i don't like Donald Trump he is too arrogant and i hope that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of USA
arrogance isnt the only reason, its a flat out insane idea to entertain the idea of him as the president. he keeps saying things in his speeches / rallies and offers no backing or explains his thoughts and actions, example: 'lets build a wall to keep the mexicans out.' another, 'we need to do something about china.' well donald? exactly is that 'something?' not to mention the 4th grade sentence structure thing. |
|
|
|
this issue is pretty damn similar (and by that im saying its essentially the same) to the question of banning newbies from the lending section: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1297180.0there was another, longer thread here somewhere, but im not going to go look for that. in short, it isnt going to happen. |
|
|
|
the way i see it, socialism is more of an economic model that revolves around the idea of equal distribution of resources (as we know). communism however, i see it as a societal / government model that implements socialism as its economic policy / base for decisions. I make this distinction on the basis that a society or government is composed of two main parts: a political model, and an economic model. as we know, communism does employ the ideals of socialism as its economic model, but in conjunction with a controlling, central political model to accompany it (either based on a single, absolute ruler, or the elite few), resulting in a government controlled, equal distribution of resources to the public. The two of course, go hand in hand.
If you actually go read some of Marx's original writings, he himself describes socialism as a means for delivery of communism. Republic > Democracy > Marxism > Socialism > Communism id have to read those writings before i were to comment on that, but i can see what youre getting at. Socialism has been branded as a bad political ideology, at least here in the States. This has been nothing more than brainwashing the government put on civilians to get them "pumped up" for a war (WWI, WWII, etc.). So it's no surprise that most of the older generation are hesitant at liking a democratic socialist, such as Bernie Sanders. ....
Gee, as someone who does not like Sanders, I thought it was just because he was a loser of a politician who was eminently unlikeable. Who would have thought? It's all because he's a commie? How come I like Putin then? Because he's not a commie or like Putin at all... He claims to be a "democratic socialist" which pertains to a different ideology. I guess he isn't the most charismatic guy either... old, wrinkly, Bernie... You'd be surprised how much support he's gotten with the younger liberal voters though. my view, the term 'democratic socialist' refers to his belief or view on how a government should be ran. i posted earlier about how i viewed government as made up of two models, a political and economic model. sanders' view is that a country should be ran democratically, as it is being done so now (more or less) through representative democracy. however, he believes that there should be a socialist framework for how the economy should run, with the government handling production / distribution with a socialist economic model (the public sector prevalent as opposed to the private sector being prevalent, ie capitalism). communism would refer to the combination of a oligarchical or monarchical government system coupled with a socialist economic system (communist russia). i can also see why sander's economic views are appealing to a lot of people; capitalism has essentially trampled the economic system of the US (1%, all that stuff), and people are willing to look to something different even if they may not know much about it (they hear socialism and they immediately jump to sickle and hammer communism), and its not out of the realm of possibility either. i think thats the major reason why people support trump: theyve had enough of sophisticated - sounding politicians accomplishing nothing, and want to see the polar opposite in power to see if they would get something, anything done to better the country. |
|
|
|
Apparently socialism is the most looked up word of 2015. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Not a bad thing if people are learning about politics. Looking up the word doesn't mean they agree  It will be just curiosity, when Ron Paul came along I found myself looking up Libertarianism and eventually Anarchism many student now aren't taught a thing about what I'd call real politics, they're only taught it in the context of what's mainstream, so they'll likely have never heard of Socialism before. Socialism involves the sharing of economic resources fairly between the population, whereas communism includes this, but also involves breaking down the class system itself. With communism, the workers actually own everything, and are paid based on their need rather than the work they've done. But with socialism, they are instead paid based on the work they've done, and the state owns everything.
Am I thinking along the right lines? I find it a little complicated if I'm honest... That's correct to an extent, Socialism and Communism in general revolves around controlling the means of production, in short they both want to control the factories, the infastructure, we all use or rely on, on a daily basis. The differences between Socialism and Communism are what methods they use to achieve that. I don't know about Socialism being about being controlled by the state, I'm not sure about that, but Communism definitely is about the state, this is why you see so many self-declared Communist states devolve into a dictatorship because that's pretty much what they're advocating but they make it sound nice by claiming wealth will be redistributed and everyone will be better off. What's very interesting though is a lot of self-proclaimed Socialists and Communists you'll find at universities and so on have absolutely no fucking clue about this, they're just all about taxing the rich and think that by all of a sudden taking over the government everything's going to fix itself, they have no real knowledge of what their own ideology is about. I happen to know this because I went onto a supposedly left wing Anarchist subreddit and they pretty much displayed that, the left seems to be entirely co-opted by feminists now that only care about gender or identity politics and attacking people over trivial bullshit. the way i see it, socialism is more of an economic model that revolves around the idea of equal distribution of resources (as we know). communism however, i see it as a societal / government model that implements socialism as its economic policy / base for decisions. I make this distinction on the basis that a society or government is composed of two main parts: a political model, and an economic model. as we know, communism does employ the ideals of socialism as its economic model, but in conjunction with a controlling, central political model to accompany it (either based on a single, absolute ruler, or the elite few), resulting in a government controlled, equal distribution of resources to the public. The two of course, go hand in hand. |
|
|
|
trust me, if i wanted to (intentionally) hard your guys' site, i couldve emptied the hot wallet on day 1 using the unconfirmed deposit tip thing and just ran off, causing all that wasnt the intention.
But it is what happened, and you did nothing to set things straight. You got till this day negative feedback left to Joter, who trusted you and worked together with you for quite some time. this is getting pretty ot so pm me if you want, and there isnt really anything on my part that im obligated to do regarding 'setting things straight,' what am i going to do? start a massive PR campaign? not really. i brought the issue up, the owners decided to present themselves in the thread and start applying some funky mathematics, and it devolved into a scene of monkeys throwing feces at each other. maybe you and i have a different sense of what qualifies someone to take responsibility over an issue, but from my pov, the aftereffects of that debacle dont fall on my shoulders. if anything, i brought you guys a LOT of traffic and attention, as well as two pretty major problems with the site fixed. again, you can just pm me if you want to talk it out or whatever, but im not really interested in things that have to do with other parts of the forum anymore, i just read P&S and sometimes post in meta now. |
|
|
|
Oooookaaaaay, you're coming up with unexpected stuff. So you mean sub was the one managing your camapaign, and the one who complained/asked for a bug bounty and started a scam accusation against you?
Yes, and he was part of our staff for the whole time. That would sound really ridiculous if not for the BC evidence and sub's "confession" This is bullshit. We went through a damn hard time after this thread. We were set back big beause of the impact and worked hard to get resolutions (eg the negs removed). He was part of our staff. He knew us, he could easily report that problem directly to us. Kewl and Joter would have been ready to reward it with its due bounty. But making this thing with his alt, while still playing nice with michinzx. I honestly don't know what to say. trust me, if i wanted to (intentionally) hard your guys' site, i couldve emptied the hot wallet on day 1 using the unconfirmed deposit tip thing and just ran off, causing all that wasnt the intention. yup, it is. was wondering when people would find out  Oooookaaaaay, you're coming up with unexpected stuff. So you mean sub was the one managing your camapaign, and the one who complained/asked for a bug bounty and started a scam accusation against you? he ain't wrong You were part of our team and instead of telling us about the bug, you rather blackmail us through alt account...you must be proud of yourself. you can be salty if you want, it doesnt really affect me. ive already helped with another bug on your site that couldve resulted in (definite) immense losses (see above), the debacle in that thread wasnt quite what i expected. |
|
|
|
yup, it is. was wondering when people would find out Oooookaaaaay, you're coming up with unexpected stuff. So you mean sub was the one managing your camapaign, and the one who complained/asked for a bug bounty and started a scam accusation against you? he ain't wrong |
|
|
|
Hard to tell so are you defending or attacking the altcoin sections?
He is attacking, for him the alt section should be removed and any altcoin discussion should be forbidden And he is trying to make his point by showing they are some of the most used areas of the forum? he is trying to say that the main reason for the forum was to discuss bitcoin but instead of bitcoin, people are discussing altcoins, I agree with OP, we need to delete all altcoin boards Altcoins would still be promoted and mods would have to work overtime removing their spam from bitcoin sections. I just don't see a way around this... from what ive been told and read, there really isnt a need for more mods atm, otherwise shorena would already be one. the mods can handle a fair bit more work than there is at the moment. This forum earns ad rev thanks to shitcoins, not to bitcoin.
I think you just answered your own question - why would they remove the altcoin sections or ban altcoin discussion on the website if they're making healthy profits by allowing people to discuss altcoins? If you don't like the altcoin sections of the site you can stay away from them, or if you don't agree with how the site is run you're free to leave at any time.its really common sense, but people fail to use it, every single time. Hard to tell so are you defending or attacking the altcoin sections?
He is attacking, for him the alt section should be removed and any altcoin discussion should be forbidden And he is trying to make his point by showing they are some of the most used areas of the forum? he is trying to say that the main reason for the forum was to discuss bitcoin but instead of bitcoin, people are discussing altcoins, I agree with OP, we need to delete all altcoin boards theres plenty of bitcoin discussion going on, its just that theres only one bitcoin, and there are a lot of altcoins, so its only natural that theres a lot of altcoin discussion. |
|
|
|
a subject that needs some more discussing imo, especially after seeing this. my original stance outlined in my post is still what i think, especially the part where nothing can really be done regarding the issue as it doesnt go against the forum's rules. its just ridiculous (and funny) to see how over the top obvious it is (the sockpuppeting) with the extremely generous reviews and flawless testimonoals from totally legitimate and real people that claim to have poured thousands into a random site. that discussion would bee off topic in this thread though, maybe ill post again in the meta thread if i have thoughts to add. Just because I figured there would be someone saying something about legitimacy when I posted because I am new, here are screen shots of my account. Since I am not from the USA, my currency is NIO (which is converted as $1 = c$27.89 NIO) All transactions http://imageshack.com/a/img907/6359/mWyor0.png Just wanted you guys to know it is legit. What you guys choose is your own issue. Edit: Had personal information showing on the first one, removing it from imageshack as well. those screenshots mean absolutely nothing considering the accusations placed against you (tacitly), if you are a sockpuppet (and by which, im saying you definitely are), its more than possible those screenshots can be faked, or 'created' from the site's end, people arent stupid enough to take everything at face value, especially not here. |
|
|
|
-
-
-
its so obvious it hurts to see. if the operation is really legitimate, it wouldnt need paid sockpuppet shills spamming about how legitimate and totally not sketchy bitgold is. if anything, the sockpuppets make it seem less legitimate. Hey BitGold, your social media manager is a moron.
|
|
|
|
No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.
Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity? You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it?  But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22. you forget that statistics only show what's known and reported, and in shitty countries, chances are a good portion of crimes aren't reported. Right... So they are even lower? I don't understand you're trying to help me? ^^ are you okay? I thought it was pretty clearly implied that the actual number of crimes is much higher than the ones shown in the statistics. 'not reported' means not included in the statistics, hence giving the pretense that the crime rate is lower, when in reality, that is untrue. you also need to take into account that with larger countries comes a larger population, and hence a larger number of people willing to commit crimes. mere statistics can only say so much, your arguments are too narrow minded. |
|
|
|
No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.
Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity? You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it? But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22. you forget that statistics only show what's known and reported, and in shitty countries, chances are a good portion of crimes aren't reported. |
|
|
|
Trust is the most important for escrow. Is really nice to be agent, but they are already a lot of people that they can trust to be a escrow. I think it will be difficult to go in.
It takes years to build up trust and you have to start somewhere. Starting small and doing small escrows (~$20) is a good place to begin. I am curious why you wish to become an escrow? When I started it was due to so many people asking me to escrow...not from the desire to do extra work. imo this should be the only reason someone starts openly offering their services as an escrow provider, its a very strong show of peoples' trust in an individual. |
|
|
|
did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman.
Could we do the reverse work and think about all the cases in the 11 000 deaths by firearm every year in the USA without any kind of "scenario" justifying the use of guns? The number of deaths simply because two people are arguing and the rise of violence leads to gun use. Like this wonderful trend of people shooting each other on the roads because they think they're terrible drivers. i dont know about you, but i dont hear about people shooting each other up full of lead every time they have an argument, and if a gun owner can't keep a cool head, they shouldnt be owning a gun in the first place. the point of owning a firearm is to use as a last resort if deescalating a situation reaches the point of no return. any sensible gun owner should make it their goal to deescalate any conflict at all times. trust me, if people were shooting each other up because they thought they were terrible drivers, my city would have been wiped off of this plane of existence a long time ago. Oh, and how do you confirm that someone is a responsible and cool headed citizen before giving him a gun? If you're assertion becomes "let's every intelligent, aware and polite citizen the right to own a gun" I'm 100% with you man. But if only intelligent people own a gun, they're won't be a lot of gun owners xD And I don't see how you measure it! im not going to claim i know because i dont, im sure there are others in this thread more knowledgeable on the whole permit / license acquiring process that can say more on the matter though. |
|
|
|
did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman.
Could we do the reverse work and think about all the cases in the 11 000 deaths by firearm every year in the USA without any kind of "scenario" justifying the use of guns? The number of deaths simply because two people are arguing and the rise of violence leads to gun use. Like this wonderful trend of people shooting each other on the roads because they think they're terrible drivers. i dont know about you, but i dont hear about people shooting each other up full of lead every time they have an argument, and if a gun owner can't keep a cool head, they shouldnt be owning a gun in the first place. the point of owning a firearm is to use as a last resort if deescalating a situation reaches the point of no return. any sensible gun owner should make it their goal to deescalate any conflict at all times. trust me, if people were shooting each other up because they thought they were terrible drivers, my city would have been wiped off of this plane of existence a long time ago. |
|
|
|
It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.
lets say mr smith barges into your home with a glock and starts looting the shit out of your place. now, exactly what 'non - lethal alternative' are you doing to use against that? are your hands going to stop those bullets with some strange ESP power? no. are you going to go all star wars up on that glock with a stick? definitely no. is your potato gun going top out do those bullets? no. so exactly is this 'alternative' youre thinking of? because honestly, there really isnt anything that stands up to a gunfight. ever heard the phrase 'you just brought a knife to a gunfight?' pretty applicable here. I'm not disagreeing with you but my impression was that he was talking about civilians on the street, subways, around town carrying weapons, not home defense. Just happens i believe we need to address in city defense, as well as home defense. good point, and concealed carry in public is a matter in itself, i was just using one example of a possible scenario that popped up in my head for this. It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.
lets say mr smith barges into your home with a glock and starts looting the shit out of your place. now, exactly what 'non - lethal alternative' are you doing to use against that? are your hands going to stop those bullets with some strange ESP power? no. are you going to go all star wars up on that glock with a stick? definitely no. is your potato gun going top out do those bullets? no. so exactly is this 'alternative' youre thinking of? because honestly, there really isnt anything that stands up to a gunfight. ever heard the phrase 'you just brought a knife to a gunfight?' pretty applicable here. Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else. did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman. |
|
|
|
|
so essentially, youre asking if shilling is acceptable. ethically, i would say its sketchy; if youre paying people to post and take a certain side on an issue, theres clearly a reason for that, one that is most likely intended to cover something up or derail opposition. however, it doesnt really go against the forum rules, people are just posting after all. to be marked for deletion, the posts would have to explicitly break the forum rules (off topic, insubstantial, pointless / redundant, etc), and knowing how tolerant theymos is, they wont be deleted on the basis of shilling alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
