scale of 1 to 10 GMO's start at 3 and can be anywhere from 8 to 0. Not to mention most if not all GMO have been engineered to contain pesticides. GMOs cost less to maintain and sell for more because of a larger harvest. Organic food starts at 10 and sometimes drops to 8 depending on the season. Organic food can sell good but due too having a smaller harvest most farmers opt for GMO.

You can heal disease eating a total organic raw food diet. You cannot heal disease and often introduce problems to your body eating a total GMO diet. This is my point. I'm not here to argue with you because youve decided long ago not to listen and just to be as right as you can appear to be. I know first hand from once having diabetes and now i no longer have after adopting a total raw food diet. I am friends with an individual who the hospitals gave 3 months to live after being diagnosed with cancer and now 2 years later after switching from GMO food and adopting organic raw food now has no trace of any cancer in his system. I speak from experience. You speak from theory and speculation. You must OPEN YOUR EYES.

Lastly stop assuming things. You just look to me silly. BTW i've been to iraq. Pipes are being built all throughout Iraq to transport the oil so what are you talking about?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/cheap-food/bourne-text

That is a link to the article. The short answer is stockpiles.

"Human population, he observed, increases at a geometric rate, doubling about every 25 years if unchecked, while agricultural production increases arithmetically—much more slowly. Therein lay a biological trap that humanity could never escape." Thomas Malthus realized this.

That is because the pipes were destroyed and oil is a HUGE part of the middle east's economy. You tell me to "open my eyes", i tell you to relax.

GMOs are of questionable nutritional value, that much is certain. But it is better to distribute those 20 apples and then 20 people have SOMETHING to eat, rather than distribue 12 organic apples (more expensive BTW) and have only 12 people have something to eat.

Look, this is a stupid argument. We obviously do not understand each other's points of view enough to intelligently debate this.

Edit: I am a realist, i do not assume zebras when i hear the beating of hooves. Much like i do not assume international conspiracy when i watch a country invade another under the belief that the invaded country had weapons capable of harming the invading country.

If your world could be realized grime, it would be great, but that is not the world we live in and it is not the one that will be brought about anytime soon

1 billion people who live on less than a dollar a day rely on a surplus of food to keep prices low. There is no longer much of a surplus, so prices are high and people are starving.

I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE NUTRITIONAL VALUES OF GMOs, but if you are THAT hungry, it will not matter what you eat as long as it is something.

I agree to disagree, and it is done. You are a formidable opponent Notorious Grime