Wanna bet? Sure, it'd probably end up passing, but plenty of people would end up objecting.

The fact that someone, somewhere, will complain about anything, even if its giving him a free lunch. My evidence: human nature

I'm not saying a significant number of people would object, but I betcha at least a few nut jobs will be around to make sure everyone knows someone who's objecting.

Besides, the freeze on the stock market would have to go into effect before our economy got shattered, so you won't have very many people starving in the streets (or otherwise desperate) when the freeze goes in.

umm, sorry but there is already a law that shuts down the stock market if it plunges more than 500 points.. and I remember it being used in the 80's... more than once!

well DUH, but thats not "plenty" of people.

yes you did.

if bush was psychic... but somehow I doubt...

anyway when these things become apparent (this catastrophic crashes) people ARE in the street, and other people are on the way.

again, dont use America as a comparison, the reason being that even our worse are better off than everyone else.
thats not a law, but a general rule.

well... that simplifies things a bit, doesnt it?

that doesnt prove very much. whats the point?
all it does is add to the evidence I've mounted that they're talking theoretically (like people saying "we'll have mars in 50 years")

also: you're not counting the R-7 of the U.S.S.R. it launched sputnik, remember?

and besides "not so powerful" still counts for failed flying candlesticks.

Plenty
Significant

none of any of these definitions fits with "few" "sparing ammounts" "the vastly minute number of" etc.

ok, no. you're twisting the words.

not to mention you absolutely contradict yourself.

That would be a preversion of Democracy, who is to say all rights would be returned afterwords. Whos to say thats where it will end, the president has enough power to be the most influencial figure in the world, and I for one dont want to give him/her the power to control economies directly.



Not necessarily, if its a company that provides necessities then it would be brought back as fast as it went down, the thing is it would be under complete new control.



Yes, but laws have been aproved by Congress and therefore are completely in bounds of the consititution. I was speaking of Presidential actions.



See Schem, that supports my earlier arguement about hierarchies and the ablity to bend words to your meaning. I win

Not to me it doesn't! Abundant would mean a personally significant amount of people (e. g. my high school's worth) but not a nationally significant amount. I don't know about you, but there is a huge gap between those two concepts for me -- I recognize it on an emotional as well as emotional level.

Which goes to show you don't understand what I'm saying, at all.



interesting typo -- meant emotional as well as intellectual.

Which are two totally different concepts, with two totally different scales. Equally "duh" worthy.

Depends on your definition. We might be aliens of a sort. Do I believe in alien space craft landing in the 1950s? No that strike me as pure fantasy.


I find it very unlikely that an alien space craft would just "happen" to crash land right next to a top secret US weapons test site. The planet is a big place... and there are only a few tiny areas of that kind of significance.


So while possible, it's like expecting me to believe that not only did aliens land but the US government won an improbably vast lottery at the same time. Just take the odds of an alien landing at that specific time and then multiply it by the odds that an alien would land right there. That gives you a rough idea at how improbable the whole thing is... I think I'm probably more likely to turn into raccoon and eat your socks... just spontaneously...

There are more reasons to reveal it then not... and our government is HORRIBLE at keeping secrets. But if they did decide to keep a secret like that, the only plausable reason I can think of is that they wanted to horde the technology to use against the Russians. This was the cold war after all.

and hence your statement


FAILS!







like, oh my god! are you who I think you are?

excuse me, what are you talking about? I seem to have dozed off while reading.