I agree with this assessment. Biden seems to be filling the role of sand bagger as Bernie Sandbag played last time around in 2016, then endorsing Killery after being cheated out of the primary nomination. I predict Biden will play this role as wider establishment net and then funnel his supporters toward Harris once he is caught again groping small children.



Except I am not talking about most Democrats, I am talking about the people who make the selection, not the people who make the election. They are neither Republican nor Democrat. They are whatever serves them best at the moment. Think Hegelian Dialectic. They are hand crafting her image as a populist rebel outsider, and her vet status gives her a distinct in to a certain conservative demographic as well. She is 100% the sleeper, much like Trump was.

You made an agreement. You received considerations under that agreement (the PM and the information resulting from it). At this point the contract was active. Rather than submitting payment as you agreed to, you then released that information (consideration) you received under false pretenses not only violating the contract, but causing damages which then took you firmly into fraud territory, not just contractual violations. This is quite clear cut, you even provided all the evidence yourself. All of this Playschool lawyering is not going to change the facts.

I didn't say you said that, I said that. I asked you to give examples of what you think is an unbiased news source since you are operating under the impression those are a thing. Tell me, in an article almost completely about peoples feelings and beliefs as a subject matter, what kind of hard observable facts would you like to see come to bear on this situation? Perhaps you want a peer reviewed study on this single child's life?

Every home schooled person I have ever met is LIGHTYEARS more intelligent than anyone who I have met educated in public schools. Some of them lack socialization skills, but that can be corrected over time, where as the indoctrination of public schooling tends to be a permanent impediment. So your opinion is parents educating their own children is extremist? I never said get rid of government, I said get rid of The Department of Education, the federal branch of the educational system. States and localities should be making these choices, and most importantly the parents, not Washington D.C. The public school system is already being used to spread extremism to OTHER PEOPLE'S children. Most parents actually care about their children and would never do this to their own, but many don't care enough to stop it from being done to the children of others. This is why home schooling is important, because no one will care for your own children more than you do, and certainly the state and its workers wont.

Again, you are letting your ignorance of your own arguments and ideologies shine through.

"Because gender theory is perfectly correct and when the teacher says "boys and girls aren't real" she's not wrong as gender are a social construct."

Here you are, arguing that gender is a social construct, excluding any biological component to gender identity. For like the fifth time, this is based upon the "nurture" argument in the "nature vs nurture" debate. Biology is nature, social constructs are nurture, hence you are in fact concluding that the debate has been decided regardless if you care to admit it or not. Your jibbering about "action and result" is meaningless. These are all long standing debates in psychology and sociology going back THOUSANDS of years. I promise you The Angry Frenchineer and his little red book of Communisms hasn't solved the riddle.

Well, if it isn't the Angry Frenchineer. I have already proved this to you several times, but you don't argue from a position of logic but a position of Pathos so my arguments fall on deaf ears. Marx himself admits Capitalism is a requirement for Communism to exist in his own writings:

"Marx divides the communist future into halves, a first stage generally referred to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and a second stage usually called "full communism." The historical boundaries of the first stage are set in the claim that: "Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."6

The overall character of this period is supplied by Marx's statement that "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society: which is thus in every respect still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."7 This first stage is the necessary gestation period for full communism: is it as time when the people who have destroyed capitalism are engaged in the task of total reconstruction. As a way of life and organization it has traits in common with both capitalism and full communism and Marx never indicates how long this may take—the first stage gives way gradually almost imperceptibly to the second."

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php#7


Of course, you barely know anything about your own ideology, so you wouldn't know this. All you know is Communism makes you feel good in your tum tum.

Because automation is just an excuse. They are not hiring people because they choose not to, not because of automation. The plan is we are going to be culled anyway... so no need for UBI for people in mass graves.

How did Zuckerberg miss that branding opportunity? Anyways, this development was born straight out of satan's asshole. Hope you are all ready for totalitarian world government, because this is how you get totalitarian world government. When you are gnashing your teeth remember you were warned.

What you are trying to do is very transparent. You are just repeating technical terminology and hoping either that some of it will stick or that people will be too dumb or passive to even bother to check. I believe you to be actively disingenuous at this point, because you are smart enough to know what happened here. It is in fact very straight forward, you just don't like the conclusion.

There need not be any agreement for privacy, because consideration was provided under fraud, then the contract was violated by bob123 by not completing payment. This information was obtained via fraud and then directly used to cause financial damages. Once again, I might remind you the lowest standard for this flag is "... bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages...". For you to argue that this not only does not constitute a technical agreement but doesn't even constitute an IMPLIED agreement is just totally disingenuous. You have fun wearing your little lawyer suit though.

I am not overlooking anything. You agreed to terms. You then agreed to pay a specific amount after he provided consideration by PMing you from the last account. It is at this time a contract was formed. Just because you refused to fulfill your agreement does not make the agreement invalid. It came into effect the moment he sent you the PM, also known technically as consideration, which you then used to cause damages. Sorry I don't care how many people oppose this flag, it is valid. You entered into a contract under fraud which directly resulted in damages via the loss of account value. If you had not explicitly made the agreement it might have been different, but you did in fact create a contract  with intent to defraud and then violated it AFTER receiving considerations.




Except he explicitly made an agreement, received considerations, which is when the contract becomes binding. Just because he changed the terms after reviving considerations does not mean he can unilaterally change the agreement. That is not how contracts work. If I order a pizza and the delivery guy gets here and I decide I don't want it any more, I am still legally obligated to pay for it because I ordered it and resources were expended getting it delivered. I can't offer to pay him 25% to make the contract go away for example.

You are simply cherry picking statements and ignoring the explicit agreement which I quoted above, including mutually agreed upon terms, as well as consideration, all the parts necessary to form a legal contract. The argument about an agreement over confidentiality is clearly implied, but also totally moot. The seller clearly made considerations. bob123 clearly agreed upon terms, and agreed to pay once the PM was sent. The moment the PM was sent the requirement for consideration was met, then furthermore later losses were accrued as a direct result of this fraudulently obtained consideration. I don't care how many other people oppose the flag. They are wrong. I don't make decisions based on what is popular. The ends do not justify the means. bob123's actions were fraud by any definition.

Man you Commies never cease being entertaining. All public services do not fall under the metric of Communism, sorry. That is just not how it works. How sad it is I know more about Communism that its advocates? Interesting theory "KingScorpio", since you are constantly crowing about how great China is with its dictator for life.

That doesn't appear to me to be a clear statement that KYC is required to claim bounties. I do agree with your argument though that we need further verification regarding the alleged thread edit. Perhaps a moderator can look at the change log of the thread edits and let us know.

On closer examination of the thread I see the terms "imusify reserves the right to change these terms or rules any time,". If this was present from day one, the debate over the KYC edits would be moot. The terms and conditions linked seem to be pretty thorough as well. This is another thing which if posted from day one would invalidate this claim. Unfortunately for now I am going to have to rescind my support unless or until a moderator can validate that these were all added later. I still think this is shady behavior either way not making it very clear, but they may have technically provided notice.

Does anyone think this could be Trump doing a double play with China here? He just had a tentative agreement with China over trade restrictions during this trip. It seems to me he may have back doored them a little and set up a meeting with Kim knowing full well China would not want to give up the North Korea card to play, but would also not put the potential trade deal at risk over stopping this largely symbolic meeting. It has been widely established Kim is taking orders from Xi, but at the same time he probably recognizes his position as a tool of China and sees a relationship with the larger international community as a way out from under their thumb. Thoughts?

I agree with the conclusion regarding Harris being the establishment pick, but I also get the strong impression they are setting up Gabbard to be the populist polar opposite answer to Trump for the Democrat party. This would be the role that Bernie Sanders formerly occupied, but fucked up due to him caving to the DNC fraud in favor of Clinton. This narrative would align with establishing her as the underdog, and that is a lot of the psychology of why people voted for Trump, because he was the populist underdog outsider.

You don't get to rescind an agreement AFTER considerations (the PM) have been provided. Just because you don't like being held accountable to the same standards you hold others too doesn't make me a troll.




What comes before is irrelevant because they both later agreed on $280. bob123 accepted consideration after the contract was formed. They both also agreed to use escrow. The seller made the consideration to bob123 in good faith (and under contractual agreement) that a certain price would be paid once this consideration (PM from account) was made.

You will also see later in that same conversation about 2/3 of the way down:

bob123 (18:52): "OK send me a message from this account and we have a deal"

He explicitly accepts the terms discussed, and accepts further consideration from the seller in the form of a PM which is then delivered just after as you can see in the conversation. Also once again prices are discussed and agreed upon.

bob123 himself admitted they had a deal, signaling his willingness to contract, and that contract was activated upon consideration (the PM). Just because bob123 backed out of his agreement, and the seller realized he would not complete it at that time does not invalidate the contract bob123 formed. bob123 adding on additional terms after the agreement was formed, and consideration was already made does not invalidate the contract either. To argue this doesn't meet the terms of even an implied agreement is asinine and disingenuous on your part.

Uh. No. Stop getting your "facts" from The Huffington Post and Buzzfeed. There is no way in hell $775 per day would cover food, housing, education, healthcare, or the litany of other costs accrued by having the additional burden on all the publicly used services available in this country. Furthermore they aren't detained there indefinitely so your argument is useless on its face. That is a short term cost compared to a permanent recurring cost. Your claim that this makes any sense at all shows me your complete and utter incompetence with not only economics but simple math. Again, don't try to muddy the water with other subjects. You are already way off topic with your immigration debate anyway, take it to the appropriate thread. I will not be replying to any further off topic posts here and will be reporting them.

I suppose it is not shocking you use kids, they are a topic that is most likely to be effective at emotionally manipulating people to sell your lies. Children have parents, and children are their responsibility. Children without parents able to provide for them already have existing programs to do so. Your goalposts are shifting so much none of what you are saying is making any sense anyway. What you are advocating for is more than that, and more than just for kids, but you keep moving those goal posts every time I hold you to your own words in classic Communist postmodern deconstructivist formless "form".

Uh, no. First of all there is simply no way that a viable tax plan to pay for this could ever be formed. Even if you taxed everyone at 100% (slavery by any definition), you couldn't pay for all of this. In order for you to have the policies you advocate for there would have to be theft of rights and state mandated labor. Leave the roads out of this please, they have been through enough. This isn't about roads or wars, stop trying to muddy the waters to distract from your highly mobile goal posts.

What makes you think I don't know people in poverty? I never told you to "control your emotions", I said you lack logic and operate from a position of Pathos. I do have empathy, but I also have enough logic to know that empathy doesn't fill bellies and keep people safe, logic does. Empathy without logic is worse than useless, it is dangerous.

Supported.

EDIT: rescinded until further information is presented

What comes before and after the highlighted agreement is irrelevant. What you say before and after a contract does not invalidate a contract made some time between those two periods because further discussion or terms were had. A contract was technically formed, by your own clearly stated metrics, and by the information bob123 himself provided as I covered above. The instant the seller PMed bob123 a contract was formed because that act was the first act of stipulated consideration after terms were discussed and mutually agreed to.

A more proper analogy would be that some one who sells the precursor chemicals to manufacture cocaine getting their lab burned down by a vigilante after he gains access by pretending to be a customer. Selling accounts is not criminal, and even if it was burning down his property using a fraudulent agreement is still not acceptable.

There are plenty of words that have alternative common use meanings which do not hold to the technical and originally intended definition of the word. Fraud is a legal term and as such it has very structured metrics by which an act of fraud is determined. Let us look at the legal definition of fraud.

"Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

Clearly what bob123 did falls under this definition. Just because account sales fall under the more loose, casual, and colloquial use of the word is meaningless. One falls under the technical legal definition, one doesn't.

Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says:

"SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself.

Seller: "280$ ok,? !!"
Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good"
Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!"
Bob123: "Yes with escrow"

As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met.

Offer - The seller made an offer at a specific price point.

Acceptance of identical terms of the offer - Bob123 agreed to the price point on the stipulation his consideration of revealing the name/ownership of the account and they both agreed to identical terms.

Consideration - The seller provided consideration under this contract by providing the confirmation stipulated, bringing it into effect.

I appreciate your genuine and civil discussion of the issues, but you are incorrect by your own metrics.


EDIT: I am sure most of you who oppose this flag do so mostly because you disagree with account sales. I do not agree the ends justify the means, but consider this. Theymos has the ability to outright ban account sales if he wishes, but he doesn't. Why? Because he knows all it will do is push the sellers further underground and make it harder to keep track of them. All you are doing is not only making accounts more valuable by making selling them difficult and more rare, you are also teaching the sellers how to go further underground out of the eyes of those monitoring their activity. What you are doing is not just destroying the fidelity of the trust system by allowing its abuse by exception, but you are literally having a counterproductive effect than the one you intended just so you can feel like you did some thing.

Communism requires Capitalism to exist, but not vice versa.

Right, I am sure the temporary detainment of these people is far more expensive than just letting them continue to flood in by the millions and then housing, feeding, educating, and medically treating all of them on the state's dime right? I can't believe you even tried to make that argument.