exactly my observation, future soviet union is the us banking cartel,
the equity billionaires, and property billionaires, and the dependend urban population will try to save themselves from decentralisation by creating a socialist union of amerika
You operate under the delusion that Communism and the banking system were ever separate things. |
|
|
|
What is the goal of all leftist movements?
The goal is irrelevant. The results are not. I don't give a shit about your opinions of the fine nuances of different types of leftism. The fact is they all lead to the same results. |
|
|
|
I can't think of how he could use an address to advance his position. The courts will block him virtually before his address is finished if he tries to build it via a national emergency, and if he just makes it a "campaign ad" for the wall, probably the relevant polling will be worse for him after the address than before.
Personally, I don't really care about the wall. It's a waste of money, but there are hundreds of examples of much more egregious wastes of money in government. If there was a deal where $26 billion of aggressive war spending was cut in order to spend $25 billion on a wall and save $1 billion, I'd be very happy with that, for example.
As far as the authority to do this via declaration of national emergency, the law is quite clear he has the authority to do this unilaterally, the courts will not be able to stop him this time. |
|
|
|
You can`t ban guns completely, there is always black market - is a person wants to get a gun, he or she will manage to do it regardless.
More measures shall be implemented to regulate it, for example improved and regular psychological testing.
But even if it is effective, more and more people will raise to protest: it is a threat to their freedom, they won`t be consent with more regulations.
Harping back on an old thread here, but yes this is true -- you can't ban ALL weapons. Stopping criminals is always the end goal though, and getting guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them -- such as people who have a mental illness, prior felony convictions, domestic violence charges, etc -- is something that both sides of the aisle can agree on. At least I would hope so. The problem is who gets to decide who gets rights? Oh the government? What could go wrong  |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABEM2r2QR_0So many people operate off of an understanding of how gold-standard currency works but MMT is about fiat. There are several videos of well-established economists and economics professors discussing this but I chose this video as it is more concise. Tecshare, I hope you will come to understand MMT. I have said it before and I will say it again.
YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT ECONOMICS
Stop pretending like you do. You are taking your incomplete and superficial knowledge of economics and selectively hearing only what you like about what these people are saying while totally ignoring much larger macro economic issues. These people are making the point that credit of some kind is necessary, and I agree. What they are NOT SAYING is that we can just print limitless amounts of money without serious consequence, which seems to be your mantra.I never said that. Its funny you are doing the very thing you often accuse people of doing. Making up things people said. In fact, I already explained specifically to you that the limit was the point at which the economy is running at full steam and you didn't even know what "running at full steam meant". Government spending is not credit. I wish you would watch the videos and read the articles instead of putting all of your focus on screaming that I don't know economics. The deficit owls video also addresses how textbooks did not change in 1971 when reality changed. You are trying to apply your obsolete pre1971 knowledge of how this works to today's reality. Thats why you keep talking about mathematic law and are under the impression that I'm just making things up. You have even demonstrated that you are unaware of the change by stating something to the affect of "it has worked this way for thousands of years". Its not just this topic. In general, you are pretty closed to new systems of knowledge and updates to the ways things have worked traditionally. Also this There is no direct link between the size of government spending, size of government deficits and the devaluing of currency https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLZJAgo9FgHWajc5BdOP8e75eddFmWhtzh&time_continue=131&v=51Arlvr45kYOnce again you, as petulant children do, blame others for your own short comings rather than examine your own positions carefully and critically. If you will note the underlined text, I used the word "seems", clearly communicating this was a generalization of your opinion, not me making a statement as if you said it. What you are saying however is that the economy, after decades of absorbing tens of millions of ILLEGAL immigrants, can continue to do so while still engaging in inflationary spending for massive entitlement programs. Literally everything is already leveraged hundreds if not thousands of times over already. We are at breaking point. This is not just a question of the government going bankrupt, it is a question of people losing a lifetime of savings and work in order to make these policies possible. "running at full steam" is just some made up bullshit, at best a metaphor, for some undefined maximization of the economy. It has no technical definition and is just some arbitrary string of words you use to attempt to give yourself credibility without actually doing any of the work in actually researching the topic. The fact that you are only linking me youtube videos is also a good indicator of your level of knowledge on the subject. I have watched the videos, and as I said previously, you are just picking and choosing what you like about what they say and claiming repeatedly I just don't understand it, and therefore my arguments need not even be refuted. You look at the world thru a lens that every system, every organization, every institution around you is yours to experiment with. As long as you personally declare your intentions as pure then consequences in reality be damned. What matters is you were trying to make things better right? No. Not everything needs Postmodernism, especially math and economics. The problems the world is facing right now is a RESULT of the policies you are advocating for, the SAME EXACT POLICIES of inflation we have been engaged in since 1913. You wrap the same stale robber baron bullshit up in a progressive cloak and claim it is our salvation as if directly out of the Hegelian dialectic. PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION You work for the people you claim to be fighting against. Frankly I pity you, but unfortunately your ignorant ideology effects millions if not billions of people in very horrible ways, and therefore your delusions should not be tolerated with any niceties. Lets examine "MMT" shall we? " Modern Monetary TheoryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Modern Monetary Theory (MMT or Modern Money Theory) is a macroeconomic theory that describes and analyzes modern economies in which the national currency is fiat money, established and created by a sovereign government. The key assertion of MMT is that sovereign governments that are the sole supplier of national currency can issue currency of any denomination, and in physical or non-physical forms. Consequently, these governments have an unlimited financial ability to pay for the things they wish to purchase and to fulfill promised future payments. The real limits to a currency issuing government's spending are the availability of natural resources, goods, assets, workers and services in the real world. MMT claims that these governments also have an unlimited ability to provide funds to other sectors, and that because of this, it is not possible for a government that issues its own currency to be bankrupt.[1] MMT is seen as an evolution of Chartalism, and is sometimes referred to as Neo-Chartalism. " " ChartalismFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In macroeconomics, chartalism is a theory of money which argues that money originated with states' attempts to direct economic activity rather than as a spontaneous solution to the problems with barter or as a means with which to tokenize debt,[1] and that fiat currency has value in exchange because of sovereign power to levy taxes on economic activity payable in the currency they issue. " So as you see, you are in fact advocating for top down centralized control and taxation, by force, supported by the further inflationary policy which is then a further taxation via buying power loss suffered by all of the currency holders. Essentially you are arguing for what the banks want, and what they ALREADY HAVE. WAY TO GO CAPTAIN PROGRESSIVE!  |
|
|
|
It will be extremely amusing if he declares national emergency because of the wall funding. No other country in the world is capable of such a sharade.
Yeah who ever heard of people calling thousands of violent invaders rushing their national borders as being a threat am I right? BTW, its spelled charade. |
|
|
|
A lot of the people killed by communists were actually on the left. Wars were fought over the vast differences you call "microscopic". Your refusal to distinguish leftist ideology along the political axis of authority blinds you to these facts. Its why I tried to use the political compass as a visual aid to show you these differences. Lenin himself stated his greatest threat was that from the left. I will talk about this in another thread because its off-topic. I have more to say about AOC but will wait to post after her 60 minutes episode airs in a few hours.
So your defense is the left can be genocidal, therefore the non-genocidal left are some how better by default? Um. No. I am not blind to "these facts". You know what is sad is I probably know more about leftist ideology than you do as a supporter. I don't just understand the left, I actually took the time to learn the source material, philosophical origins, and goals of all of these movements. All the so called distinctions you point out are meaningless. They all result in the same downward spiral of economic and social collapse. |
|
|
|
By removing negativity you remove targets.
I wouldn't be literate enough in English to make solid list of new terms that have replaced the old ones, but I have no doubt that the language is undergoing the same transformation as French and Spanish are right now.
Funny thing is that right wing people love to call it a "leftist strategy". I think anyone really political is targeted by this, left and right equally.
People currently in power are removing negative words to avoid conflicts and discussion. If there is nothing negative to adress then there is nothing to change.
In French for example you no longer say "a redundancy plan" you say "a job rescue plan". How can you be against that? Same way you no longer say "migrants" you say "refugees" while 20 years ago being a refugee was short for political refugee which was a very different title very difficult to have and... Quite honorable in fact. Same way, how can you be against taking refugees?
They took the negative words so we can no longer disagree. I wouldn't say it's about power, it's even more cunning and vicious. It's about no longer being able to think because you can no longer name the problems. That's causing much more damages that one could think...
I'm all for free speach and free language. Talk about the inferior sub-race leeches invading us, and I'll talk about the alienation of bourgeoisie domination. Getting rid of the words won't solve anything.
While technically a technique that the left or the right could abuse, the idea that because this is technically possible is a false equivalency that is blind to the reality of actual deployment in reality, which is in fact overwhelmingly a tactic of the left. Those on the right are largely individualists, the left largely collectivists. Collectivists inherently have more to gain from manipulating words and ideas than individualists by the very nature of collectivism. |
|
|
|
I am trying to comprehend what you are saying and am smart enough to be open to the idea that I may just be ignorant. There is not end to be had here. What could my bitcointalk forum agenda possibly be other than to learn?
The USA has always claimed to be the mommy and the daddy of the world, I was brought up on that idea. There is a huge statue in new york harbor supporting that idea. I'm not saying that is wise or best idea in self interest but its something that has been hardwired in culturally. People like me are the unintended consequence of that propaganda. You always talk about funds being collected at gunpoint and that is such a lie. No one is forcing you to pay taxes in the same way no one is forcing them to enter the US illegally at gunpoint. You chose to earn money in our system to better your life and taxes are the cost of using that system. The irony is that immigrants pay those same taxes. In the lifetime, 2nd generation immigrants pay everything back that their parents received many times over.
I bring up racism because the historical association of your point of view with racism is real regardless of your intentions. Systemic racism in the US immigration system is real. Systemic racism has nothing to do with your intentions and is something that has to be actively undone. It cannot be ignored and must be brought up whenever even possibly relevant. Yes, we will always be suspicious that those who insist racism be ignored and left out of the conversation.
Your simplistic view of economics views immigration in isolation. You aren't accounting for the fact that immigrants work and pay taxes and their children grow up to make significant contribution to our economy. More workers allows for a larger economy and a larger economy allows for more welfare spending. It only works this way if we legitimize their presence though. They become a massive burden only when people don't allow them to obtain legal status. No legal status makes it difficult to work which makes it difficult to pay taxes and forces them into a cycle of dependent poverty. This status quo may very well be what the democrats want but its not what I want. US population could swell to 350 million and we wouldn't run out of space. The economic growth would create more opportunities for everyone.
You might be smart enough, but you aren't honest enough to admit it if it ever does even happen. You are never "wrong" you are simply viewing things from a different perspective in your view, therefore there is never an incorrect answer right Captain Postmodern? That is not how reality works. Your agenda is that you have a pathological need for narcissistic supply, and to have others reaffirm and enable your ideology of collectivized malignant narcissism. Either that or you are on the job, I am not sure which. Maybe both. TAXES ARE COLLECTED AT GUNPOINT. If you don't pay taxes, men with guns come and either kill you or put you in a cage until you do. This is how the resources for the programs you propose are collected. It is as simple as that. No one is forcing you to pay taxes in the same way no one is forcing them to enter the US illegally at gunpoint.  WAT? The irony is that immigrants pay those same taxes. In the lifetime, 2nd generation immigrants pay everything back that their parents received many times over. Nope. In fact data shows illegal immigrants are a net drain on tax resources. Here you are again purposely trying to confuse illegal immigrants with legal immigrants in order to claim they have some benefit for our nation, and also try to subtly try to entrap me into making generalizations so you can later claim I am against all immigration, or insinuate I am racist. I bring up racism because the historical association of your point of view with racism is real regardless of your intentions. So guilt by association? That is your argument? Great I am glad we agree the only reason you brought up racism was a pathetic attempt to slander me by guilt by association. The ONLY reason you need to inject racism into this is because you are supporting a LOSING argument and you have nothing to back your premise up with, so you must rely on racism as a crutch to try to elicit emotional response as a substitute for logic. I see, you think we can have massive immigration and huge entitlement programs and a functional economy, but MY VIEWS of economics are simplistic. You don't have sources for any of your claims, this is all just garbage Postmodernist mantras that become "true" through repetition through enough dimwits such as yourself in an attempt to appear valid via sheer numbers. You all say it, but none of you can ever back any of it up. |
|
|
|
Once again, that's not how it works, as anyone with a high school level science education knows. Empirical data doesn't become "meaningless", and neither do theories. The fact is they are simply not interchangable even under these circumstances.
Damn, seems my engineering degree is false then. Let's do some revert thinking then. What would you accept as a reasonnable evidence of climate change proof? I KNOW that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but the fact is that pretty much everyone agrees that the provided evidences are, by large, enough to prove the claim. You're saying it's not the case. Please then what would be a solid proof? If you are an engineer I hope to Christ you don't engineer anything people's lives depend on. Either way engineers are not research scientists. Engineers are trained to be told what a data-set and tolerances are and follow that, they aren't trained in research science, so the fact you have an engineering degree is meaningless. Lets not do some "revert thinking" where you try to pawn off the burden of proof upon me when it is yours as the one presenting the premise. "pretty much everyone" does not agree, and your supposed support of that claim has been thoroughly demonstrated to be garbage already in previous analysis of your "94% of all scientists" figure. Instead of solid proof, how about you start with some empirical data, ANY EMPIRICAL DATA... AT ALL. Maybe you meant there is no deductive proof but the association of combustion--->CO2----> warming is solid
Of course but TECSHARE is simply denying that. There are proof for temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity producing CO2. There aren't any data for the link between the two simply because such data can't possibly exist. And all his argumentation is to say that the linked aren't proven because there is no data which is a complete logical fallacy of course. But I already tried this way so I'm trying another right now. I have few hopes but well... You don't even know the definitions of the words you use and you are trying to lecture me on scientific theory. There is no link between climate change and human activity proven. End of story. There is no fallacy here, except you trying to claim it is a fallacy.
I'll admit there is no scientifical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activities.
What? No data supporting the greenhouse effect? No data showing how much carbon humans have released into the atmosphere? Maybe you meant there is no deductive proof but the association of combustion--->CO2----> warming is solid Oh look, its Captain Postmodern with his astounding powers of poor reading comprehension just to round this all off. |
|
|
|
-snip-
EDIT: To be clear.If there is an experiment to test your theory then empirical data is essential. If there is no experiment to test your theory, then empirical data is meaningless but it doesn't mean the theory is. Is it easy enough to understand like this? Once again, that's not how it works, as anyone with a high school level science education knows. Empirical data doesn't become "meaningless", and neither do theories. The fact is they are simply not interchangable even under these circumstances. TL;DR STOP PRETENDING YOUR THEORIES ARE SCIENCEOh yeah, I remember what it is to debate with TECSHARE. He just throws a bunch of studies or statistics around and thinks he is clever. He never makes his own assumptions about anything, probably unable to.
So what part of the topic does this have to do with? I know you are obsessed with me, but please try to contribute something. |
|
|
|
|
You would have a decent collection there if it was not for the mystery brown substance staining nearly every note. I would give you a value estimate at about $1 each per note, that might be generous due to the condition. FYI, that is not an offer just general guidance so you have an idea of what you have.
|
|
|
|
Before you have consensus you need to produce empirical data, none of which you are able to present. You don't get to skip the most critical step of the scientific method then still claim you are representing science.
[...]
Yeah, everyone knows empirical data is meaningless in science.
This is simply false. Serious question coming. I got my degree in computer science so I don't do much research. But I think I know about 30 to 35 people working in research currently or having worked in research in the last 10 years. From numerous background: Chemistry, Photonic, Quantum Physics and 3 in "soft science" such as psychology. I don't know anyone working like that. Science isn't all about empirical data at all contrary to what you think... Have you ever talked to someone working as a scientific? Actually making some research? Lets review scientific method:  Hmm... looks like you are skipping the most critical step which is where the actual evidence comes from and substituting more theories instead.  You don't get scientific knowledge thru osmosis (look it up), so mentioning you know people who do research is meaningless. Every statement you make gives me ever more examples of your total inability to comprehend science and scientific method. |
|
|
|
Of course I can't.
There is nothing that can be answered to you, you can't be proven wrong.
Using ridiculous comparison is a tool to try to make you think a little bit but it doesn't seem it has worked.
You are asking for empirical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity.
This doesn't exist, cannot exist, will never exist. That's all.
But if like TECSHARE you believe that's how science work, then you just need to go back to school. This is not how science work, this has never been and will never be.
No, I will admit when I am wrong, but you aren't smart enough to be the guy to put me in that position in the overwhelming majority of cases. At least you can admit your global warming cult has no empirical data backing it, and therefore has no science backing it. |
|
|
|
You know, I would hope, that you have really presented a very unscientific viewpoint here. (Go along with what I/we say the majority says on a subject.) How does it feel to be in the same bag as people claiming Earth is flat or evolution is a lie?Argument by ridicule. You are smarter than this and can do better. No, he's not, and he can't. He already thinks he is preaching from a position of intellectual superiority as you can tell from his flat earth comments as if these subjects have any relation. |
|
|
|
You are a fucking moron, this has already been repeatedly addressed in this thread, and this is not how science works.
Oh sorryyyyyyyy I didn't know science didn't work as a cooperative peer to peer consensus. Oh silly me who forgot that science is only 100% hard proofs or nothing! I can be dumb sometimes right? I mean we obviously only have a binary system in science: proved and not proved. That's how things work  EDIT: I might be a fucking moron but at least I'm not in the same bag as Flat Earthers or Evolution denyers. Funny you're the one claiming to be a "logical and scientific" fellas. I guess the 94% of scientists of the planet are as dumb as me? Before you have consensus you need to produce empirical data, none of which you are able to present. You don't get to skip the most critical step of the scientific method then still claim you are representing science. "94% of the scientists on the planet" I reiterate - you are a moron. Now if you would please present the empirical data showing that global warming is a result of anthropogenic climate change, as a direct result of human C02 output. Not theories. Not opinions. Not simulations. Not projections. Empirical data.
Oh my god I forgot that xD TECSHARE you're really a funny guy! Well the bad side is that you actually have the right to vote... That's one of the problems of democracy, even people without the slightest insight of how science or logic work can vote. Still it's funny! So i guess you gonna come back all grumpy asking for some "SOLID EMPIRICAL DATA" right? Yeah, everyone knows empirical data is meaningless in science. |
|
|
|
You are a fucking moron, this has already been repeatedly addressed in this thread, and this is not how science works. |
|
|
|
BUT.. BUT.. THE PATRIARCHY
No argument now? Shocking. You can run from this topic but you can't hide. The consequences of your lies will be felt. You might as well go join m0glie and his cuckfest thread where they all just stand around reassuring each other of their beliefs, because God forbid you might offend a woman right? It is best we all just stand around an reassure each other of the acceptable feminist programming, even if it is destroying men at an unprecedented rate. |
|
|
|
Sure you can ridicule factually the grammar, but that's missing the point.
The point is that certain people seek to gain power over others by creating positions where they can dictate proper speech.
It's all about the power. Well, that's the more serious way of looking at it. Pushing a narrative, innit? By controlling one's language, their way of communicating, you in turn control the way that they're able to think. If they cannot express an anti-X idea then nothing will come to fruition when one tries to oppose it. Something similar to Newspeak from our classic dystopian book  Funny you mention Newspeak, as this is exactly what is going on. George Orwell wrote an essay on this topic exactly called "Politics and The English Language" where he details the purposeful degradation of speech and thought in order to exert political control. It is not long at all, free all over the web, and a very enlightening read. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
