Woah. That's an insane allegation to attempt to make, and I doubt that's the case. Trump picked him because he was on fox news all the time defending the Trump admin, shitting on Obama and Clinton, and so on. He was someone who was big on America first, and Trump thought that'd he would be loyal to the admin and would provide expertise ( as he is a smart guy) |
|
|
|
Video games are designed to make you hooked and extract as much as they can from you. You are slaves on the world they created, wasting your consciousness away on a virtual world. And the grinding games are the absolute worst, its just the same gameplay over and over.
Well, if you get hooked to this kind of games it clearly is you who has the problem  Video games are designed to earn money with them, that's for sure. +1 to this. Videogames are built to be addicting, yes. But everything is meant to be addicting in this day and age. If you are to watch CNBC the tickets and colors and all that is meant to draw you into watching them because humans like being stimulated like that. Facebook and other social media companies? They're addicting too. Most things in the world are addicting, the people that are addicted have an addictive gene. |
|
|
|
If all the protesters started wearing MAGA hats and carrying TRUMP 2020 signs, China would have to decide: Back off Hong Kong || Start WW3.
Eh, even if this was the case I think this would just fuel further into that narrative that this was a creation of the US and that China is right about that. Unless the people in Hong Kong are able to get a plea to President Trump, and he thinks that it's a good idea, he could try to help them as apart of the trade war. Though I doubt that's something he would do, as it wouldn't truly help the American people. Trump wants a deal with China. Plain and simple. |
|
|
|
Probably Xi Jinping for me. Second place would be Putin. The reason being they are both in control of very powerful countries, and they are both intelligent and know what they are doing. This is why I'd put Trump further down the list. He's only in charge because Putin wanted him there.
Putin I would put ahead of Xi Jinping, were it not for the fact that China is more powerful than Russia.
This literally isn't true in the least. This is something that liberals like to say, but it's not something which is true in the least. It was shown in multiple reports that Putins goal was to sow division in the US, not to put a certain candidate into the office. |
|
|
|
|
I mean it really depends on how you define strong. Personally strong, in the sense that they'd be able to hold their own in a fight without any sort of backup -- that's one way of going about this.
Honestly that's a hard one to look out, as you're going to have issues finding REAL stories about these leaders as most of them are just going to have people stand up for them and say their strong, doctors are going to say they're the best, and so on and so forth.
Kinda stupid metric when we have militaries, and economic control, and so on and so forth.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is something that most knew already, but what's the alternative of using bitpay? Going ahead and using a direct pay to bitcoin and having to live with the volatility present? That's not something that any company, any charity, or anyone that is accepting monetary payment is going to want to accept.
Bitpay may have its flaws yes, but I don't see any alternatives that are willing to bear the risk that bitpay does. Or anyone that is developing an alternative that works.
|
|
|
|
...
Can't wait to see who replaces Bolton though, this will show the way that Trump is planning to go on foreign policy for his releection.
Based on Trump's performance so far I'm expecting him to find someone even worse than Bolton. It's hard to think of any worse un-American traitor off-hand. Maybe Joe Lieberman? Rabbi Dov Zakhiem perhaps? Probably it'll be Jarred Kushner. Need a hard-core Zionist for the upcoming war with Iran. Someone who will nuke the non-chosen en-mass and who has the guts to sacrifice a bunch of the 'chosen' as well. 'Burnt Offerings' dontcha know? It'll be worth it to usher in the Messianic Age. Honestly at this point it's pretty tough to find someone worse then Bolton, as he's a hawk. He's going to pick someone who has little to no ideology (or if one, maybe someone that wants to end foreign wars) and they're just going to be at Trumps pleasure. So yeah, don't expect this pick to be too crazy. |
|
|
|
He claims he resigned. You believe Trump??
He claims he resigned, Trump says he fired him. I don't think it really matters, though I do think that Trump fired him. I guess it could also be an issue of Trump asking for a resignation could be interpreted as resignation by Bolton if he was to just say yes and agree to resign. This is just more drama in an administration which is filled with it. Can't wait to see who replaces Bolton though, this will show the way that Trump is planning to go on foreign policy for his releection. |
|
|
|
|
So we're all just going to sit here and take this site at face value for what they're saying. They literally have a domain called 'foreignpolicyblogs'. This is run by an Israli women and at the first chance to say what she covers as a reporter, she says that she covers radical islam.
Now I'm not the type of person to say that radical islam doesn't exist, as it does. But if you're trying to show that you're impartial, and not just making up this story on the go on some bullshit fake news website, you'd at least NOT say that.
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking news which came out a couple of hours ago.
John Bolton, Trumps National Security Advisor, has been fired by Trump. Bolton is known for being a hawk and supporting regime change in Iran, North Korea, etc. Bolton had feuded with many in the administration on many occassions, including President Trump, Sec of State Mike Pompeo, and so on and so forth.
Would love to hear what people think about this firing, as this really did come out of left field.
|
|
|
|
Isn't there this issue with current anti-trust law in the fact that to prove that there is a monopoly, you'd have to show that consumers are being hurt by it in some way.
Take Amazon for example, yes they own tons and tons of companies and they continue to buy more and more.Though they've kept prices down, and they're not raising prices once they've taken over market share.
This is the same situation for Google, Facebook, etc.
Yes, this is one of the primary metrics. In the case of Amazon, that is an entirely different animal because the business models are so vastly different. I am sure plenty of arguments could be made for them too. As far as observable damages to consumers, the action would not have been brought unless they had documentation of this. From my own observations though I would suggest election meddling, reduction of options in competition of a plethora of services, tortious interference, and working against US national security interests in coordination with a foreign state would be at the top of the list. Then again, isn't this something that any company could do and any individual can do? Any company could devote billions of dollars towards a candidate if they wanted to, there's nothing illegal with that. Obviously they'd have to donate towards the candidates aligned super pacs instead of anything else. Working against US security interests isn't going to be allowed though. Though I suppose the US would have to show that they're working against the US on purpose in order to hurt the US. |
|
|
|
I love seeing how violent the non-violent left is. Prime example quoted above.
...
Don't use this as an example. The guy is obviously trolling hard so you'll just embarrass yourself, and more generally those under the banner of sanity, by pointing to such a thing. There probably is a real danger of some violent clashes in the near future, and it probably is true that the political left tends to be more violent. It just tends to go that way in organized destabilization efforts, and it makes sense because one pole is easier to 'radicalize' as well as being more physically fit and more mentally immature by virtue of the age difference. Pointing to misbehaving 'true believers' as examples of the dangers is worthwhile. Pointing to jackoffs who are probably right-wingers or actors wearing drag will ultimately work against us. Without a doubt true. Once we point to the people in each party, or each side as an ideology, as being the entire party (or ideology) then we've succumbed to the hyperpartianship that we live in today. Not everyone who supports Trump is a Nazi, and not everyone who supports Democrats (Sanders, Warren, etc) is a Communist. |
|
|
|
The government is being cautious not to repeat what happened in Silk Road when transactions were unable to be tracked, causing illegal purchases and money laundering. On the contrary, bitcoin impacts the economic positively. Decentralization may be the next generation of transactions via the blockchain wherein it eliminates the need for banks in storing our resources. The government encourage centralization. Bitcoin helps you to have full control of your asset, many people might be afraid to invest in it, it is really gaining stability over the years. Over the last 2 months, it has not gone below $9000. The sooner the government encourages its people to use it, the sooner people can own their own money.
The price is something that many people care about, but it's not something that truly should be worried about. I'd much rather a stable $9000, then Bitcoin running up and down all the time -- because there's no way a currency is going to be able to be used on the world scale if it goes up from 3500 to 20000 then back down to 9000 and then keeps running around. In the end, people want some sort of stability. Governments are able to control the narrative about Bitcoin because of the fact that yes, bitcoin is used on illegal online sales (if we want to admit it or not) and yes, bitcoin fees are present and people hate fees, and yes confirmation times are slow sometimes, and so on and so forth. We need to fix these problems before we start saying that we're going to take over fiat easily. If the price were to be stable, then people would disregard bitcoin as an investment alternative. Its high-volatility is what makes it attractive to investors as the returns are significantly larger compared to other investment mechanisms present. But I doubt that bitcoin would replace the fiat system considering the limitations it pose to certain users. I understand the only reason you're here is to spam for your signature campaign. But -- you do understand that the point of bitcoin is to be used a currency, not as a speculative asset. Satoshi wanted to create a P2P electronic online currency, with no single entity in centralized control of it at all. That's what the point was, and that's what we should be striving for. Nothing relating to price is ever going to effect adoption. |
|
|
|
The government encourage centralization. Bitcoin helps you to have full control of your asset, many people might be afraid to invest in it, it is really gaining stability over the years. Over the last 2 months, it has not gone below $9000. The sooner the government encourages its people to use it, the sooner people can own their own money.
The price is something that many people care about, but it's not something that truly should be worried about. I'd much rather a stable $9000, then Bitcoin running up and down all the time -- because there's no way a currency is going to be able to be used on the world scale if it goes up from 3500 to 20000 then back down to 9000 and then keeps running around. In the end, people want some sort of stability. Governments are able to control the narrative about Bitcoin because of the fact that yes, bitcoin is used on illegal online sales (if we want to admit it or not) and yes, bitcoin fees are present and people hate fees, and yes confirmation times are slow sometimes, and so on and so forth. We need to fix these problems before we start saying that we're going to take over fiat easily. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't there this issue with current anti-trust law in the fact that to prove that there is a monopoly, you'd have to show that consumers are being hurt by it in some way.
Take Amazon for example, yes they own tons and tons of companies and they continue to buy more and more.Though they've kept prices down, and they're not raising prices once they've taken over market share.
This is the same situation for Google, Facebook, etc.
|
|
|
|
I have read studies relating to child neural development and technology in the past. Apparently children from 0-3 especially, but up to 5 years of age have a much higher level of what is called neuroplasticity. This is basically a phase of human brain development where the basic structures of the neurons are forming and becoming solidified in these states. As a result of this, depending on how the neurons are conditioned, it will result in more permanent lasting effects through the child's lifetime. This is an important fact to know for parents because when you give a child under 5 an electronic device or even sit them in from of a tv/monitor, you are wiring their brains in a way that can cause difficulties for them later.
The simplest example I can give is how media has all these quick cuts and fast moving scenes. Humans have evolved a hardwired response to pull the eye to any fast movement reflexively as a survival mechanism. When humans were not at the top of the food chain, this could be the difference between seeing that tiger hiding in the grass before he attacks or being his dinner. Essentially what is happening is all of these quick cuts are triggering this response in children, signaling to the brain that they are in an environment full of predators. As a result the brain becomes hyper active to compensate for this perceived risk to life, and this is where many attention, behavioral, and hyper activity issues stem from. Then parents often end up drugging their children to cope with this and making it worse. In my opinion, based on the scientific data I have read, no children under 5 should be using any electronic device with a monitor, including televisions.
I have recently attended an educational conference and this was cited as well. Some have noted that the input/output stimuli-response mechanisms used in interactive "educational" games, sometimes have disruptive effects on the brain of a child. I forgot the exact study as this is ongoing research. Anecdotally however, I have seen toddlers who grew up with gadgets show behavior that makes them act in a way that is congruent with reality. It's as if they are expecting immediate gratification simply by pushing a button. If they do not get the desired results, they show symptoms of this impatient behavior through temper tantrums and such. While, yes, eletronic media can be supplemental and helpful in education, advocating for their active usage in classrooms should be constrained to higher level children who have learned the basics of using pen and paper. Yes, this is without a doubt an issue. There's a whole generation of parents who have substituted parenting for an ipad or a computer or phone or whatever. This has produced an entire generation that is glued to their phone all the time. Not something that's good when you're looking at the instant gratification all of these children got -- which leads to the temper tantrums and such. Though, the good thing about kids using tech all the time is that they're familiar with an ever-changing world and they're able to adapt to the tech of the future. |
|
|
|
To say that Silk Road was only successful because of Bitcoin is pretty ridiculous, considering that there were several anonymous payment methods around at the same time, or has everybody forgotten about Liberty Reserve?
Only non-democratic governments are afraid of Bitcoin. Although fiat currencies are a necessary instrument as it stands, they are also a way to control the population, while providing an easy way to track the progress of the economy and the activities of particular people. This surveillance type behavior is most common in less developed countries that really try to enforce an iron-grip on the citizens.
However, developed countries know that Bitcoin, and its underlying tech is the future of the global economy, hence why no major country has ever even hinted towards banning it.
I mean. There's no other currency which would have allowed silk road to function properly. Liberty reserve was shut down by the US government, which showed a flaw of being centralized. Bitcoin was the only way that these online areas could flourish, as it can't be shutdown by the US gov. |
|
|
|
What in gods fuck is this.
Holy shit why isn't the media reporting on this happening. Or at least, why isn't this front page news like it should be? I haven't seen any of this and this is a horrible thing to see in the world.
Not liking immigrants, while despicable, is one thing. But burning them alive and physically assaulting them (and even killing them) in the streets is another thing. This is a whole other level of how horrible humans can be to one another.
This is a great demonstration of why you should include a wider range of sources for your topical information. There is no such thing as bad information, only useless interpretations of it. The key is recognizing the source and its motives. This isn't me saying that I don't go into other news sources, this is me stating that I think it's horrible that the MSM companies avoid these sorts of news stories. Also - most of the news sources that you post (or people on this forum at least) are from shitty blog sites, zerohedge, etc. |
|
|
|
|
What in gods fuck is this.
Holy shit why isn't the media reporting on this happening. Or at least, why isn't this front page news like it should be? I haven't seen any of this and this is a horrible thing to see in the world.
Not liking immigrants, while despicable, is one thing. But burning them alive and physically assaulting them (and even killing them) in the streets is another thing. This is a whole other level of how horrible humans can be to one another.
|
|
|
|
Top comment from your reddit thread: "Lol. I live in Belgium and I haven't heard shit about this. Whoever these guys are, they're completely irrelevant." Seems like you're just trying to stir up trouble by making posts like this. This was more or less what I was pointing to. Someone seeing something in their community, and saying that this is an issue across their entire nation. Or someone that is trying to find a reason to hate a certain group (Muslims) and then take advantage of certain stories for that. Hate to see it. Come on folks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
