Absolutely, we need a definite change! The world is falling to pieces and we need a solution! The world needs to be ruled by geniuses not rich boys that have no intellect. If you chose Geniocracy, the world would change in a positive way, for sure. It would mean better lives, more understanding in modern day life's, more technology, more advancements in social life and better healthcare and understanding of peoples opinion. Because it would be intelligent people in power. And these people would be tested for their intelligence by their IQ level 50% above the average and to vote, you need to be 10% above the average.
Yes, of course it is! Freedom of speech
NHS provides everyone with healthcare
Welfare State takes care of everyone
Most people are friendly, we have a good sense of humour
So have a think about it. Only problem is that with the current exchange rate $2 = roughly £1 so if you came here with, say $100,000 that would only be worth about £50,000 and that won't go far in the UK today, certainly wouldn't buy you a house or a flat or anything.
Hope you decide to come, its a great country, I wouldn't live anywhere else!
This rich school boy is an idiotic penguin. David Cameron likes risks. On his second day as Tory leader, 7 December 2005, he took one of his biggest. In that now-distant era, Tony Blair was prime minister: not as dominant as he had been for the previous decade, but still formidable in the Commons, where he had seen off four of Cameron's predecessors with patronising politeness and lawyerly precision.
Yet Cameron used his first prime minister's questions to mount a surprise frontal assault. After a few minutes of mild back-and-forth, with Blair seeking to settle once more into his accustomed role as the only grownup in the room,a smiling Cameron, looking leaner than he does these days, switched suddenly from consensual to mocking. "It's only our first exchange," he said, "and already the prime minister is asking me the questions." Then Cameron leaned showily forward across the despatch box, and said with careful emphasis: "He was the future once."
That such a lethal soundbite might backfire one day was lost amid the triumphant Tory laughter. Blair sat listening to the uproar with a fixed smile, and for the rest of prime minister's questions spoke untypically fast. He seemed rattled. In the Commons and beyond, there was a sense that a new political star had announced himself. "David Cameron was clever and people-friendly, and I thought he had some real steel to him," Blair wrote later in his memoirs about Cameron's performance as opposition leader.
In fact, some have marked Cameron for greatness ever since Margaret Thatcher was premier. Two years ago, in a Sunday Telegraph article headlined "David Cameron: born to be prime minister", the authoritative Tory-watcher Matthew d'Ancona recalled that in the late 80s, "A mutual friend ... Told me about the young hot-shot at [Conservative] Central Office who 'will be Tory leader one day'. This was taken as read in his [Cameron's] circle."
In 2003, after barely two years as an MP, Cameron began to be publicly promoted by seasoned Conservatives and political journalists as the long-awaited Tory equivalent of Blair. As Cameron became opposition leader and then, almost immediately, prime minister-in-waiting, expectations rose further. He would be "one of the most important politicians of the early 21st century", wrote the veteran rightwing commentator Bruce Anderson in the Spectator. "Cameron is the most immediately likable leader of a Conservative opposition since Stanley Baldwin [in the 20s]," wrote Anderson's centre-left equivalent, the late Alan Watkins, in the Independent on Sunday. Michael Cockerell, the revered political documentary-maker, made a 2007 BBC2 film titled David Cameron's Incredible Journey.
His failure to win the 2010 election suggested this potential might have been a little overstated. But his seemingly assured role in forming and managing the coalition, and the smoothness of his first months in office, convinced most of the commentariat that the election had been an aberration. "
Definitely not, supernatural is false. It defies all the laws of physics to have a supernatural being control or create mortal beings whilst being immortal and not physically there, when it is apparently as it can create, therefore from the laws and background of physics, its theoretically impossible for a supernatural force that is still unknown of it origins to create a mortal being. As we do not have any such result or climax to what that comprehends or any evidence to the theory. There is no GOD, just SCIENCE.
Not entirely true. I am a raelian therefore, I am not supernaturally religious in any way, and I deny the existence of the holy spirit. But saying that I do believe the bible was misinterpreted, and the true meaning lies within. We just don't perceive it correctly. Our ancestors have misunderstood what actually happened thousands of years ago, and recently it is only being revealed to the world as this is the start of the new era. The Elohim, advanced human extra-terrestrials scientists created life on earth 25,000 years ago, including us humans. But discoveries show that animals date back before that, probably because there was already life on planet earth and it thrived with other species. But that is why the Elohim chose earth, because it was suitable for sustaining life. This is all truth, it just hasn't been revealed yet, and in the 2030s it will be unveiled to the world in the embassy of the Elohim in Israel. Hopefully. I am not pressuring this on anyone, and if you do think Im mad, look it up. At least Im not a scientologist. Now that's being mad. Im sorry.