Komentirao bih samo ono zadnje što si spomenuo, tzv. desnicu i ljevicu u nas.
U normalnim državama jasna je razlika između desnice i ljevice jer prvi se zauzimaju za kapital i poduzetništvo a drugi za rad odnosno radnike.
Jasno, to je jako gruba podjela ali najbliža istini.
Kod nas, svi "deru " poduzetnike, a podjela desnice i ljevice je u tome koju stranu u 2. svjetskom ratu podržavaju 😁
I po tome se vidi koliko smo "normalna " država 😁😁
Jako blisko istini, prema horseshoe teoriji mi smo samo krajevi potkove  |
|
|
|
Istina, to je nasledstvo od kako je uveden sistem penzija. Ali jedina alternativa bi bila da prestanemo isplacivati penzije buducih 30+ godina i reci: ajmo ljudi sada stedimo za svoju penziju (ko jebe ovih sto su sada 40+ god. stari). Ne znam dali bi to upalilo (a bolje alternative bih rado cuo). Jedina logična pozicija je da prestanemo uplaćivati u "svoj" mirovinski fond, a trenutne umirovljenike isplaćujemo kroz porez. mirovinski sustav je trebao već pasti u vodu nema ekonomske računice da on bude održiv ovakav kakav je trenutno narod je sve stariji i stariji, radna mjesta se gase, natalitet u teškom padu.... projekcija je: danas -> 10 godina, nematigašanse da će biti za mirovine Imamo 1 506 912 umirovljenika 233.028 zaposlenih u javnoj upravi (iako sam jako skeptičan oko ove brojke) 896.605 mlađih od 19 godina 123 361 nezaposleni Dolazimo do podatka da 1 239 824 ljudi uzdržava 2 759 906 ljudi Odnosno za svakog radnika imamo 1.2 umirovljenika + 0.19 radnika u javnom sektoru (sa jako velikim plaćama  ), + socijale, naknade za nezaposlene Istina, to je nasledstvo od kako je uveden sistem penzija. Ali jedina alternativa bi bila da prestanemo isplacivati penzije buducih 30+ godina i reci: ajmo ljudi sada stedimo za svoju penziju (ko jebe ovih sto su sada 40+ god. stari). Ne znam dali bi to upalilo (a bolje alternative bih rado cuo). Jedina logična pozicija je da prestanemo uplaćivati u "svoj" mirovinski fond, a trenutne umirovljenike isplaćujemo kroz porez. mirovinski sustav je trebao već pasti u vodu nema ekonomske računice da on bude održiv ovakav kakav je trenutno narod je sve stariji i stariji, radna mjesta se gase, natalitet u teškom padu.... projekcija je: danas -> 10 godina, nematigašanse da će biti za mirovine Sadašnji mirovinski sustav "izum " je njemaca sa kraja 19 st. kada je prosječni životni vijek bio oko 50 godina a na 1 umirovljenika dolazilo je 7-8 radnika. Danas je prosječni životni vijek oko 78 godina a odnos umirovljenika i radnika se gotovo izjednačio. Jasno je da je ovaj sustav zastario i da više nije odrziv. U biti, država već sada gotovo pola mirovine isplaćuje iz proračuna, koji se velikim dijelom puni i zaduzivanjem države kroz izdavanje obveznica tako da se na ovaj način svake godine generirana novi dug države. Što je održivo i dugoročno rješenje? Teško pitanje ali mislim da će se u budućnosti ljudi morati manje oslanjati na pomoć države a više sami ulagati i brinuti se za svoju mirovinu, ulagati u mirovinske fondove, štednju. .. von Bismarck nas je sjebao Ima jednostavno rijesenje; povecati imigragraciju (kao [cak] i Poljska), svetski natalitet je jos uvijek u plusu... Na ovo treba biti izričito oprezan. Bliskoistočni migranti u 2/3 većini uživaju socijalu i ne rade te samo dodatno terete proračun. Ukrajinci, Moldavci itd. odlični radnici i svakako može. Ali to je opet samo uvlačenje novih regruta u ponzi shemu. Što će se dogoditi kada ponzi prestane rasti? Ponzi se treba ugasiti a ne uvlačiti nove ljude u njega. Bilo je fino dok je natalitet bio visok, kada je ponzi bio mlad, ali kad-tad mora doći vrijeme kada ponzi neće rasti. Možda ne sad, možda ne u sljedećoj generaciji, ali svakako bi jednom morao doći. Nijedan ponzi nije vječno trajao pa neće ni ovaj. Jasno, neodrživo je ali ne može se onima koji su izdvajali godinama sada to uzeti.
Nemam problem plaćanja za druge, ionako dodatno sam štedim za svoju mirovinu. Ali pošto od ovog što sada dajem nazad neću dobiti ništa, bilo bi lijepo da me oporezuju s puno manjim postotkom.
Ne možeš uzeti nešto što ne postoji. Tog novca nema. Da je rješenje ne plaćanje poreza, već bi se netko sjetio toga. U svijetu ima stvarno različitih načina vođenja države, ali nikad nisam čuo da postoji država gdje se uopće ne plaća porez.
SAD do 1917. nije imao nikakve poreze. Izuzetno mali državni aparat se financirao kroz carine. Hong Kong danas nema PDV Ajde da uzmemo kao primjer da nitko ništa ne izdvaja za državu. Tko bi platio profesionalne vatrogasce koji svakog ljeta spašavaju živote i imovinu na moru? Ne možeš reći da se osobi koja podmetne požar ispostavi račun zato jer neki požari nisu podmetnuti, a i ne možeš očekivati da jedna osoba može platiti milijunske troškove. Istina, može joj se ispostaviti račun i prisiliti ju da cijeli život izdvaja pola plaće za troškove gašenja. Ali to svejedno ne bi pokrilo troškove jedne takve operacije. To je samo jedan primjer. Gdje je policija, zdravstvo (tu mislim na hitne operacije kad se dogodi neka nesreća), GSS i ostale javne službe...? Jednostavno nije moguće da stanovnici ne plaćaju nikakav porez! Polemika oko prava glasa za žene je bila popraćena s time što žene u SADu nisu htjele pravo glasa jer je pravo glasa pratilo služenje vatrogasne i vojne službe. Na kraju je napravljen kompromis pa su žene izuzete od tih službi a dano im je pravo glasa. DVD = Dobrovoljno vatrogasno društvo Idiotizam je misliti ako država neće nešto napraviti da se to neće dogoditi prirodnim putem. Ako postoji potreba, nastati će i način. Danas smo svjedoci nastajanju straži u mjestima gdje se smatra da policija ne obavlja svoj posao. Stvar je u našem mentalitetu.
Živjeli smo gotovo 50 godina u socijalizmu gdje smo imali "velikog vođu " i partiju koja je o svemu odlučivala.
Demokracija od prije 2.svjetskog rata nije nikada ni zaživjela.
Ljudi su brzo naučili biti oportunisti jer oni koji su mislili "svojom glavom " uglavnom bi završili na Golom otoku ili gore.
Iz socijalizma su prešli u drugi sustav koji nikad nije postao prava demokracija ili pravi kapitalizam već tzv. ortački ili dogovorni kapitalizam gdje se resursi države i nacionalno bogatstvo ne dijeli transparentno ili po jasnim kriterijima već po "podobnosti ".
Međutim, ljudi i dalje prihvaćaju takav sustav jer mnogo njih ima direktne koristi od toga, kao članovi velikih stranaka, zaposleni u državnim i javnim poduzećima, javne firme i ustanove, gradovi i općine. .
Čak i mnoge privatne firme ovise o poslovima s državom.
To je jedan zatvoreni i korumpirani sustav u kojem je mnogima dobro i ne žele nikakve promjene a oni koji nisu zadovoljni uglavnom su već odustali od izlaska na izbore i glasovali odlaskom u Irsku, Njemačku, Kanadu. ..
Jednostavno ne postoji kritična masa za promjene a veliki broj ljudi je inertan i ne izlazi na ulice.
Mentalitet našeg čovjeka je da je bolje imati "svog " čovjeka na vrhu nego njihovog pa makar Umrli od gladi ili jeli travu 😁😁
Upravo to. Hrvatska najkrajnja desnica ima ekonomske ideje centralnog samoupravljanja ravne Marxu. Ne vidim puno mogućnosti za ekonomski boljitak. HSLS jedini zagovara laissez-faire politiku ali su više-manje marginalna stranka. Škoro je doktor ekonomije i predaje na fakultetu, a sad koliko zna i što točno misli ne znamo |
|
|
|
Funny that the video haven't went on trending on Youtube. A lot of channels has already covered it though so a lot of people has already seen it. This is going to further ruin the Clintons' reputation (or whatever is left). Shame that it got released too soon. Should have waited for Hillary to endorse a Democrat candidate. My question is why did she not leak this story herself 3 years ago? How much more abuse had occurred in that time frame?
She's obviously looking out for her career. You can see she's pissed she didn't get to air it herself. If she leaked it they'd immediately think it's her and then she'll be out of a job or worse. She didn't leak it. Someone else leaked the video from the studio. Probably found the video somewhere on a computer, might be data leakage. |
|
|
|
How does a capitalist exploit you in an anarchocapitalist society?
There are millions of companies looking for workers, and they have to compete to give the best possible conditions and higher wages in order to obtain the limited workforce. By default the workers live prosperous lives.
Collusion and cartels to start with. If everyone has self-interest, with no independent and impartial entity to provide checks and balances, there is nothing to stop the society running out of control. What's to stop monopolies forming as well? A big company can grind its competitors into the dust by lowering prices, and then once the competition has gone it can charge whatever the hell it wants, fair or not. I'm not saying the present system is great, it's not, it has awful flaws and huge inequality, and the government aren't impartial at all. I'm just saying I think anarchy would bring problems too, and with no accountability there's nothing to keep it in check. I don't believe it's self-regulating. Well, except through violent uprisings and revolutions, but again, that's hardly an improvement. Cartels only exist because goverments make things illegal and eliminate 95% of the competition allowing crooks to use coercion to inflate artificial prices and control the black market. When have you seen a cheese cartel? Or a laptop cartel? Why were there alcohol gangs during the prohibition era? Where are they now when alcohol is legal? Consumers are an independent and impartial entity and they choose which companies fail and which prosper. Monopolies only form because of goverment involvment in the market. In a free market it's almost impossible to form a monopoly because everyone wants a piece of the cake if there's enough money in it and competition will naturally arise even if you somehow formed a monopoly on a certain resource, alternatives would arise because of the monetary incentive. |
|
|
|
No. You're still avoiding my question, how was physics different?? Or math  If I seem to be avoiding your question, it's because I wasn't back then to see how it was different. However, BB theory shows that it was different. How does BB Theory show that it was different? Like this. BB Theory shows us that at the time of BB and for several million years following, the universe was different. Did you catch that? DIFFERENT!!!The fact that BB Theory doesn't explain how BB times could be different, without math and physics being different, and without "time" being different, shows that BB is just a guess or science fiction story. BB Theory builds BB up at the same exact time it tears BB down. I don't think it can be said any clearer. If you can't understand that BB is only a guess from this, it's because you don't want to. And if you don't want to, it's because BB is becoming a religion for you. Since there is no BB, we only have two choices for how the Universe came into existence: 1. God; 2. We don't know. God is the stronger choice, because machines have makers. Atheism is simply another false religion.  So your answer to how was physics different is that you weren't there so you know it was different? You're not familiar at all to what the big bang is and how it happened, you deny everything that's not in relation to the biblical explanation. You should really consider your life choices and what makes you pick the decisions you pick. God is the stronger choice, because machines have makers. You don't think God could have created the Big Bang? |
|
|
|
@OP
Are you talking about the alleged dangers of 5G and the harm you think a lot of decentralized towers would do?
Yes I am. I can post a link to the article I wrote if anyone cares to read it. Do you think a centralized 5G tower can exist and that it would be less harmful? lol Why would you think anarchy implies chaos? I'm not denying there are plus points and that as a theory it can be compelling. My opposition isn't a knee-jerk 'no', more of a reasoned conclusion. I've been talking with climate-deniers and flat-earthers enough on other threads to know that we shouldn't just jump to decisions without thinking about them. And I am perfectly willing to have my mind changed. My main objection is ease of exploitation. A lot of people in positions of power, be it government or business, exploit the general population for purposes of self-interest. Inequality is growing within societies and across the globe because of this selfishness and exploitation. People in power corrupt. Not saying all people are the same, just that there is (I think, not sure if there have been studies into it) a correlation between the sort of person who wants to rise to a position of power, and the sort of person who would exploit that power. Some systems are easier to exploit than others. Communism failed because the rulers could be as corrupt as they liked with no electorate to force them out. Capitalism has more in-built checks, but obviously is a long way from perfect. I will agree that we need a better system, but anarchism despite its potential benefits has massive potential for exploitation. How does a capitalist exploit you in an anarchocapitalist society? There are millions of companies looking for workers, and they have to compete to give the best possible conditions and higher wages in order to obtain the limited workforce. By default the workers live prosperous lives. Yep. Somalia is the best example.
Somalia is a place where statist troops compete with one another using coercion to impose a state upon the populace and tax them. There is nothing anarchocapitalist about it. |
|
|
|
The damage would be tremendous.
Domestic animals without natural predators would breed extremely fast and fill entire villages&cities with their population.
Not mentioning they would live in pain, since cows for example require milking otherwise they will experience great pain and vegans do not drink dairy products.
We'd be overrun by pigs,sheep and most likely rabbits because of their capacity to breed fast if they could find enough food in urban enviroments.
The biggest populations would probably stick to the countryside but there would be plenty roaming urban centers.
This fortunately will never happen because people like meat.
Ugh..... Maybe just let the hunters go wild? Let them roam and allow the hunters to shoot. They wouldn't be able to sustain their population growth even if this was the case, as their wouldn't be enough food for them and humans wouldn't allow them to take their food. That would cause death of the aniamls. The damage would be annoying, and animal activists groups would be pissed, but it'd be fine.... God I don't know why everyone goes DOOMSDAY on everything these days. The point of a vegan society is not to harm animals, so I don't think hunters would be allowed to hunt the population in such a bizarre world I'm unsure what vegans think about nootering animals? I assume it's okay? That would probably be a costly solution, but a solution none the less  ....
just imagine cows doing what humans do, but every every year instead of 20 years.
oh and before you say les cows than people
cows dont know birth control and dont have the fingers to put a condom on...
think of the reality not the utopia
How about we eat them to extinction? I volunteer to eat the burgers. |
|
|
|
My question is why did she not leak this story herself 3 years ago? How much more abuse had occurred in that time frame?
She didn’t leak the video. She was discussing the topic while on set recently. Most likely someone other than her leaked the video. It's pretty obvious she's discussing it in the studio and not on the Project Veritas show, though I see many people only ran through the video and came to the same conclusion... |
|
|
|
Ah! At last I found a scientist who knows math and physics, and who took a time machine back a million years, and did all the tests necessary to determine math and physics were the same back then... NOT. Where did I get that idea from? Read my post you quoted. It tells you right in there. Things were different back at the time of the BB. Why would you believe math and physics weren't different? How can you know? Maybe it's not even a good guess to say that math and physics were the same back then... considering that BB Theory, itself, acknowledges that the whole universe was so extremely different within at least the first 3 million years. You can precisely calculate each thing that happened in the universe and back it up to the point of the singularity. That proves the laws were the same. We don't need to go back to see what happens. But I'm going to take the bait and ask if it were true that we don't know laws of physics don't change [if they changed, there would be a mathematical equation on how they change and they would still be the same laws of physics] and ask what's the point of your statement? What does it prove? You are right. We are kinda off topic. It proves we don't know that BB existed. This changes the only real scientific god-of-creation that we have, to be something that we don't know exists. When average folks realize that we don't know if BB exists, they can be more open minded about looking for God. Your precise calculations might be calculating the wrong thing precisely, like a computer that has rules that are false might calculate a wrong answer. All that it proves is that we are good at using the calculations that we have. The fact that BB calc shows that the universe was different back then, doesn't really show that math and physics were different. All it shows is that we don't know. Why? Because if math and physics were different a million years ago, we might not get BB using that math instead. How does that prove that we don't know BB existed? It proves precisely the opposite. I don't see how the Big Bang is proving that god doesn't exist, that makes no sense whatsoever. If it does anything it pushes for a theist viewpoint since everything started from one singularity, all life came to beign from an infinitely small dot. How do you explain that? One small thing pushed so many things in such order. The fact that BB calc shows that the universe was different back then, doesn't really show that math and physics were different. All it shows is that we don't know. Why? Because if math and physics were different a million years ago, we might not get BB using that math instead.
No. You're still avoiding my question, how was physics different?? Or math |
|
|
|
0.0018 on slot #31
35 - 0.0018BTC
The auction is over, please transfer me your address information through PM |
|
|
|
.04
This is the winning bid and the auction is over. Please send me your address info so I can calculate the shipping fee. |
|
|
|
Bilo bi dobro da ima nešto kao bitcoin swiss knife, da bude i nož i bitcoin novčanik, ali sve u jednom  Možda bi bilo dobro, ali ovo je ono što imam trenutno Garancija na nož godinu dana. Drška od aluminijske mješavine a oštrica je nehrđajući čelik. |
|
|
|
Ah! At last I found a scientist who knows math and physics, and who took a time machine back a million years, and did all the tests necessary to determine math and physics were the same back then... NOT. Where did I get that idea from? Read my post you quoted. It tells you right in there. Things were different back at the time of the BB. Why would you believe math and physics weren't different? How can you know? Maybe it's not even a good guess to say that math and physics were the same back then... considering that BB Theory, itself, acknowledges that the whole universe was so extremely different within at least the first 3 million years. You can precisely calculate each thing that happened in the universe and back it up to the point of the singularity. That proves the laws were the same. We don't need to go back to see what happens. But I'm going to take the bait and ask if it were true that we don't know laws of physics don't change [if they changed, there would be a mathematical equation on how they change and they would still be the same laws of physics] and ask what's the point of your statement? What does it prove? |
|
|
|
I think you're not grasping the concept. We don't know that math and physics were the same. The universe following the BB was extremely different for millions of years. BB shows that it was. So, why would anybody think that math and physics operated the same back then, since the rest of the universe didn't. It's right in the BB Theory. Our knowledge hasn't changed about BB. We still don't know if it existed or if it didn't. Let me explain it like this. Imagine that our universe started, say, 5 million years ago. How did it start? Let's call the method XXXXX Beginning. And let's say that math and physics, and XXXXX, were extremely different. But they rolled along according to whatever path they were taking, all of them gradually changing. Today we have our math and physics... which was very different than the math and physics of XXXXX beginning times. We use our math and physics to try to determine what the beginning of the universe was like. We come up with BB, 13.5 billion years ago. We don't know any different, because we don't have a clue for a method for determining the what changes that naturally, slowly, came about in math and physics really were. There is no way to tell what math and physics changes might have been. BB is a nice science fiction dream. Even if BB were completely true and real, we don't have any way of knowing. And BB Theory suggests that BB math and physics were different from today, just as the BB universe is different from today's universe. Because the laws of physics don't change. I have no idea what math has to do with anything. It's borderline stupid to think 'we don't know' physics don't change when there's not a slightest indication it could be true. Let's call the method XXXXX Beginning. And let's say that math and physics, and XXXXX, were extremely different. That's untrue, it was always the same. We can only discover new laws that we didn't know before and that make things possible that were possible all along but we didn't know about it. Time dialation for example. Just because we discover new laws doesn't mean they didn't apply before. We just didn't know about them. We don't know any different, because we don't have a clue for a method for determining the what changes that naturally, slowly, came about in math and physics really were. There were no changes. BB is a nice science fiction dream. Even if BB were completely true and real, we don't have any way of knowing. And BB Theory suggests that BB math and physics were different from today, just as the BB universe is different from today's universe. We do. All the planets&systems are expanding in a certain direction at a certain speed. If we reverse the direction they're heading all the planets and all matter that we know off originate to 1 spot. To 1 singularity. From where all of them were propelled in their directions. That's why it's called the big bang. BB math and physics were different from today, Where did you get that idea from? |
|
|
|
For example. We now know that the Big Bang is false. How is it false? We used our modern day math to figure out that there was a BB in the first place. But the existence of such a BB as has been theorized, proves that BB math and physics were different than our modern math, just as the BB universe is different than our universe. We don't have any math or physics example from the way math an physics were even 20,000 years ago. So we certainly don't even know that 20,000 years ago existed in any recognizable way. So, how can we tell that there ever was 3.5 billion years ago... or a BB? Can you explain this? How is our math&physics different than that during the BB  You're thinking of the singularity and the non-existance of time? Nobody can explain it. Why not? Because nobody has lived long enough ago to compare the differences that existed in prehistory with what exists now. The closest we can come is to show that our math and physics predicts that BB was extremely different. To be different means that math and physics were different. If they were not different, we could not predict a difference in BB even by using our math and physics. In other words, the whole idea of BB doesn't even make sense. I think you're not grasping the concept. Math is the same. What you're near talking about is physics. The laws of physics apply the same throughout the whole universe and throughout the entirety of time. Eversince time existed the laws of physics were the same and they applied the same throughout the universe. The thing you're missrepresenting is the Big Bang which set those laws in motion. When the Big Bang happened time started existing and with it all the laws that apply in the universe. There was no "before" the big bang because there was no "time" before it. Time and laws of physics applied when the big bang happened. It's when our universe became existing. The Big Bang is the year 0, the beginning and the start. |
|
|
|
If Bill Clinton wasn't visiting the island 27 times it would be all over the news because Trump visited it (once?). It's the state of the media. Where did you see Project Veritas is known for editing their content? I loved their Deboosting video and the Google insiders. Shed some light on things I already suspected. Here's the longer version for those who haven't viewed it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA |
|
|
|
dang both you and styca both didnt read a dang thing
lets repeat it just for you to save another post
take for instance a gorilla and a smaller ape. where the species divide was wide enough to cause a noticable variant mutant offspring but close enough species divide to have a viable pregnancy
and i said over many cross breedings.. (just like how dogs got mix bred into new breeds)
heck lets repeat it again
take for instance a gorilla and a smaller ape. where the species divide was wide enough to cause a noticable variant mutant offspring but close enough species divide to have a viable pregnancy
and i said over many cross breedings.. (just like how dogs got mix bred into new breeds)
now you read it 3 times you should have understood
where the species divide was wide enough to cause a noticable variant but close enough species divide to have a viable pregnancy
and i said over many cross breedings.. (just like how dogs got mix bred into new breeds)
let me emphasise a good comparison
just like how dogs got mix bred into new breeds
again like i said..
wait let me make it bold for both of you
close enough species divide to have a viable pregnancy
i never said gorrilla and zebra or human and chimp..
..
what some of you have to understand is millions of years ago there were less varients available as the millions of years ago preceeded todays mega variant of nature. so whatever 'gorilla' and 'smaller ape' of the time millions of years ago would have had a closers species divide than the varients we have in modern times
hope that clears the matter up
Standard breeding is what you are talking about, here. Beyond standard breeding, the offspring doesn't reproduce... not in nature at least. Or do you have proof? There's evidence of the same species of animals staying on an island and the same species on the mainland. The island animal becomes different than the mainland animal given enough time because of different paths their evolution took. What do you say about the current evolution of humans? Some humans have developed white color and the ability to drink milk, while some have a yellowish color and are a lot shorter and posses high IQs (they can't drink milk). There are already some illnesses that can affect only certain races. Don't you think this is the beginning of a new evolution of different subspecies? |
|
|
|
For example. We now know that the Big Bang is false. How is it false? We used our modern day math to figure out that there was a BB in the first place. But the existence of such a BB as has been theorized, proves that BB math and physics were different than our modern math, just as the BB universe is different than our universe. We don't have any math or physics example from the way math an physics were even 20,000 years ago. So we certainly don't even know that 20,000 years ago existed in any recognizable way. So, how can we tell that there ever was 3.5 billion years ago... or a BB? Can you explain this? How is our math&physics different than that during the BB You're thinking of the singularity and the non-existance of time? |
|
|
|
|
The damage would be tremendous.
Domestic animals without natural predators would breed extremely fast and fill entire villages&cities with their population.
Not mentioning they would live in pain, since cows for example require milking otherwise they will experience great pain and vegans do not drink dairy products.
We'd be overrun by pigs,sheep and most likely rabbits because of their capacity to breed fast if they could find enough food in urban enviroments.
The biggest populations would probably stick to the countryside but there would be plenty roaming urban centers.
This fortunately will never happen because people like meat.
|
|
|
|
Yes, there can be too much decentralisation. There is a word for a world where everything is decentralised: anarchy.
Full decentralisation is exactly the definition of anarchy. If we get rid of all centralisation, we get rid of all order in the world. All that is left is chaos.
Why would you think anarchy implies chaos? I would advise you to check this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents@OP Are you talking about the alleged dangers of 5G and the harm you think a lot of decentralized towers would do? It really matters what is going to be decentralized or centralized. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
