It is starting to come out that Khashoggi may not have even been a journalist... while this doesn't justify any of this it certainly puts the situation in a much different context.
Frankly I am surprised that anyone was duped into any other context. But yeah, we don't want pretend-civilized guys like the Saudis killing in the mode of ISIS. They do need to pretend to be proper when dealing with the pretend journalists. |
|
|
|
The death of Khashoggi could be a great conspiracy which those involve wants the world to forget about so soon. But this is a serious incident that has happened and when a careful analysis is made you could clearly deduce that the Saudis are hiding something .....
Sure, but isn't it obvious that Khashoggi did some very, very bad things (from their point of view, of course)? So who are you to lecture and point finger blaming Saudis? |
|
|
|
....
how distant are you now regarding your quite difficult media environment?
...
You mean the "US media" that's corporations largely foreign owned and controlled, often for specific political purposes? |
|
|
|
...Since they defeated ISIS and Al-Qaeda, do they still look for weapons of mass destruction or just working on safe oil export from Iraq?....
American Fracking industry has changed this around. We don't care about "safe oil exports from Iraq." Oil cannot be used to rationalize American actions. |
|
|
|
so U.S. citizens who will give birth in a different country will not be granted jus soli, too?
I have no idea. It varies by country. This is an interesting discussion on the subject. https://cis.org/Report/Birthright-Citizenship-Children-Foreign-DiplomatsA lack of direction from Congress has resulted in children born to foreign diplomats on U.S. soil receiving U.S. birth certificates and Social Security numbers (SSNs) — effectively becoming U.S. citizens — despite the limiting language within the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.That's clearly wrong. A foreign diplomat exempted from US law has a birth here, and the child gets US citizenship? |
|
|
|
< >
i will give you a whole year to find a single verse in the Quran that verifies a single act for terror and you win the case. Definitely you may be having much much more knowledge about Holy Quran, I respect it. But why most of the terror organisations are fighting for spreading one religion. Why there are killings in the name of Islam. It is hundred percent true that all Muslims are not terrorists, there are good people, but why almost all the terrorists are Muslims. My family has been among one of the worst affected families targeted by Islamic fundamentalist.  Hundreds of school children were shot dead in Peshawar Pakistan sometime back by the same Islamic jihadists. There really is a common ground here, because you and mikeywith are both opposed to Group X. You would label Group X "Islamic jihadists," and mikeywith would label Group X "not real Muslims, pretend Muslims and jihadists." Or something similar. I am not trying to speak for him, just illustrating a point. Personally I'm not budging from "Violent Islamic extremists." |
|
|
|
....
Democrats have historically been opposed to illegal immigration and many prominent Democrats in leadership positions have specifically been in favor of a wall in the past. They likely don’t want Trump to have a win, nor an accomplishment.
Although they gave these concepts lip service, they did not act on them. It's seemed quite reasonable to consider both Repub and Dem as not really in favor of stopping the invasions of the past, or the 10-100x invasions of the future. It's not clear why this is so. |
|
|
|
According to CBC President Donald Trump says he wants to end the constitutional right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States....
The first line of the amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Bolded above is the issue. |
|
|
|
No, let me explain. Suppose I say "The media is biased against Trump."
...and you say, "No, that's just your opinion."
...and I say, "Wrong. Surveys show 93% of times Trump is mentioned it's done in a negative light."
I've said nothing about my opinions...
Sure because opinion is no longer in the scope of the discussion as you brought a fact. If you say "the media is biased against Trump" it's an opinion, if you say "the media is biased against Trump, as this study/survey show" it becomes a fact. .... No, it does not. It is only at that time that the ignorant person realized the previous statement had empirical support. But he was (or in a reasonably structured debate, should have been) warned of that empirical support by the framing of the original assertion. As an example of this, suppose you were in a room with nine other people, and such a statement was made. The others all know the facts, but you did not. Reality is reality, it was just you that was ignorant of that. In the real world, in the realm of science, it does not matter if the reverse is true. Nine could be flat wrong, and one right. |
|
|
|
Just travel back in time, you'll find one...
But don't complain that you are chased by a saber-toothed cat...
I think they might barbecue quite nicely... |
|
|
|
I am aware of the concept of positive and negative rights. Healthcare does not fit within this definition, as I explained previously because you can not make it a right to be entitled to the goods and services of others, without infringing on the rights of others. There will always be debate on this subject, but healthcare is a resource, not a right. This clarity in definition is important if we are to ever make progress on this topic. Arguably a person could have rights to a fraction of the available resource of healthcare enacted by legislation, similar to the way Alaskans get a yearly check for their fraction of the take on oil drilling. Not my opinion that's a good idea, and it's not what socialists promise, but it is possible. There is a difference between contractual rights an inalienable birth rights. One consents to a contract in order to make it valid by definition. In your example there is excess revenue, and that was designed as an equitable way to distribute it for all residents of the state. No matter how many people move to Alaska, that pool doesn't get any bigger it is imply divided out even more. This gives the illusion of such a program being able to function independently. In reality there is no practical limit to how many can be born or migrate to receive healthcare entitlements, instantly creating a dilemma that infringes on the rights of others. There is never going to be a limitless pool of resources and man hours that can meet the demands of a practically limitless population. That's correct, of course. Contractual vs inalienable. I had wondered whether you'd correctly define rights, as the founders of this country understood them, and you did. Good luck finding a ideological socialist that understands that. Yes, the simple facts of division of a limited resource is lost on those sold a bill of goods by liars pushing a fantasy. |
|
|
|
Gee... I'm not mining currently but yeah... |
|
|
|
I am aware of the concept of positive and negative rights. Healthcare does not fit within this definition, as I explained previously because you can not make it a right to be entitled to the goods and services of others, without infringing on the rights of others. There will always be debate on this subject, but healthcare is a resource, not a right. This clarity in definition is important if we are to ever make progress on this topic. Arguably a person could have rights to a fraction of the available resource of healthcare enacted by legislation, similar to the way Alaskans get a yearly check for their fraction of the take on oil drilling. Not my opinion that's a good idea, and it's not what socialists promise, but it is possible. |
|
|
|
ISIS and Al-Qaida cannot be explained only as terrorism groups/bands or by their sponsors. DAECC is full doctrine held by muslims. Am not claiming that muslims are terrorists but all the terror acts are verified by Islam holy books and rituals.
It's a crisis of conscioussness, you will observ it when living in muslim society; all of them are very conservatives.
i will give you a whole year to find a single verse in the Quran that verifies a single act for terror and you win the case. and since i have read the book a dozen times, my bet is that you won't find any. on the contrary you will find that the book says. "whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth" the only time that Islam allows its people to fight is when defending themselves. but anyway this is off-topic and you derived from the main point. there were more Muslims killed by ISIS than non-Muslims, more than 90% of ISIS and Alqaida attacks were on Muslims and Muslim lands ( https://fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf) if ISIS was based on religion then the world would have 1.5 billion ISIS members by now. if your IQ is not above average then this will be a little too hard to digest, it's indeed easier to believe whatever the Media tells you, takes 0 effort. but if you do a little bit of research and thinking you will come to understand the those terrorist groups are used by both Muslim and non Muslims governments to serve a purpose and nothing more. I have serious issues with Islam but know that if I was in the field fighting Islamic terrorists, those on my side would be mostly Muslim. |
|
|
|
Okay, and I understand where you are coming from. But if I was to say, for example, "Manifestly obvious that persons claiming Trump's shit are heavily flawed non-patriots."
It says nothing about my OPINION at all.
That IS an opinion and nothing more. How can you link the fact of not liking Trump or his actions and not being patriot? There is simply no link between the two. Those are completely different facts. You can have the impression it is the case of course and it might even be the case in reality, but unless you've conducted some kind of survey or statistical work on this question you're obviously just voicing your opinion. Which is fine of course. But it's just an opinion. No, let me explain. Suppose I say "The media is biased against Trump." ...and you say, "No, that's just your opinion." ...and I say, "Wrong. Surveys show 93% of times Trump is mentioned it's done in a negative light." I've said nothing about my opinions... |
|
|
|
..
As a person on ground who witnessed the events, allow me to tell you the full story.
....
Thank you for telling this story. It's much more informative and useful than stories the media pass around. Many in the USA saw through the lies of Hillary about Bengazi, but it was clear that the actual events were not going to be fully explained. Your account reminds me of a saying. "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Which means, for those who are corrupt and in power to take advantage of real things, real crises, for their own selfish objectives. Yes your English is fully understandable. |
|
|
|
In the spirit of Christmas, can we on bitcointalk.org try to find some political consensus? Can Flying Hellfish and TECSHARE agree on anything?
Some points which might find general agreement:
- The freedom of individuals is important.
- The prevailing banking/fiat system is on the whole bad.
- In most places, the people would be far better off if major changes were made to their respective governments.
- As long as scarcity exists, the existence of some form of trade is good.
- Technology is good.
- Humanity should dominate the universe.
Any others? Do you disagree with even those broad statements?
Cool thread hehe, Merry Xmas P&S!  ..... Common ground? Here is some. UNDERSTANDING THE US/MEXICAN BORDER AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION A. Watch the 1970s movie Up in Smoke.B. Go to A. |
|
|
|
Let's think for a second.
Would such a world benefit mankind? Would it destabilize the current geo-economics? Is there even a remote possibility that we as humans let go of this ancient tradition of drawing lines on sand that have only served to create problems among masses and has done NOTHING good so far?
Without borders, every country would be in trouble. There will increase crime in a second and without restriction. Yes, we can expect one world one currency like as Bitcoin but no without a border. Interesting comment but not clearly stated. Here is what I think you are saying. Nations do not need individual currencies, the people of the world can handle that with crypto and bitcoin. But nations need and have borders. |
|
|
|
....
Scarcity can easily be eliminated in the future with the rise of robots we should all be able to have our basic needs met.....
But I'm of course going to want the biggest robot.  And then scarcity's back. By the way, I'd also like a space rocket. These are just a few of what I consider "basic needs." (purposefully exaggerating to make a point) |
|
|
|
Not as flawed as the masses of liars and creeps that are opposed to him, though, and they certainly can't claim to be patriots.
Sure. Anyone praising Trump is a not so flawed patriot, anyone claiming he's shit is a heavily flawed non-patriot. Pretty much that's the way it is. I mean this empirically. Any questions? Nope. You got the right to believe whatever you want as long as you don't state it as a solid fact  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
