 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
|
|
You would only prevent people who can produce less than 1 Bitcoin per hour from work.
|
|
|
|
If the skinhead is not acting belligerent, yes, the Jewish guy can be required to serve him, as he has no reason beyond race to not serve him
If the guy is acting like an ass, or mistreating employees, he can be told to get the fuck out of the establishment
What if he was belligerent in the past? What if ten days ago, he was nasty and hateful to the owner but no one else saw it? Who would be in the best position to determine whether the man should be served: the owner, or a bunch of strangers who don't know either one? If he has been nasty in the past, the owner can call the police, have him removed from the premises, and a restraining order can be placed? Do you guys EVER get off the computer? Like seriously... Edit: Jesus Christ people on the Internet can't be this stupid -_-. You're not arguing the principle, dumbass I'm arguing the fact that this thread is dumb as shit, and preatty unrealistic. And you're just a dumb fucking troll. Go back to telling people they can't use BTC cause they don't support Ron Paul LOL!!! You're the only troll here, pal. You don't understand what principle means. Please read MoonShadow's post |
|
|
|
I'm confused... what about all of the signs that businesses post up that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". Couldn't the Jewish owner post a similar sign, and simply refuse service to the guy while pointing at it?
Should he have the right to post up that sign? That is the question and premise of this thread. |
|
|
|
You could believe in those principles, but recognize that the world is a complex place and decisions must be made in line with the current reality. The US is not a blank slate existing in a political vacuum. Since none of us can predict the future, I can understand why some people would still not support the election of Ron Paul as president despite agreeing with his principles.
Oh so it's now an argument of practicality? If there's a will there's a way, bro. All we're asking for is a society that doesn't use coercion as much. That doesn't sound impractical to me. In fact, it's the only moral system in my view, a system where the use of coercion is minimized. Does the prevalence of rape, crime and murder make it any less wrong? No it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Sovreign can you not see the utter asinine-ness of this statement?
"If your ideas are not based on liberty, then you have no business being in Bitcoin. "
FREEDOM = YOU (AS IN YOU SOVEREIGN) HAVE NO BUSINESS TELLING OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN NOT DO.
Seems like your idea of "freedom" is "you get to be free as long as you agree with me, otherwise I need to control what you do in the name of freedom".
What a fucking tool.
There's a big difference between calling someone out on his hypocrisy (that is what I am doing) vs. supporting coercive institutions that apply force to restrain the freedom of others (what he's doing) Not really complicated |
|
|
|
Ron Paul is a racist  . Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftcEdit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol. You're a dumbass if you think his opposition to part of the Civil Rights Act makes him racist |
|
|
|
If the skinhead is not acting belligerent, yes, the Jewish guy can be required to serve him, as he has no reason beyond race to not serve him
If the guy is acting like an ass, or mistreating employees, he can be told to get the fuck out of the establishment
What if he was belligerent in the past? What if ten days ago, he was nasty and hateful to the owner but no one else saw it? Who would be in the best position to determine whether the man should be served: the owner, or a bunch of strangers who don't know either one? If he has been nasty in the past, the owner can call the police, have him removed from the premises, and a restraining order can be placed? Do you guys EVER get off the computer? Like seriously... Edit: Jesus Christ people on the Internet can't be this stupid -_-. You're not arguing the principle, dumbass |
|
|
|
Then you should stop using bitcoins. You are a hypocrite statist who believes in anti-freedom. You have no business using market evolved money based on freedom and decentralization. This is what Ron Paul stands for, and this what bitcoiners should stand for aswell.
REALLY? SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
nuff said, -_- Edit: People like you HURT Bitcoin, and you don't even realize it... Bitcoin does not belong to you, or any political ideology for the matter. It doesn't have "favorites" and unlike your post, promotes TRUE freedom from all of the existing establishments including the one that your hero RP is part of, whether he likes it or not... Thank god that Bitcoin has no bias... And what establishment is Ron paul part of? If your ideas are not based on liberty, then you have no business being in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is about freedom of choice in currency, and freedom of choice principles. It makes you a hypocrite if you are pro-state, pro-centralization, pro-banking establishment monopolies, pro-surveillance state, pro-war, pro-war on drugs, and against civil rights, yet still want to use Bitcoins. Those are all against the principles of liberty. Let me ask you, what principles do you adhere to? |
|
|
|
"This should be made clear. Ron Paul should not be supported by Arabs or by supporters of the Palestinians. He may have said things against Israel (although his spokesperson yesterday asserted to the New York Times that he is a "friend" of Israel), but he is a racist and a reactionary and a homophoebe. This is another example that we can't apply one litmus test only to candidates and people. A critic of Israel who hates blacks and gays (or who hates Jews for that matter and I don't know if Paul is anti-Semitic or not) is not a friend we need in the pro-Palestinian community." http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul.html---- yes he is zionist/pro-israel. I know he has no chance of winning while being anti-israel, but he has principles, like non-interventionism you mentioned. In this case he would rather be pro-israel and have a chance at winning than be anti-israel and have no chance at winning. from middle-east perspective, his foreign policy is good, but he would still support and defend israel no matter what. Just because his rhetoric is not explicitly anti-Israel, does not mean he is pro-Israel. As'ad AbuKhalil is simply wrong on this one. Ron Paul on Gaza 1-3-09 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4MRon Paul Right On Ground Zero 'Mosque' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wur6BH5i0soThis one is the most telling: Ron Paul on Nancy Pelosi, listen carefully to what he says http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdJIWsbXIakDoesn't sound like pro-Israel to me Again, for the second time, Ron refers to Israel treatment of Gaza is like a concentration camp (unheard of from US politicians, Republican or Democrat) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0Also regarding the racist claims against Ron Paul, here's a reality check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-mVe88Nt1sThere's a strong propaganda effort going on against Ron Paul at the moment from the Establishment, so it's best to be very careful about the facts. I like As'ad AbuKhalil just as much as you do, but he is not an infallible source after all, and especially not on US political subtleties. |
|
|
|
|
Then you should stop using bitcoins. You are a hypocrite statist who believes in anti-freedom. You have no business using market evolved money based on freedom and decentralization. This is what Ron Paul stands for, and this what bitcoiners should stand for aswell.
|
|
|
|
|
What a joke. Talk about Orwellian doublespeak.
|
|
|
|
A reader, Zim, sent me this: "Ron Paul actually openly supported Israel's bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981, when he was in congress, and refused to vote to condemn it. i don't think even ronald reagan openly supported it And I just don't see any purpose in not treating Israel in an adult fashion. I think they'd be a lot better off. I think they, one time in the '80s, took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel for this. Nobody else did at that time. But we need to recognize they deserve their sovereignty, just as we deserve our sovereignty http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul_28.htmlThis is now a regular feature: Ron Paul grovels to Israel "But he said that he viewed Israel as “one of our most important friends in the world” and that he supports Israel right to attack Iran in self-defense. “I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.”" http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/12/this-is-now-regular-feature-ron-paul.htmlThis is misleading. He voted against condemning the Israeli attack just as he voted against condemning Hamas rocket fire. It's a matter of principle, and that principle is non-interventionism. To paint him as pro-Israel because of that is disengenuous. When asked about Israel, he says the US should treat it like any other country, and stop the foreign and military aid to them. You have to understand that this is US politics, and the Israel lobby is the one that most strongly affects US foreign policy. This means that all the other GOP candidates, when they went to the Republican Jewish Forum (FROM WHICH PAUL WAS EXCLUDED BY THE WAY), they all were trying to pander hard and one up eachother on who loves Israel the most. You can't realistically expect Ron Paul to make anti-Israel rhetoric and still win office. This will not happen. Especially not with the Israeli grip on US politics, with the Christian Zionist movement, and with the large evangelical base in American voters. This is not even a GOP thing, Democrats are just as zionist as the GOP. |
|
|
|
|
It has a very high value-to-weight ratio, thus making transactions much cheaper. It can be transmitted in different ways such as waves or physical data memory, and can survive long periods of time without inflating. In these regards, it beats all other forms of currency. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
 10/10
|
|
|
|
What is wealth measured in? Currency units. Therefore the total wealth of an economy is going to track very closely with the amount of money in circulation.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. By this logic, Zimbabwe should be one of the richest countries, since it has a huge amount of money in circulation.   The Weimars had so much cash, they burned it to keep warm! So much for 'currency units'. Rofl. |
|
|
|
correlation != causation
I presume that your referring to the graphs I posted, and is a fair point. What do you think is more likely; that an increase in household wealth caused an increase in public debt? Or an increase in public debt caused an increase in household wealth? This is a false dichotomy. You have established a correlation, but in no way you have been able to establish causation one way or the other. It is more likely that neither one causes the other. Increase in household wealth depends on many factors at once. Naturally this would depend of on your perspective of the economy. I think that public debt is the source of private money, therefore I think the latter.
Private money? 'Money' has a specific meaning that is different from 'wealth'. 'Others' would argue the former. To me this makes little sense; if household wealth is increasing why would the State need more public debt to fund itself?? Wouldn't the state be collecting so much revenue that it wouldn't need public debt? You would expect that as household wealth increased, tax revenues would increase, and public debt would decrease. But these graphs show no indication of such correlation.
House hold wealth tends to increase with over-all economic growth. Increased public debt tends to correlate with future over-all economic shrinking: Greece example. |
|
|
|
|
