Application to join:
User: my name was taken
Postion to Apply: Member
Posts Start: 249
Address: 3LYgV54od9JSTtuCTwQpRvjiuwsQK785H6
I understand if accepted it will start with the next cycle, which I think is in a few days, and the requirement is 15 posts per week and paid every two weeks? (Would it be possible to put the period start and end dates in each round in the spreadsheet for clarification?)
Hello, I'd like to ensure that my application was reviewed. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Application to join:
User: my name was taken
Postion to Apply: Member
Posts Start: 249
Address: 3LYgV54od9JSTtuCTwQpRvjiuwsQK785H6
I understand if accepted it will start with the next cycle, which I think is in a few days, and the requirement is 15 posts per week and paid every two weeks? (Would it be possible to put the period start and end dates in each round in the spreadsheet for clarification?)
|
|
|
|
Name: my name was taken
Post count: 246
Rank: junior
Bitcoin address: 17wUNMoRBc3g7vQQn8uFPqpbGT45m7B6gA
Enrolling please.
Better change your signature and your rank, it seems you've been upgraded to member since your last post Thanks. Been awhile from the forum for a long time, guess they updated my position when I became active again. |
|
|
|
|
It would be a security concern to only have electronic money. It can be manipulated, or hacked, and will only be as secure as the system designed around it.
|
|
|
|
|
Name: my name was taken
Post count: 246
Rank: member
Bitcoin address: 17wUNMoRBc3g7vQQn8uFPqpbGT45m7B6gA
Enrolling please.
|
|
|
|
That's the excuse the wrap the law around so it doesn't look like they're making charity illegal. Don't fall for it.
Nobody is "making charity illegal." That's a strawman you created to prop up your otherwise unsupportable argument. Time, place, and manner restrictions don't make charity illegal any more than they do free speech. You sound exactly like the Occutards who insisted that camping in public was protected by the 1st Amendment. All you accomplish is turning off reasonable people and setting back your cause. If you want to help feed the hungry, good. Do it at a church, food bank, shelter, or soup kitchen. Not in a public park. Is handing out sandwiches now illegal in this jurisdiction? Oh, it is? I'd say that makes a charitable act illegal. Your passionate defense of state power is noted though. You're such an obedient citizen. |
|
|
|
Kimosabe, get a clue of how the world really works. The internet (i.e. the free market which is why you have it today) is the only free press remaining in the USA. You are an young idealistic liberal idiot with a functioning vocabulary and extremely discombobulated illogic (you put the cart before the horse w.r.t. internet and free media) because your political religion does not allow you to understand the logic of the asymmetric power of political capture and why collectives always fail in a heap of vested interests corruption. The ONLY way to avoid that is do not form collectives and enable the free market to prosper. Hey what happened to your threat to put me on ignore?  Haha, idiot. He didn't respond to you. Hey, are you a programmer by chance? I don't think you mention it enough in your posts. Rather than let your "superior" logic skills do the talking for you, you have to keep pointing out to people you're a programmer to give your arguments artificial gravity. If you were really so damn smart, you wouldn't have to tell people how smart you are. You're really just rather sad. |
|
|
|
Reagan had the authority to send troops into conflict zones for up to 90 days without congressional approval as per the law (which is unconstitutional as the constitution gives the power to direct the military to the president).
War requires two branches of government: Congress to authorize it, and the President to direct the military. The president does not have authority to send troops without Congressional authorization. The 90 days you're referencing is the War Powers Resolution, and it's not a free 90 days to do whatever without Congressional authority. Within 48 hours of deploying troops, the President must notify Congress of the troop deployments, and the troops must be recalled within 60 days, with a 30 day drawn down period, unless there is an authorization for the use of force from Congress or a declaration of war. There are two ways then a president can violate the War Powers Resolution. By failing to notify Congress of troop deployments, or failing to recall within 60 days. Partial list of instances in which a President has been accused of violating the War Powers Act:Reagan (Grenada) Bush I (Panama) Clinton (Haiti, Kosovo) Bush II (Pakistan) Obama (Pakistan, Yemen, Libya) The thing is that these conflicts did not involve "war" with these countries but these were rather "conflicts". In theory the president could also recall the troops that are in the country we are at "conflict" with and send replacement troops for them to replace them; this would be very expensive but would still follow the letter (but not the spirit) of the law Attempting to distinguish between "war" and "armed conflict" is exactly what enables Presidents to break the law. Oh, invading that country isn't war. It's this other, not-war thing. See? Totally legit! |
|
|
|
Are you sure you want to get into an abstract semantic debate with me given I am programmer who makes my living programming in higher level semantics?
Please stop wasting my time. I am busy programming for profit and don't have time for your ignorant bliss.
Bahahaha! Don't argue with ME, I'm a super important programmer so I can't be wrong about anything ever. Fucking hilarious! Yes that is the way it works. I am correct, you are incorrect. Remember I was telling everyone in 2013 that Tor was not anonymous because of timing analysis due to being a low latency network and Sybil attacks on the relay nodes by national security agencies. And everyone thought I was crazy. And now we see new research that says 81% of the users can be identified. Sigh.
You fuckers lost the logic debate so now you predictably resort to ad hominem trolling. And you can't even do that convincingly. I doubt you could even find your way out of a wet brown paper bag. Typical socialist idiots with 10 thumbs. Cull fuckers! Cull yourselves! Hahaha, you're so pathetic. You were the one that started with all the name calling because your arguments are so weak you have to make up for it by posturing so hard with your big postin internet dick. In typical fashion for people like you, your posts are light on substance but heavy on attacks. Maybe if you say "fucking socialists" enough, it might distract people from how wrong your "facts" are and your complete ignorance of how Net Neutrality works. Go shill for Big Media somewhere else. You're so obvious. Make sure in your next response, you use more bluster and name calling and try to claim victory a little more; I think there might still be some people who don't know how far up your ass your head is. Oh, and then post the identical thing in all three of the threads on this topic now so you can prove to everyone how important you think your opinion is that you need to spam other threads in an attempt to make a point. Or maybe you just really need the attention because your life is so sad, I don't know. But in any event, make sure you mention what a great programmer you are too. People need to know. It gives your opinions super credibility.  |
|
|
|
Are you sure you want to get into an abstract semantic debate with me given I am programmer who makes my living programming in higher level semantics?
Please stop wasting my time. I am busy programming for profit and don't have time for your ignorant bliss.
Bahahaha! Don't argue with ME, I'm a super important programmer so I can't be wrong about anything ever. Fucking hilarious! |
|
|
|
And now they are offering free bus tickets to any homeless person who wishes to leave the city. But of course, it is important to understand that this is simply mere coincidence, the intention of the law isn't to get rid of homeless people it is all about food safety Just make sure they're "voluntary" free bus tickets.  |
|
|
|
to both the above posts i think it said it does carry over to next week. I am not entirely sure where i read it but i am not about to read 50 some pages. Maybe 1 person reads 25 pages and the other reads another 25 pages  then feel free to post 100% confirmed answer on here  Well, I can confirm that the first time it happened to me, my posts were rolled over. But what's that thing they say about stocks? "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." |
|
|
|
When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.
What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans. In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.
Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations.Obviously if I'm taking a loan, I know I have to pay it back with interest, which means I will have less money later. That means I've made the decision that having the money now is more important than having more money later. Again, why is that bad? My reply has the following two versions: (a) "Interest constrains the pursuit of ends for the pursuit of means," and (b) "Because, though you are not, you are restrained as if you were." (See my emboldened text above.) Sorry, I just can't follow whatever point you're trying to get across. |
|
|
|
TX : c2ec9af030bfa6e2cc4272f29795cc6060e7d69111fbccc887f6ba4f8ded2197★☆★ Enrolled On 1st Pay Period ★☆★
twister 1CSGNuBarvvoGF7h66thMzv6uY6nt69ah3 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Muhammed Zakir 1MzakiRDem5MCocbcP7DgfcVGZNZe2KqaC | Paid BTC: 0
CryptoCarmen 1Ebb8pi6Lm2w82JswSGmvQVLdurUfD8ukj | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Superhitech 1G5Ca1n5Wvcu1HwRVaFB6MzkyZTX1ibiby | Paid BTC: 0.0039
Mirdude 15iuAhRvTriSXTRLDyS2VNm4DrBEFdBDFs | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 2nd Pay Period ★☆★
Coopster8888 18co9Ja7EgtGu9c1Siy9V62uRAJKGmukJo | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
ikydesu 1KAgiPTd1kgP1SJbUe7gz85rw4Z8ok6j9f | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
the_K_man 1wc6wE675MH1hHDDnzKpdNHPvz3Yz2GTL | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
mlferro 1Dw3uCHSwgfwLCxnhPXuDNVkmVR69NE2ua | Paid BTC: 0.0024
★☆★ Enrolled On 3rd Pay Period ★☆★
howbtc 12GNo1TNmm8g75XtfD9M7LfeXLv39r8jHQ | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
suman66 15iHm9Stryr9o2U8d1SvBoZ4YHTUDq48vc | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Grand_Voyageur 18QzVgAmkXzfV9nBSNwxe3HCohmtMeRrcQ | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
nextblast 19Y9fUCHdbAnVWaESqiQZWoJANHwcdEau9 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Q7 13P79evhLXBDDRXDsB6KHggiRK4MxhYNg1 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
ChiliPowder 11DpJzhrpWAHj5yjBAjeXYzp1MVcK1hLv | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Kassenzettel 1NfUXTaz1K2i82JNgSiQ9HbsPMrRLgXxRC | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Iamyourdad 1BtBqWDJ28o1pWYiqtX1oUcBKpU1d86XSC | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
My Name Was Taken 1D6nSTM4YUhWUFPAfFm2pmQ5hKdtVxrgkZ | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
btckold24 1NYcHBgvKo9qdi3tgosj82rfe6HDLrLm2w | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Possum577 1Exx48BUTb57hPND67Mt5WwPXiTA9CjoEs | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 4th Pay Period ★☆★
huoiuu 1DtWcGQgnwQMTJhnuAmUGuGFrcLctxLLrk | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
zazarb 1AxyPdVoRVkita9fnqCYaYZgssKvbzEpbL | Paid BTC: 0.0023
marioantonini 1LafEhP5eQwTsnnMk1J35bDXJSCPyeJCfC | Paid BTC: 0.0055
ligeros 1BMQ4XeP8Q8Hgua1betYRwcxeBF8vh8dtm | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
grouper fish 1PFx6zjURC59RxG6fDJJGgSEqJqPkKcyeb | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
h4xx0r 1CQRFstq5khcJ83aQPmEfKWaS7w8vFKyMy | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
beginner_x 1MEZhLHNFTc67kojhG7MKx5sc7vgM15rmh | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
wangjin098 12NJR8tdepg9hMLyTKQ3KBVMaizupLwKyu | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Mist 18445Hp7mF5yRiLcQ5sjaX22eiZnvLfPWC | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 5th Pay Period ★☆★
Deal 1DxNCjcTtmdMBBjB8Cyx8SiWLUDzs3smfw | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
elizabethleon 1BRrC3WwZYRrvRXauESLbZ8YzZDHbpq23R | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
ARadzi 1K44P4G6XB9BbsUqUGj93unN48NS2N9Z59 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
cma3 1HsdiW5R3YD89v14Kgtnxjx4dYmhKsSYSr | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
btcduke 1HmaNwwrwcdAiMytcJP5pA4zJH9FaQApmh | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
nikkoy 18kzkvisCXtPbA8wRwFLoD3snSMPq8U6Mt | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Arktur 1DJoYieKZ1CL8bcZm5FrkNgajuNkjvGiBJ | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
lowland 1Fxk2Ds5c9i7NnQkbh8XhnXJRq1kVcfsnF | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
yenzae0215 19oAdgmibZvTKUThZ9E33Ya1yPThfLz5ME | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
onlyyou 12m7nJbEfXdfMDhC1kCzNyNV5eNVoSHY3k | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
blofoma 1CoinJ1cWDytusMjAcnmiYfR8Zp9NYacoP | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
ilvbtc 16SKE7oJeYjA9gQ3x9qaRScmtLtRkJ87xt | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
SuperDay 13dhSc4biPca5r74g4X2K5Uwe3FVs4FhKt | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
ladybitcoin 1L1GKdumPkq1jcB76HKWpR5j4DSgCVU1xq | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
bitnanigans 1Pv5BdiFBvLYUhizRF132mStTHE4Uxs4bT | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
AnonBitCoiner 1Ch173DuRzf1aDxnbabo1rQhUJa2YkfDZG | Paid BTC: 0.0023
dsly 1AkFHXASrxF6h7cxfcAbkBnAsYBXS3S9Ya | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 6th Pay Period ★☆★
coiners99 14djnSitr6wdXVq9BpPHgALcYABJZCpJuD | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
4ever 19VxBQLizYMU6FJJA5PYxdb5v4999icMLy | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
jaysabi 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
haoyun456 1BUsGqgn3r1UfxtvbKc3wvByxb6a8RSSA5 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 7th Pay Period ★☆★
erre 1SoGC63df4ueo1Zum21c9DwUuft5mkyyi | Paid BTC: 0.0023
goco 1GoCoCg5HfwdteeUKhWcFZ2FanQNPUiUCa | Paid BTC: 0.00224
noobtrader 12345J3S1UNPWgAxkEJnDepGEKwzVVxc5d | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
neo_blaster 1PUuAKJ6dPcDmCd6TS85ek4RtDQcbtZtTt | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
eden1 123456bNnCXaTBmYwA3Nx7xMWbNwVr3Gb3 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
sangwan1212 1MPvimNBL1rMcMYv8EAfnr9eeU2Bz4Z7uT | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
semidead 16jLuS7UNrLXChzDfWbcrA1B8MWPvh7vAC | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
★☆★ Enrolled On 8th Pay Period ★☆★
stellar69 1258d1XSGhF6FLSkVtHfDw2a4CBc4FL5NL | Paid BTC: 0.0041
Herbert2020 1BBAkVCzDN1wqDuAage1WpJWDvsk5xX2vA | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
puzzel.me 1BwEvWwjBTfJBBQBKPiq5i9GdS7ZxsRCqo | Paid BTC: 0.0021
awesome31312 12vARzQRPwUf19sCGUNUYasBK1kYu3F3xw | Paid BTC: 0.0048
olfirs 1LtUPZDGaT3EUAx9JUmbL3kztRGvQ6F7r8 | Paid BTC: 0.008
menager 1Di6TPTcUvZgkqVi52fqqrk11cPwsBbTn4 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Cripto DeD 1QKrUQaTFcQ2y6DeJ8hW1rVphBLcMagwRk | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
feryjhie 1FERyQMm4aPnmbzEmd3xb4FZnQyGkkYv4b | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
Triagpu 16EVaMeDkTD51uVpPZ6SKS9TyDjZHjrBG3 | Paid BTC: Below Minimum
~~MZ~~ I guess I just missed the minimum 20 posts. Will my posts from last week carry forward? Damn, I missed it too by one post! It carried over for me my first week when I was below minimum, so I think our posts do carry forward. |
|
|
|
You need to understand that he was arrested for more then just feeding people. There are regulations as to sanitary requirements and food service licenses that must be obtained before you can serve food to the public. The reason for this is to protect the public from potential food borne illnesses that can potentially be fatal. That's the excuse the wrap the law around so it doesn't look like they're making charity illegal. Don't fall for it. |
|
|
|
(Also, on the very slim chance he posted anything worth reading, let me know. It's possible I was too fast with my ignore button, but based on the quality of the first post of his I read, I kinda doubt it.)
Haha, don't worry. You didn't miss anything. More socialist this, socialist that. Never mind that net neutrality has been how the internet has worked ever since it came into being. No, now that the FCC might change the classification to keep net neutrality in the wake of the court case that invalidated the original rule, all of a sudden NOW it's 'fucking socialism.' Hilarious how far up your ass you have to have your head to ignore the facts. Probably Ted Cruz posting under his internet screen name. |
|
|
|
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar. Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine. It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy? FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me. So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god? And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit? The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God. They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose. The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God. So yes, it's a bad analogy. It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground. You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against. Ah, are you then referring to the existence of "god" vs. the existence of "God?" The former being a concept and the latter being a specific deity, such as the Christian or Muslim or what-have-you? I'm not sure it matters anyway, but if you're referring to the second, the analogy is a match. Not quite. You are correct that I'm differentiating between God and god, but the distinction I'm making isn't the same as you suggest. Specifically, I'm making the following points: 1) There is a difference between polytheistic and monotheistic gods. 2) There is a different standard of proof between polytheistic and monotheistic gods. Specifically, empirical proof is required for a polytheistic god, but not for a monotheistic one. Instead, conceptual proof based upon a priori knowledge is required for a monotheistic god; this is not required for a polytheistic god. 3) The FSM and the teapot constitute invalid counterarguments to the existence of a monotheistic god because they ask the opponent for information that is irrelevant and unnecessary to the existence of a monotheistic god, i.e. they ask for empirical evidence when empirical evidence is in no way required to prove a monotheistic god. 4) Any counterargument to the existence of a monotheistic god must instead attempt to demonstrate why a monotheistic god is a logical impossibility based upon a priori knowledge. I have never seen a sound argument of this type before. This was finally a good explanation of your point. I understand much better now what you are saying. |
|
|
|
Reagan had the authority to send troops into conflict zones for up to 90 days without congressional approval as per the law (which is unconstitutional as the constitution gives the power to direct the military to the president).
War requires two branches of government: Congress to authorize it, and the President to direct the military. The president does not have authority to send troops without Congressional authorization. The 90 days you're referencing is the War Powers Resolution, and it's not a free 90 days to do whatever without Congressional authority. Within 48 hours of deploying troops, the President must notify Congress of the troop deployments, and the troops must be recalled within 60 days, with a 30 day drawn down period, unless there is an authorization for the use of force from Congress or a declaration of war. There are two ways then a president can violate the War Powers Resolution. By failing to notify Congress of troop deployments, or failing to recall within 60 days. Partial list of instances in which a President has been accused of violating the War Powers Act:Reagan (Grenada) Bush I (Panama) Clinton (Haiti, Kosovo) Bush II (Pakistan) Obama (Pakistan, Yemen, Libya) |
|
|
|
A valid use of executive power would be to suspend civil rights and institute martial law say for example in the case of a severe ebola outbreak.
That's funny, it seems "inalienable rights" doesn't mean "inalienable" anymore. Sounds like you and ole BO have more in common than you care to admit. An abuse of executive power would be to usurp actions and power given constitutionally to Congress, or to sign a blatantly unconstitutional executive order.
For example, suspending habeas corpus (Lincoln was challenged at the time by the courts, which he ignored, but the challenge was later validated by the Supreme Court when they ruled that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus), or nationalizing the steel mills (FDR's executive order was ruled invalid by the courts), or yada, yada. There are literally too many instances of unlawful executive orders to single them out individually. On top of these two specific examples I've named, there have been over 15,000 executive orders in the history of this country, but you're trying to pass off that only the last 200 or so under Obama are "unprecedented." Not a reasonable assertion. |
|
|
|
I think being an atheist is a form of a human ignorance of the creation of man by God, they do not believe in a god who created them, atheism is a form of denial of the blessings given by God to man, whereas the wild spirit they have sworn that their god is God is great ... Is this in reference to something that was said in this thread? I'm having trouble figuring out the relevance to this discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
