Yet you deny one of the primary tenets of science, that it is never done and new, more accurate information is constantly being added. Doubt is at the core of Science itself. The cartoon simply illustrated your willingness to "have faith" that the people who tell you these things are correct, rather than actually reviewing the information, pro and con carefully yourself to come to a conclusion based on actual empirical data. People thought a lot of stupid things in the 1890's, the fact that the concept has existed for a long time in no way serves to validate the premise. OK, you want to take the actual empirical data route? How about this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyIdwDbtcGsOr is NASA lying and making up satellite data? The evidence is out there. For fucks sake I live right on the water and I can tell where this shit is headed. I've visited glaciers. As long as you're looking at the actual planet earth it's evident. Carbon dioxide traps in heat. The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown by about 60% during the extremely short timescale of human civilization. Here is the data for the last few years.  It's been hottest year after hottest year after hottest year. You can doubt all the data of the thousands of meteorological stations across the earth but you can't doubt visible net ice loss. That shit can be seen from space. Yes, lets. Again you need to learn the difference between localized or micro climate change and global aka macro climate change. As with the climate itself, ice cover is cyclical. While you are at it look into causality so you can learn the fact that correlation is not the same as causation. Even if your premise of ice loss was a fact this is still not evidence humans are the cause. However even on that premise the results are not clear. Showing me rising C02 levels, even if accurate, does not prove this is the causation of temperatures rising. For all we know it could be the RESULT not the cause, but if you believe hard enough it magically becomes "science", and anyone who is skeptical is equivalent to holocaust deniers. Not religious like behavior at all.  Looks pretty seasonal to me with no clear trend otherwise. BTW, doubt is the foundation of scientific theory. What you are practicing is basically a "scientific" religion. You get your toadies/socks to merit your posts all you like, it will not give you any more facts to argue with. You will always attack my arguments, trying to find holes in them but you can never attack the science, not successfully at least.
Yes, if climate change was not a problem, if we had a solution for it I'd say burn baby burn, let's go drill for some oil, count me in. But we're shooting ourselves in the dick if we continue down this path.
Edit: On the NASA study on Antarctic Ice mass.
You pointing out the Antarctic Mass gains study is predictable. The very scientist behind it knew that idiots would spin this the wrong way.
The study is about long term snowfall over 16,000 years and how we interpret data.
Even according to the study you posted here, the rate of increase in ice mass is falling and Antarctica is projected to go well into net loss in 20 to 30 years.
And Zwally's conclusion was as follows:
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.” That's what attacking your arguments is. Also you have no science. You have beliefs, theories, and simulations. You don't seem to get basic premises of scientific theory like correlation not equaling causation, or the difference between micro and macro systems. There is a huge gap in your explanation of causality between human activity not only being the CAUSE of rising C02 levels, but the in ability to explain any definite causal links between macro climate change and human C02 output. By a huge gap, I mean you have nothing BTW. You brought the Antarctic study up, predictably enough, now are you willing to take the analysis of the scientists to it's logical conclusion? If the Antarctic is actually gaining mass (which is still up in the air until we get better data from ICE sat 2), that means that when it starts contributing to sea level rise (rather than taking away from it) we're going to be in a much worse scenario. If in total there was no net ice loss, the sea level would be stable. The same scientists that you trust to interpret the most tentative of data to challenge the total mass gains/losses of Antarctica take the much more solid, easy to measure data of sea level rise for granted. If you really based your opinion on the data you would do the same. Of course the scientific consensus is different than that study and the net ice loss of the Antarctic is about 120 gigatonnes a year. But that's only According to NASA. I'm sure the nuance is killing you. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/Again, learn the difference between correlation and causation. You deem yourself the grand arbiter of what is true and scientific, but you seem to have problems with basic scientific concepts, concepts grade schoolers comprehend. I've been interpreting the data for the last 5 years. There's a lot of things we don't yet understand. There's a lot of unpredictability left in the system. But there's also things that are self evident. A self evident fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change.
Increase the CO2, Increase the global temperature. Humans burn fossil fuel, 2ppm more CO2 is in the atmosphere the next year.
Well you have been interpreting data. Good for you. I am sure you are an expert on climate science now. Yes, C02 can increase global temperature, yet there is no empirical data demonstrating this is the ACTUAL total cause. Yes, humans are probably increasing C02 output. Again, you provide no evidence humans are the primary driver of C02 levels rising in the atmosphere, let alone evidence to back your claim this C02 is primarily what is causing climate change. This is science. You don't just get to skip steps and make assumptions because you believe it fits. |
|
|
|
MINERS = CAPITAL It is all the perspective how you look at it... No its not, and stop encouraging this maroon. Why is it that Soclialists love nothing better than just redefining Capitalism until it serves their ideas to justify Socialism? MINERS = CAPITAL THERE IS NO DEBATE. A miner is property. Property is capital. There is no "other way" of looking at it. It is a fact. |
|
|
|
miners = capital?
You drew that conclusion, not satoshi.
You never made an argument here until now. You simply stated refuted opinion.
Your evidences of 'capitalism' are pretty weak support by satoshi. Let's actually start going through them. Frankly your arguments are degrading into word salad, but I will try to reply to them. Yes, lets. I don't have to draw any conclusions. Miners are property. Property is Capital. It is a simple fact, or do you claim to have your own reality now too? This isn't complicated stuff. Initial distribution. Woo! Proof of work is also consensus my friend... but let's ignore that fact. Once again, how is consensus reached? The longest chain. Who determines the longest chain? Those who control the most hash power. Who has the most hash power? The ones with the most capital (miners). I am not ignoring anything. That's capitalist because honest people should stay honest? I don't really see the connection to capitalism. It is Capitalist because it is a system that rewards mutual cooperation and creation of capital via a protocol of competition and mutual greed. This is how Capitalism works. I have item A, I want Item B, you want Item A, so we make a mutually beneficial EXCHANGE OF CAPITAL. In this case the risk is the investment in miners and electricity cost and the reward is the block rewards and transaction fees. The system expects selfishness and uses it in a productive way. Attacking the network and making your worth valueless seems silly if you're invested in the network. Pretty standard stuff. Yes, pretty standard stuff... under the rubric of Capitalism & a mutually beneficial protocol based upon it. Protections against the network and against a 51% attack, right right. Not really linked to capitalism, but just good nodes vs bad nodes. Once again, my premise was that Bitcoin uses mutual greed or selfishness to create rewards within the protocol. This is yet another example of why it is more profitable to cooperate than to fight the network, again demonstrating using mutual greed to drive this protocol. Huh, out of all the links you linked, this statement is about the only thing that backs up your claim; Actually, they all do. That is why I linked them. In later years, when new coin generation is a small percentage of the existing supply, market price will dictate the cost of production more than the other way around.
which is still rather ambiguous in terms of capitalism vs socialism. Yep, everyone knows Socialists are all about letting the market determine prices. Fun counter-example: The CPU proof-of-worker proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.
Drawing the same pop-culture reference to worker's vote being final. Consensus = proof of work = hash rate = miners = money = electricity = CAPITAL There you go parroting again... really this is a bad look. Try to come up with your own thoughts instead of just repeating my own words back to me. I don't even know what the fuck that last sentence is even supposed to mean. If a majority of CPU proof-of-worker is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains.
Worker's working together rather than against each other due to malicious competition being outpaced. Yes, because those potential malicious actors are rewarded for their mutual greed rather than overthrowing the system, they are paid to support the protocol, once again supporting my premise. |
|
|
|
I'll refute all your "arguments".
1.The cartoon tries to impress the idea, using humor that climate change is belief without evidence, like a religion.
Science is a process by which personal biases are limited. One can do all the experimentation and observation needed, independently and inexpensively to get to the conclusion that the earth is warming.
The science demos date back to the 1850s and the idea that humans were going to cause a shift in the climate was voiced in the 1890s.
So basically in 2018, only a person who is scientifically illiterate will doubt that climate change is one of the biggest problems we're facing.
Yet you deny one of the primary tenets of science, that it is never done and new, more accurate information is constantly being added. Doubt is at the core of Science itself. The cartoon simply illustrated your willingness to "have faith" that the people who tell you these things are correct, rather than actually reviewing the information, pro and con carefully yourself to come to a conclusion based on actual empirical data. People thought a lot of stupid things in the 1890's, the fact that the concept has existed for a long time in no way serves to validate the premise. 2. A list of people with irrelevant credentials, with a political agenda is useless. I don't trust people just because they have a PhD. I've seen way too many PhDs attached to scams and shams and ridiculous projects.
What is relevant is first of all the evidence, the observations, climate models with predictive capabilities.
Your second argument is fallacious, like the first. It's an argument from Authority and feigned concern. I hate these arguments. Would somebody think of the children? Would somebody think of the poor starving people in Africa that you would be helping if you hand me over your money. Sincerely FUCK YOU AND ANYONE WHO MAKES THAT SHITTY ARGUMENT.
I made the important parts bold and underlined. This is exactly what most skeptics of the anthropogenic climate change theory would say. This cuts both ways. Also, what exactly is my "second argument?", Please quote. It is difficult to respond to something if you don't specifically name it. The fact is people rely on energy to live, and reducing our capacity to produce it would directly lead to MANY lost lives. This isn't some boo-hoo story, it is simply a fact. Honestly though, I am really not even sure what you are responding to exactly. Also those "climate models" have been proven over and over again to have been manipulated to get a desired result. Even if they weren't demonstrated to be frauds, it would still just be a predictive model, NOT EMPIRICAL DATA. 3. A video about the aforementioned list, 16 minutes, Since I already refuted this I don't need to watch it.
That is convenient. I guess that after-school special knows more than a PhD and founder of Greenpeace. 4. A 30 minute video titled: "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore" that has all the promise of conspiratorial garbage, I'll watch a little just to refute it. I'm getting the vibe of a paid of conference of speakers with dirty coal money stuffed in their pockets. Same people that said smoking doesn't cause cancer and will make your dick hard. There's always paid whores out there and this is a very old trick. Trying to co-opt scientifically sounding names and paying off sad failures to channel people into their shitty arguments. I never cared about Greenpeace. The name Dr Patrick Moore means nothing to me. But he is important sounding. They'd never publish the same video without adding Dr before his name or the word Greenpeace and I don't think anyone is dumb enough not to know why.
So these guys are propped up by the heartland institute. The bias here is palpable.
Here is a real lolcow from the Heartland institute from the wikipedia article, with source and all:
Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers.
Source: Tesler LE, Malone RE (July 2010). ""Our reach is wide by any corporate standard": how the tobacco industry helped defeat the Clinton health plan and why it matters now". American Journal of Public Health. 100 (7): 1174–88. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.179150. PMC 2882403. PMID 20466958.
They are also the same people behind that list, so we've just been seeing the same argument over and over.
How about instead of attacking the venue the man is speaking in, perhaps you can respond to his arguments. He is a PhD and founder of Greenpeace after all. He might have something relevant to say. Vibes man, like, very scientific dude. 5. Yikes, It's the same shit. But I don't want to visit this sketchy site again.
Again? Did some one forget they have switched socks? I don't know what to say, this was a mountain of shit. Compare this to a mountain of evidence for Climate change* and it's impacts. Starting with increased rates of sea level rise. and A Net loss of Glaciers. These two can be observed by anyone. It takes an incredible amount of heat to actually melt ice. To get from 0C Ice to 0C water it takes the same heat as taking 0C water close to boiling. In fact to melt just 50 grams of ice you need 4000 Calories or 4 kcal. So when more ice is melting then forming you know that the climate of a local place is changing. I don't even need to look it up, I know the evidence will be there. Let's look at Glacier National Park. Here is what I got off the Internet. I bet a deeper search would just point out to the same conclusion: "At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today." And this is my argument. Also try and refute this, as a source or as a list of arguments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg*Source needed. Neither of your examples there in any way prove humans are causing global warming. They would be, if anything evidence of global warming, not evidence humans are creating it. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses You know NASA, in the pocket of big oil as usual. Also you might want to learn the difference between local climate change and global climate change. Sure. If I am not mistaken that video did not mention man made climate change once, and is about at the level of an after school special for gradeschoolers, but ok.  https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425509/peak-oil-debunked/Lots of doom and gloom. Very shallow understanding of facts with little regard for application of new technologies. Also it is old as fuck... which is funny because I can show you exactly how wrong those predictive charts they used are. |
|
|
|
I went to your first link and got a virus. That was sketchy. Anyway, the scrolling list to the right of supporters was kinda funny though. I googled some. Social justice phds, music artist phds. These people probably wouldn't even begin to understand the actual science behind climate change. Remaining ignorant and trying to ignore reality will just make the problem worse later. Treating it as someone else's problem doesn't help solve it. That's pretty bad man. If you want refutation; https://www.nap.edu/read/12782/chapter/1#vIf you say that you don't want to read through the hundred page document, find me human influence refutation from a scientist from this decade. The data are simply overwhelming in this instance. It's not even worth arguing back and forth. I figured I should have made this self moderated to keep your spam away  Cool story bro: https://www.virustotal.com/#/url/7a93b2289d0f66408f0e1e6d29a9694691152bda61bd84c7d496b21597932885/detectionIs there something there you don't want people to look at? It is sad you need to make up stories about viruses rather than debating the issue. Hey what does it feel like being so much more superior than everyone else and being the only one to know anything? Does it get stressful? The "solution" to anthropogenic climate change is itself the problem. Classic Hegelian dialectic. Problem - Reaction - Solution. Yes, why argue back and forth when some one else has already refuted the information you just sourced. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/06/15/the-epa-and-independence/ All the information you are basing your opinions on is not only baseless or manipulated, it is outdated. Keep trying! Lets see if you can produce any study that hasn't been completely torn apart. |
|
|
|
You forked and ran a shitcoin! Nice! Much professional. You must understand everything about PoW, PoC, PoS, and pretty much every other work type out there, right? Actually I didn't fork anything. I spent several years fixing security and network issues for the protocol. It sucked so much Dogecoin decided to jack the protocol and re-brand it. We were also one of the first, if not THE first to demonstrate proof of concept of a transaction fee only run network with a hard cap. What did you do again? Run a handful of miners? Cool story bro. BTW, do you ever stop and listen to yourself and realize how much you sound like a parrot? Proof of work seems a lot like socialism once you abstract the meanings. But nah, you just confuse proof-of-work with proof-of-stake.
"abstract the meanings" AKA redefine the words completely to fit within your confirmation bias. So far you've demonstrated the inability to understand the implementation of bitcoin (which is a pretty straight forward pow implementation). You try to conflate the argument with tedious unrelated societal points rather than arguing at the abstracted technical layer. I think your primary purpose is to gaslight other individuals rather than contribute to this conversation. The fact that you haven't been banned is quite a sentiment to the libertarian nature of this forum. As I've explained before, proof-of-work is not proof-of-stake. Proof-of-stake is pretty pro-capitalist in which the individuals holding the most capital makes the rules. Proof of work is pretty socialist in which the workers choose the rules. If you're too dense to make the connection between "proof-of-work" and workers, then that's on you buddy. I'm pretty sure arguing with you is akin to arguing with a flat earther, no amount of evidence or proof would change your opinion on the subject. I'm pretty sure I could sign a message as if I were Satoshi, and you'd still deny that as evidence. Also, I like how you say "Satoshi goes over this in great detail" in which you don't even provide proof. Later, you go onto say "out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned" which is pretty ironic in that instance  You have demonstrated the ability to rephrase my statements and repeat them back to me as a result of your inability to form original thoughts. Oh I am like a "flat Earther" now am I? Interesting. Quite a lot of projecting you do. It almost like you need to compare me to these fringe groups because you can't think of anything else within my argument to criticize. It only seems ironic because it serves your little echo chamber bubble of confirmation bias, and it is less work than re-evaluating your own belief systems and doing a little reading. Also, last I checked this forum doesn't ban for butthurt resulting from being exposed to information you would prefer did not exist. I am talking exactly about the technical layers of Bitcoin. MINERS = CAPITAL BLOCKCHAIN = CONSENSUS OF MINERS MORE MINERS = MORE INFLUENCE IN CONSENSUS MINERS DO THE WORK MINERS PRODUCE CAPITAL MINERS DETERMINE CONSENSUS CAPITAL = CONSENSUS Sounds a lot like Capitalism to me, but again feel free to redefine any words that upset you. Re: Satoshi- "6. Incentive By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free. The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth." -Satoshi"It's based on open market competition, and there will probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free." -SatoshiMore substantiation: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/3/https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/65/As you see Bitcoin was carefully and purposely designed as a mechanism of using mutual greed to run the network and thus produce capital. You see Satoshi very clearly uses the analogy of gold and miners, to represent hash power and electricity costs. The consensus is designed around CAPITAL and the fact that RESOURCES are limited. He also even explicitly states a system of simply voting by IP would be totally exploitable, as would any other form of voting by pure head count. I don't need to gaslight you, you gaslight yourself. I know you aren't used to people taking the time to form a rational logic based debate to counter your flimsy pop-culture arguments, but that doesn't make anyone who challenges your opinions a troll. I am simply not satisfied to sit on the sidelines and let your ideologies go unchallenged. |
|
|
|
George Soros has a long history of manipulating nations all over the world for his own profit and amusement. His reputation is more than justified.
Consume more propaganda and attack the evil Soros please.  Or you could enlightening yourself and actually read the article instead of just shitposting. Nah, you won't do that, reading's too complex for you it seems. Yep, The Daily Beast, the bastion of truth, integrity, and lofty academic principals. Bitch please, I read more before you get out of bed than you do in a month. Soros is a scumbag, you don't have to look very hard to see the trail of shit he leaves behind him everywhere he goes. For someone that does "the most reading", it seems funny how you refuse to actually point out actual refutations, and instead rely on confirmation bias. Actually read the article and refute the points it brings up instead of shitposting... cause that's all you seem to do is shitpost. I know to you it is all the same, but refuting your arguments is not the same as "shitposting". That article is trash with little to no substance, only rhetoric. If you care to point out a specific argument within it feel free. Kind of hard to refute a fart in the wind. So, here is some substantiation of my claim George Soros is a grease ball. Notice they all resolve around factual events and not some clickbait writer's opinions. Like many billionaires he uses "philanthropic" organizations to launder his money tax free and do his bidding. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/21/business/soros-is-found-guilty-in-france-on-charges-of-insider-trading.htmlhttps://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/2042619/leaked-emails-george-soros-and-rigged-election-claims-malaysiahttp://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/22/business/fi-34969https://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/1906325/how-beijing-and-hong-kong-sent-billionaire-george-soros-packinghttp://humanevents.com/2006/04/07/emexclusive-emthe-truth-about-la-raza/https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/15/demand-justice-george-soros/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5370079/GUY-ADAMS-George-Soros-broke-Bank-England.htmlhttps://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/06/go-for-the-jugular/57696/https://www.foxnews.com/world/george-soros-battles-10b-lawsuit-familiar-charges-of-wielding-political-influencehttps://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/4006-george-soros-funded-by-the-house-of-rothschildhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-14/george-soros-sued-by-fellow-billionaire-in-10-billion-mine-rowhttps://www.scribd.com/document/324251965/Pennie-v-Soros-et-al-Amended-Complaint#from_embedhttps://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-soros-documents-files-foia-lawsuits-state-department-usaid-records-funding-political-activities-george-soros-open-society-founda/“I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of my self-importance—to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god” - George Soros Really there is so much more. I am sure it is all fake though right? |
|
|
|
Spank me daddy I've actually been around nearly as long as your account by the looks of it. A matter of weeks difference on registration dates. I've never contributed to a shitcoin. A buddy did create a shitcoin before and I mined a few thousand of them for lawlz. It doesn't take much technical knowledge to compile the tens of dozens of shitcoin sources out there today. I've minted several block myself historically Wow. You were a miner. Impressive. Too bad you didn't learn anything that whole time. Oh what happened to your old account? I am sure you didn't lose it as a result of anything unsavory right? Sure making coins is easy, but managing them is not. Neither is taking a low cap coin and bringing its market cap up to 10 million dollars. Also the coin protocol I managed, Infinitecoin, was literally cloned and re-branded as Doge, later they added inflation. So just maybe I know a tad about how blockchain works, the protocols, and how mining works considering I was responsible for balancing the network. It was also the #3 most popular coin in China for a while BTW, but that's easy right? However please do tell me more about how mining made you an expert in blockchain technology. I never mentioned anything about flaws in the PoW system, I was pointing out the gaps in your understanding if you think capital is the only reason to use PoS over PoW. This also shows a fundamental ignorance of basic economic principals such as inflation. Rather than being trolling in your comments, why not argue logically? I was playing as a victim, I was explaining what BTC actually is.
If you have arguments with proof-of-work or proof-of-capacity or have problems following the abstraction logic, be clear in the articulation of that instead of just posting trollish responses.
I have been arguing logically, you just don't like the fact that I totally dismantled your premise, therefore your only option in the lack of any argument is to claim I am trolling and ignoring logic. You have no technical merit and you don't back up your logic with reasoning or technical details. Your obvious misunderstandings of the implementation of bitcoin have become pretty apparent. Perhaps you should give the whitepaper one more read over before commenting further in the relationship to socialism. It's rather short; https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfParticularly this section: The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to
redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the
work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up
diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added. Uh huh. So far you have demonstrated you don't really understand PoW or PoS systems, or even basic economics, but I have no merit. Ya. Ok. BTW reading that excerpt over and over... not seeing even the slightest hint of Socialism in there. As I explained before the capital does the work in the blockchain (the miners), and the more capital you have the more votes you have. Bitcoin is a system of mutually beneficial greed, AKA Capitalism. Satoshi goes over this in great detail. The only way you get Socialism out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned. |
|
|
|
George Soros has a long history of manipulating nations all over the world for his own profit and amusement. His reputation is more than justified.
Consume more propaganda and attack the evil Soros please. Or you could enlightening yourself and actually read the article instead of just shitposting. Nah, you won't do that, reading's too complex for you it seems. Yep, The Daily Beast, the bastion of truth, integrity, and lofty academic principals. Bitch please, I read more before you get out of bed than you do in a month. Soros is a scumbag, you don't have to look very hard to see the trail of shit he leaves behind him everywhere he goes. |
|
|
|
Haha this is so cool, many times I was contemplating buying army cap with velcro patches if I would own one I would buy this for sure (if you would deliver to EU).
I will in fact deliver to the EU, but only guarantee shipment within the US as once it leaves US borders I can not track it any longer. Of course additional shipping costs will apply. PM ME! |
|
|
|
|
I brought up what I did because that is exactly how the premise you put forward in your OP is being executed around the world. It is in fact expanding its reach as income dwindles and they need fresh meat. Just google "civil asset forfeiture".
|
|
|
|
|
George Soros has a long history of manipulating nations all over the world for his own profit and amusement. His reputation is more than justified.
|
|
|
|
Forgive me I failed GCSE law I’m high school, I wasn’t able to remember all the case studies! But I’m a bit dubious about common law! Is that the one we got the king at knife point to sign a declaration and rights for people to have sovereignty. I’ve always felt the Magna Carta really shouldn’t be legally binding if the king signed it under duress. Sorry for slightly going off topic if the Magna Carta and common law aren’t intertwined!
Tell me, as you cry for kings, what agreement do the people sign under the king or any leadership that is not under duress? I don’t cry for any king, I’m just stating in my mind, any documentation which is signed under duress, shouldn’t be legally binding.. isn’t that what our whole justice system is predicated on? Sure, on paper. Try telling a cop on the side of the road you don't feel like signing your ticket under duress and see how that goes. Wow do you have to sign a ticket? I didn't know this.. never had one! but I thought you were just given one! It is possible to just mail them to you, but the whole system revolves around contract law. When they stop you they are trying to find violations of code (contract). When you use a "drivers" license you are engaging in commercial activity by legal definition (look it up). Submitting a permit for a license is a contract to abide by the terms of the code (contract). In short any time they interact with you their job is to engage you in as many contracts and violations as possible. In essence they are now largely walking revenue collection agents. A police officer is not the same thing as a peace officer. This is how so many of our rights are easily ignored, because they often get us to consent to abandoning them long before they interact with us. |
|
|
|
Hahaha, great idea, good luck with sales. You should encourage buyers to post more photos of their signs "at work"  Thanks! I made sure MarkAz got some merit for that awesome shot |
|
|
|
|
It shouldn't matter, but it does. Not for the reasons most people think. It matters because it can be exploited to force people into criminal activity and espionage via blackmail. I don't think any kind of moralizing should enter into it.
|
|
|
|
I think she tried to the best of her abilities, and to most, that would indeed appear like she wasn't even trying.
But the American people voted in the person that lied the least. Look at his follow through on campaign promises.
Whatever facts you were presented with you'll always see Trump as the evil villain... Exactly this, if you were to actually go through all of the Trump campaigns promises you'd see that they've fulfilled a good deal of them with a RAZOR THIN majority in the Senate. He's done a great deal, but the people that hate him are just going to continue to hate him -- there's nothing that can be done to fix some peoples hate. That's just how it goes. Except legalization of marijuana at a federal level. IMO if Trump enacted this policy (I am not holding my breath) he would in my opinion have an instant lock on 4 more years short of starting a nuclear war. The left really wants it, the right either wants it or doesn't give that much of a crap about it either way. The ones that do are quickly becoming history. He would take a hit from some powerful lobby groups in the prison and law enforcement industries, but this is a policy which has reached its time. All this division over Kavanaugh would melt in a haze of smoke and tax dollars. If he were to take this opportunity he could end 100 years of pain and destruction related to the prohibition of marijuana and truly make a great mark on American history. |
|
|
|
I bet you there is abuse in 9 out of 10 churches.
You have gone off the deep end. The whole organization is suspect because they were complicit in the crimes. It is like doing raids on gang members in different crack houses. Why not? Just because it is an organization that scams people and promises them afterlife? The management of this business is responsible. All operations should be investigated. There are some large gaps in your logic here. Lets say for the sake of argument, lets agree the Vatican is top down just jam packed full of pedos. Still, that is just the organizational structure, the bureaucrats. That is not the same thing as churches. Are some churches used as cover for these activities? Without a doubt. NINETY PERCENT though? I have been to parts of the US where there is a church every few hundred yards. For NINETY percent of churches to be involved they would have to be raping every child on the Eastern seaboard. Scale it down a bit here. Try to stick with the facts. This subject doesn't need any embellishment it just serves as obfuscation for the perpetrators and it is already fantastical enough. |
|
|
|
UBI/welfare both warp price signaling conditions in markets, which can cause very serious issues. They both result in inflation. IMO we should offer some kind of tax credit where you can volunteer at approved facilities, and be "paid" in the form of a tax voucher at a regular wage rate. This voucher would be good for the year and could be applied to negate any existing tax liability during that period.
IMO this would foster a culture of community service, create jobs, help people transition to the work environment, and most importantly be productive while also not skewing the market conditions which we all rely on. This wouldn't solve every problem but IMO it would be more effective than the current welfare system.
Though this does open up the question of who is going to approve these 'community service centers' Because this could become a political issue where people are saying that certain centers that are aligned with political parties (such as the NRA, Planned Parenthood, etc) This would open up some pretty big issues IMO, unless there's a way to screen against things like this. The only thing that I was going on when I initially proposed this idea of replacing UBI was to improve productivity because there is no large cliff-like a cutoff point. I am not really even suggesting constructing anything new, the idea was that certain jobs shown to have a significant public benefit could be predesignated to be approved for this type of work. The choice where one would work would still be a meritocratic system largely based on choice and convenience of both parties involved. There would still be just as much competition for these jobs, just a different form of payment. |
|
|
|
If the EU borders are open....
They are not. There is an immigration law in the EU. Regarding immigrants from the EU, they have never been a problem. They are on average qualified and willing to integrate themselves in UK, follow the law and pay taxes. A law on the books is not the same as reality or enforcement. Never been a problem? NEVER?! ok... Also I would love to see your data supporting these conclusions. BTW, are you talking about illegal immigrants, or just immigrants? I know you people like to make it like people like me don't make a distinction. Legal immigrants largely do all those things, illegal immigrants don't. Also many "legal" immigrants are there by false pretenses, which really makes them illegal immigrants. No one ever voted to join the EU, they were just pigeonholed into it by bureaucrats so people like you can pretend Brexit is the cause of these issues and not the EU....
Again, you put yourself as the paladin of democracy, yet at the same time you deny people a say on their future. Uh, no. That is what the people pushing the EU have done. OH WE MUST ALLOW THE VOTE! THIS IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC! You yourself literally even did it in the same breath as you accuse me of it. I am simply arguing within the rubric presented. Frankly in my opinion pure Democracy is a flawed form of government, but that is another discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
