Checkmate... You Lose.

[saint cheez]

Globalization is reality.

Inflationary policy of the politicians have priced the US worker out of the market... in order for the politicians to keep in office.

The Industrial Revolution has started all over again in the so-called 3rd world. For the corporations, this is great. For the US worker, 200 years of progress was flushed down the toilets.

Back in the late 1980's or early 1990's, MIT was predicting that the next revolution would be the Nanotechnology Revolution, which would start after 2015.

The implications of the revolution would be that every human being would be put out of work. The automatums and machines would do everything.

Recently Bush stressed competitiveness in relation to China, India, etc. What was the solution he was selling to the US worker? Nanotechnology. Actually he was talking to the corps, not to the US worker.

Sure Nanotechnology would be great for the corps and power elites, but not for you. So, checkmate... you lose, sucker :LOL: :huh:

Look, folks. Bush gave 20 million dollars to MIT to develop nanotechnology for starters, military objectives and probably later for private objectives. But, since you the tax payer paid to develop nanotechnology, should you not also benefit from it? Why is it that the corps get the money and you get nothing?

Believe me, in the next Nanotechnology Revolution, there will not be any welfare state except maybe for corps and big business. For you, nothing, according to the evolutionistic psychopaths or suits.

Hey, 2015 is just around the corner. You better get off your dead asses or else :P

[saint cheez]

The way it usually works now-a-days the politicians give your money to the corps and in turn they get back money and jobs from the corps. But, what do you get for your money?

The corps most likely also get the patents and the profits. In my opinion, if there are any profits, you should automatically get some money also and some guarantees from the politicians. They should not sell out you and your country. Why should you have to pay for stocks when you have already paid into the development costs?

Sure, Greenspan also argued once that when the government pays for property, the private bank corporation should own the property. Apparently, the government was not ready yet to go along with this bs, but you never know. They may some day do it.

How do you get any ethical guarantees from the traitorist politicians? Hard to say. Basically, the only power you have is the vote, which has just about been taken away from us via the machine voting. Of course, once your vote is gone, you are through. :angry:

And, of course, there are also taxes. There is no choice in that matter.

[saint cheez]

Actually more money has been put into nanotechnology and for a longer period than some might realize. Clinto n invested your money which was more than 420 million dollars into nanotechnology.

Here is a short history of nanotechnology. And, guess who wrote about it, the New Atlantis aka NWO.
ttp://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/2/keiper.htm
The Nanotechnology Revolution by Adam Keiper

He obviously recognizes the "revolution" by downplays and omitts the consequences of this revolution.

Here is a senator pushing again nanotechnology activitively:
senator weiden
http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2002/09172...otech.html


Here is a 2000 presentation on the sociatal implications of nanotechology:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:-UgULlt.../spp/rd/ch6.pdf

"Three observations are particularly relevant here. First, the impact of
rapid technological innovation on people’s lives is usually not consen-
sual. Second, in the short term at least, the social changes induced by
new technologies usually create both winners and losers (where what is
lost may range from a job to an entire community). Third, rapid tech-
nological change can threaten the social structure, economic stability,
and spiritual meaning that people strive in their lives to achieve. As the
nanotechnology revolution begins to unfold in all its promise and di-
versity, such issues are bound to express themselves. They should not
be viewed as threats, or as manifestations of intellectual weakness or
repugnant ideology. Rather, they need to be recognized as a central part
of the human context for technological change"

Thats right, winner and losers :P But, your money was invested in this revolution. You should be guaranteed benefits from your investment, rather than just becoming obsolete in the view of the people who took and used your money.:angry: