What about the state sponsored harvesting of organs from living Dafa practitioners?

I have read Zhuan Falun multiple times and thereby I have understood the thrust of the teachings without difficulty, as a Westerner. People who say that the teachings are complex are simply ignorant about spiritual literature. If the OP has never read ZF then what is the point of his thread??

796.com allows leverage of up to 50x on bitcoin futures. It is not recommended to use any more than 10x leverage unless you have enough funds available to pledge as additional margin to get the position down to 10x or better yet 5x. So for example, if you open a position with 50x (2%) margin with 1 bitcoin initial margin, you will need at least 1 more bitcoin to pledge in order to reduce the leverage to 4%, 2 more bitcoins to pledge in order to reduce the leverage to 6%, etc. You will need to pledge more margin at the stop-out level if you want to keep the position open. You need to hold the extra bitcoin in your margin account (and the Auto Additional Margin Pledger set to on), otherwise you will easily get stopped out if you use high leverage.

Remember that futures are risky and you should only gamble with what you can afford to lose. Better safe than sorry. If you need help understanding their platform, you can message me.

Not even rationality (use of reason)?

"Army (so you don't have the Iraq flag on your money)"
What did the Iraqis ever do to you? They had WMDs? They did 9/11? What about the fact that this same US military slaughtered 150,000 Iraqis on February 28 1991, in a brutal, horrendous war crime? This same military was ordered to kill these surrendering troops, who were then bulldozed into mass unmarked graves in the desert, some still alive. That makes you feel good and happy? That was worth the expense?

In the US, "all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government". The income tax is voluntary, and everything in this nation is voluntary, it is in the laws (Statutes at Large and Constitution), but you were never made aware of HOW or WHY, even though it is repeated by everyone from Senators to the IRS. Your posts are full of conjecture, never any citations. You need to know the law and do your own thinking. I bet there are lots of things that you are not aware of or never thought about.

I once bought bitcoin from an old lady who told me that she receives all kinds of state benefits and she keeps all of her money and savings in gold so that it is not tracked or taxed. Smart lady; she did not need an accountant or the government to tell her what to do with HER property.

By the way, if you have never sent in any direct and simple questions to the tax authorities, then you would not know even the first thing about taxation, since you never bothered to ASK.

Why make a thread and poll if you don't want to hear opinions contrary to your own?

Do tax rules apply? Sure, but only to corporations located within the Federal Zone.

“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. . . . The individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.”

Typically, a trader would call the branch where the deposit was made to confirm that the deposit was made in cash and will not be reversed. The bank is actually liable if the deposit is reversed, but they will rarely if ever admit their error and will probably shut down your account instead of refunding your deposit. That is why it is good to call the branch and verify with the teller that a reversal is not possible.

I messaged you. Thanks!

Great, so I suggest you read about these tests that have been conducted, starting with the AWARE study.

I am sure we will get to the evidence if we continue discussing, I have already pointed out the above test; before it was conducted, researchers French and Van Lommel concluded that
"If researchers could prove that clinically dead patients, with no electrical activity in their cortex, can be aware of events around them and form memories, this would suggest that the brain does not generate consciousness."
How can you say that these researchers are mistaken if there are no researchers who dispute their conclusion? Just like with evolution, I have to ask "WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?"
That the neurons survive is not indicative of anything. You need a functioning brain with blood flow and electrical firing to have hallucinations and perceptions. None of that is present during brain death. So how are the perceptions explained?

Not true, the neurons do not work (fire) when there is brain death. There is no sense of pain, no gag reflex, etc. Why in the world would there be perception and hallucination without even basic functions like those? It goes against everything that is understood about the brain.
Show me the evidence! Find even one neuroscientist who says that a dead brain can plausibly hallucinate.

I am not afraid of death or taxes, my friend; they are both illusory.

Neo-Darwinists say that there is species transformation without any examples. Skeptics say that there is brain activity (during brain death) that can generate perception without any examples. Why don't you guys say "I don't know"?

I am not religious; thanks for offering your opinions, but I was looking for evidence...

I will keep it brief, maybe just one point at a time...

I accept that there are shared genes, but there is no single documented instance of the transformation of one species into another, as stated by Thomas Hunt Morgan and others. Therefore, the evidence of common genes is not sufficient to conclude that all life has a common ancestor, since the evidence does not even allow for the shared ancestry between any two species. This conclusion has simply not been validated "in the field", and it is not warranted given the lack of an example; despite their best efforts, scientists are NOT close to simulating abiogenesis, despite what you may believe, and since there has not been a single example of species transformation in human history, science bats zero on this point.


Since the conclusion of common descent promoted by neo-Darwinism has not been validated with an example of the transformation of one species into another, I can only say that you would like us to think that any argument against neo-Darwinism is destroyed and "the rest are details" because then your conclusion cannot be falsified with inconvenient details such as missing evidence (i.e. knowledge gaps) and the like. There is an alternative. What about the arguments of Pye; what about his Intervention Theory? What about the details that simply don't add up, like with domesticated plants, as detailed in the Pye article linked below:

I don't think it is rational to conclude that we evolved from apes since there is not an unquestioned example of the transformation of one species into another (any species). There is only shared genes, but that could point to something else; see Pye's essay previously and this other essay from Pye:
http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html

I disagree with both neo-Darwinism and creationism; I know that the Bible is tampered.
I think it is important to recognize that despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving even partially into another distinct and separate species. In science, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that an example be presented before accepting the conclusion. I am not expecting you to provide such an example, because it does not exist, so if you end your participation here then you end it having not provided the sort of evidence that I am seeking (in good faith, of course). I don't think it's fair that I have to restate the arguments of Pye for your digestion when you can read his articles and see the evidence for yourself; perhaps then you will see that I am not actually denying anything. Why not have a look at the Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention? Please have an open mind and read these two articles thoroughly before replying to me; I appreciate it!

Defend myself? Oh, it is so easy; this fact I quoted is just the start... It IS a fact, but since you do not understand the context of the law and the presumptions that are made in the process, you will not believe it. You will probably call it a "conspiracy theory". You can choose to fear the taxman, but I will not; I know who I am and I know the law (commercial law). I will not offer tribute to any authority. I question authority, and find the truth for self, but you volunteer to give tribute to the taxman without thinking.

I suggest getting the book HOW TO GET CONTROL OF YOUR TIME AND YOUR LIFE by Alan Lakein. The appendix is especially useful, it has a list of ways you can save time. The most productive question you can ask yourself is "What is the best use of my time right now?"

If researchers could prove that clinically dead patients, with no electrical activity in their cortex, can be aware of events around them and form memories, this would suggest that the brain does not generate consciousness.

In the AWARE study, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted.

Read more:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1237843.msg12899128#msg12899128

It's too bad you did not truly engage with the article; now I will have to quote from it in reply to you. Fortunately, this makes my task easier, but I would prefer an engaging conversation.
Read the source: http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_interventiontheory.htm

Actually, I see that you have just contradicted yourself. If you don't use "God" to explain the common ancestor, then what explanation is left? After a century of heavily subsidized efforts to create even the most basic rudiments of life in a laboratory, scientists are still batting zero. As Dawson noted, “here also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience.”

Funny. You think you know what God is thinking? I would say that God is indifferent to your human opinion and is not concerned with your intellectual imagination. By the way, God's Law is written on your heart, so you are never without guidance. Please do not bring the Bible into this; I don't believe in authority other than self.

2) Plant and Animal life forms are necessarily the converse of each other, the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. If life evolved as Darwinists claim, it would have to bridge the gaping chasm between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely countless times. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, science again bats zero. The animal never in its simplest forms assumes the functions of the plant.

3) “It is this gap [between any species of animal or plant and any other species], and this only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his great work on the origin of species; but, notwithstanding the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.” Here, too, despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving even partially into another distinct and separate species.

Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote: “Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.”

And this statement by Morgan is by no means an exceptional disclosure.

Opinion? I posted 25 facts, including this one, all of which you ignored:

"The IRS agents have no legal authority to demand anything from you, if there are no 3rd party informational documents sent to them with your name on it."

Not true, these three conclusions do not need to be updated because the evidence remains the same as it always was. Is there any concrete evidence refuting even one of these three conclusions? Last I checked, there was not.

I will be happy to evaluate any evidence you may present; this is not about free will, it is about the strength of the evidence that fills in the three knowledge gaps identified by Dawson. Why don't you present that evidence in a way that plainly clarifies the knowledge gap?

By the way, "rational" means that you can intelligently engage with new ideas when presented.

How so, Spoetnik? I don't think anyone, at least in this thread, is refusing to take these tax laws seriously.
What really puzzles me is this: How is it that this community identifies the fiat monetary system as a Ponzi scheme and yet cannot see the origin of the fraud?
How is it that nobody here knows where the money ACTUALLY comes from?
And why did you not refute any of the facts in that source? It's so Easy to spread FUD when you are misinformed and choose ignorance--deliberately!
So, if the Revenue agents are debt collectors, where is their contract with you? Is it based on consent, or is it based on presumption? Is your status as a "taxpayer" even based on any valid law or express contract, or is it all a presumption and implied contract?
Do look at the facts surrounding the IRS because the situation in Canada is almost no different.
Also, take a look at this eye-opening video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaFiX7fV7fs

The conclusions of the Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism) are dogmas; they have not actually fulfilled their burden of evidence, as I have mentioned to Spoetnik.
Darwin’s gradual evolution was and is a myth that became a religion. It was actually proven that this is a myth by Dawson in 1873 and his conclusions remain valid today. Scientists know these limitations of evolutionary theory are true and will be enduring, but shamefully few have the nerve to address them openly.
Read more: http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_interventiontheory.htm

You could just convert your fiat right back to bitcoin at Uphold. You would probably need a verified account. As far as trust goes, you can read about their blockchain and ledger technology; I personally have no problem in trusting a bank that is operating with a full reserve.

By the way, 796 has much better volume and features nowadays. There is still the risk of socialized profits, but it is much smaller with their insurance fund.

Everyone must form their own opinion.
Here are some facts that you can learn about at your leisure:
http://stopthepirates.blogspot.com/2015/09/cold-hard-facts-about-irs.html
Quoting:
"The IRS agents have no legal authority to demand anything from you, if there are no 3rd party informational documents sent to them with your name on it."