Can't wait until Ron Paul is president of the US! When people start seeing Ron Paul break his promises, they'll have no choice but to think for themselves  What promises has he broken so far? You do realize how long he has been making promises, how long he has been acting upon those promises, and how long he has been in government right? He may not have broken any promises yet. I just think he will. And if he does, I think it'll be better for society than if he keeps his promises. Because faith in the idea that we can pick other people to do all our thinking for us will start to erode. It looks like someone else is doing your thinking for you and injecting this opinion into your head. Your are summing everyone who supports Ron Paul as people who aren't thinking about anything and just worshiping him or something. I don't understand where you have come up with this. You are on the wrong track, see, you're talking about how people feel about presidential candidates like Obama was that were plastered all over the TV. People who supported Ron Paul did so because the things he was doing and saying were what they actually wanted and when Ron Paul says something it's not like a salesman trying to screw you over to get into office. He has history of how he has acted in government. There's no sheep quality inherit to agreeing with him and supporting him unless you are truly doing it without thinking and I don't know *ANYONE* that falls into that category who supports Ron Paul but I do know dozens of people who supported McCaine and Obama who fit that category. If you analyze his work (you know, thinking for yourself instead of defaulting to "he is going to break his promises even though he hasn't thus far" lol), you'll see he's a useful politician to back. The problem with electing Ron Paul for President is not so much that he will break his promises, but rather that he won't be able to fulfill them. There's a difference. Even if he manages to get elected he will likely have a hostile congress to contend with and will find it very difficult to accomplish anything. Presidents don't have as much power to change the system as we like to think.
Yeah that is a an important point but wouldn't it be nice to have someone who was already on the side of the individual citizen though instead of there for big business interests? Oh absolutely. Don't take my post as a criticism of Ron Paul. I have a ton of respect for the man. I'm always telling my friends to vote for him in 2012 if they love America. I lean towards anarcho-capitalism (and thus shouldn't vote) but if Ron Paul runs in 2012 I will vote for him. |
|
|
|
|
I will give you 2 BTC if you can give me Chinese character lyrics for "Yue Liang Dai Biao Wo Di Xin" (The Moon Represents my Heart) as well as English translation. The format I'd like is a line of characters and the English translation beneath it.
CHINESE CHARACTERS
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
CHINESE CHARACTERS
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
etc.
Is this acceptable?
Also, please don't just google it. I can do that myself. Let me know. Xie, xie, ni!
|
|
|
|
Its not every day you open your rss reader and see "I sent you a pm about hitler" over and over again......
lol Really?!? Happens to me all the time.  |
|
|
|
I thought this issue was resolved and he chose a company name already?  He did, I was just referring to a post earlier that commented on the font used in a picture. The picture I posted has a business card for a "typographer" using probably two of the most hated fonts--papyrus and comic sans. I was referring to the people still suggesting names....  Not sure why people hate those fonts. They aren't that bad. Don't crucify me... |
|
|
|
I thought this issue was resolved and he chose a company name already? |
|
|
|
|
I'm not really into democracy, so I'm not going to vote. I thought they did a fantastic job with the video, however. I was really impressed.
It seems like the people who contributed the money should get to decide. I understand that there was an escrow account set up and people anonymously donated, but I thought the lion's share of the bounty came from publicly stated donations from a few individuals. Shouldn't they simply get to decide whether the video lived up to their expectations? However, if they agree to let the community decide that is their choice.
I agree that the bounty process needs to be stream-lined.
|
|
|
|
I have a finance background and am really interested in Bitcoin. I just started and got a few cents from the faucet (cool idea by the way). But I don't have enough knowledge to run a "mining farm", let alone invest large amount of money in it  If you want to help a newbie, please send a few to my address 1B2ciNZ7fgQ7NUaR19ucHR95tzoxrmA1MX Thanks!! Your best bet would be to try to offer skills you have in order to earn them. I would follow up on the suggestion about writing for the bitcoin paper. |
|
|
|
|
Agreed. And I would vote him in solely for the purpose of vetoing every fucking bill that crossed his desk. And as a statement to the people who say he's "unelectable". But I do wonder if perhaps slowing down the decay of the system is worse than just letting it collapse so that new life can occur?
|
|
|
|
has to pay back
Why? Who will force them? The Federal Reserve? They could refuse to lend more money unless interest is payed. Hmm that's interesting. I suppose they could but then what would the US do? The same thing they did before the fed? I think we have to look at "the Fed" and "the US" as the collections of individuals that they are, rather than acting entities. I would guess that the reality is that the Federal Reserve has a LOT of influence in the United States government and will keep getting interest payments from the US government as long as the current system holds. It wouldn't surprise me if wealthy members of the Federal Reserve cartel gave significant donations to election campaigns of US congress members. |
|
|
|
Can't wait until Ron Paul is president of the US! When people start seeing Ron Paul break his promises, they'll have no choice but to think for themselves What promises has he broken so far? You do realize how long he has been making promises, how long he has been acting upon those promises, and how long he has been in government right? He may not have broken any promises yet. I just think he will. And if he does, I think it'll be better for society than if he keeps his promises. Because faith in the idea that we can pick other people to do all our thinking for us will start to erode. The problem with electing Ron Paul for President is not so much that he will break his promises, but rather that he won't be able to fulfill them. There's a difference. Even if he manages to get elected he will likely have a hostile congress to contend with and will find it very difficult to accomplish anything. Presidents don't have as much power to change the system as we like to think. |
|
|
|
taken down now, but visit google cache while it's still up: hereNice! |
|
|
|
has to pay back
Why? Who will force them? The Federal Reserve? They could refuse to lend more money unless interest is payed. |
|
|
|
Dude, I've been looking for definitive evidence that the Federal Reserve is a private organization and not under the Federal Government's supervision. While I know this fact to be true I wanted something I could use to convince the nay-sayers. And here it is. I'm poor, but give me your bitcoin address and I'll send you 1 BTC as a token of thanks. |
|
|
|
Roger Mitchell claims that the United States is Monetarily Sovereign and therefore can fund unlimited programs because it can always print more money. http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/monetarily-sovereign-the-key-to-understanding-economics/My understanding of the way the US "prints" money is that it actually sells US Treasury bonds to the Federal Reserve, and therefore at some point has to pay back those bonds with interest. If this is true, this guy is completely nuts or just doesn't understand basic economics. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
A simple exchange between two parties of things of equal value isn't capitalism. Both parties gain as much as they lose and therefore do not experience profit.
However, if party B takes the product of A's labor without giving back something of equal value, we have capitalism in the exchange and a state in the reason behind B's privilege. Perhaps it's B's perceived strength or holiness. Perhaps B has the backing of a more powerful authority. Without such a reason, there is no state and A won't consent to such a deal.
The problem with your thinking is that things can have some sort of intrinsic "value". All value is imputed by individuals and changes not only from individual to individual, but also in time. Nothing has inherent value. If you disagree please explain how something has intrinsic value, and where that value comes from. So a voluntary exchange between two parties never involves things of equal value. If A didn't value what B has more than what he has to offer there would be no exchange (assuming no coercion). For a willing exchange between two parties both members have to value more what they are getting than what they are giving. With your example of B taking the product of A's labor there are only two cases. 1) A agrees to the trade with B 2) A does not agree and is coerced by B 1) is capitalism. 2) is theft. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I started watching that movie. "Iceland was doing just fine.....UNTIL they decided to deregulate their banking system. Then the dirty capitalists took over and turned everything to shit. Guess they should have had more regulation and government intervention, shouldn't they?"
Then I stopped.
|
|
|
|
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1663664Just thought I would leave this here for everyone to look at. Basically on the largest site about the internet in Australia bitcoin got a bad reception. A memorable quote from the thread was " I love paying tax" I nearly choked on my bitcoins at that one. My opinion of Australians just dropped by about 40 bitcoins. I hope the ones on Whirlpool are not a good representative of the Aussie populace.  *** TIME ELAPSE *** Actually, after reading through the entire 12 pages of posts, there were only a couple who were spouting economic nonsense. Most just seemed to have difficulty understanding the benefits. Probably because Australia isn't facing as serious currency problems as the US. I understand that it is hard not to respond to sarcasm and ad hominems in kind, but it doesn't help convince people of bit coins. And while the two posters "lolwut" and "meanwhileinaus" had some great information about and arguments for bitcoin they left their audience rather jaded. Several other bit coiners managed to keep their cool and spark some interest. If we want to see bit coins adopted we really need to respect people's rights to disagree and even their right to remain willfully ignorant. Insults only raise defensive emotional and psychological barriers and will turn people off from bitcoins for good. Also, try to separate libertarian/anarchist style arguments from bitcoin if you think the audience is going to be turned off by your zeal (as much as I agree with it). There are plenty of benefits of bitcoins even for non-libertarian and anarchists, no? Anyway, that's just my two milliBits on the issue. I would assume that a lot of people on that site are the smarter / more informed Australians but you're completely right about their currency not suffering (now) like the US. Also on your point separating political debate from economic and currency. You are going to turn off some people. In the long run they go hand in hand but you don't have to push your views up front. Also it is possible to have bitcoin in a communist, facist, capitalist , liberterian or whatever government. Exactly. I'm not saying deny your opinions or pretend to be something you are not. But if the goal is adoption of bitcoins by as many people as possible we have to target more than just the libertarian anarchists and to do that you can't inseparably wrap bitcoins in the cloak of anarcho-capitalism. It won't take. We have to present bitcoins as something that people of all political philosophies can use and then later you can try to persuade them to libertarianism or anarchism or creationism or whatever. |
|
|
|
I seriously begin to doubt the concept of anarchy means anything anyway. To me, anarchy is to politics what nihilism is to philosophy. It's a paradoxical, contradictory concept.
I've reached the point where I try to reject political concepts. All I can do as a human is to act. Therefore, acting is what is important. And how do I act? By promoting bitcoin, when possible... Does this make me an "anarchist". I guess so... Ah, Human Action. That self-evident axiom upon which a whole theory of economic thought is based. But I agree with you that rejecting politics is about the only option at this point. Reminds me of an article I read by Frank Chodorov: http://mises.org/daily/5027/On-Doing-Something-About-It |
|
|
|
Wait, so we are encouraging this ten-year-old to disobey his parents and go behind their back to use bitcoin? Are we that desperate for more bitcoin members? What's going to happen when they discover what's going on and come on this forum to find admins and hero members encouraging their kid to disobey them and download "questionable" (in their mind) software?
I can hear the child porn accusations already: "Bitcoin, a nefarious online pseudo-currency that is used to lure in young children, going behind their parents' back." You mean that's not what the Internet is for? ...have one of the admins (like Gavin) send them an email explaining what bitcoin is. Right, not creepy at all. Ha. Fair enough. But seriously, you don't see a problem with this situation? |
|
|
|
When I was your age.....the maximum score on the SAT was only 1600. Now I feel old, thanks.
lol, that's exactly what I was thinking! Sometimes I get the feeling that the average age on this forum is really low. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
