RealBitcoin
|
|
August 18, 2015, 10:01:37 PM |
|
Thank you. So much for RealBitcon's IQ delusionary bullshit. That article looks more like leftist propaganda, just do a basic google search about IQ correlation and business , I mean it's obvious, but looks like it's only me who understands basic logic, reason, and scientific method. So just go live in your land of fairytales, propaganda and euphemisms, i`m out of this thread, looks like i cannot reason with people here, i`ll just stick to other topics, this one is too sensitive for readers as it seems.
|
|
|
|
1aguar
|
|
August 18, 2015, 10:41:38 PM |
|
This is all to say that you cannot cancel out a debt with another debt; you cannot make payment on a debt with a promise to pay (bank note); that is not a payment and discharge of the debt. Demand lawful money and full discharge, and start utilizing the alternative currency that is in place. See my earlier posts here.
(Colorization mine.) There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.
If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.
(Red colorization mine.) “Tax revenue” is a form of collateral for the loans provided to governments by central banks. (Blue colorization added.) In the US, the people are the gold that backs the currency, and the currency is the signature. By using an endorsement before the signature and on the face of the bill, you can qualify the instrument being negotiated. For example, discharging bills (which are really credit vouchers in disguise) and receiving your pay in tax-free notes. In the US, it is only a presumption that the people are debtors; they are really the creditors but too few are asserting their rights!
|
|
|
|
mrhelpful
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 18, 2015, 10:51:36 PM |
|
This is all to say that you cannot cancel out a debt with another debt; you cannot make payment on a debt with a promise to pay (bank note); that is not a payment and discharge of the debt. Demand lawful money and full discharge, and start utilizing the alternative currency that is in place. See my earlier posts here.
(Colorization mine.) There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.
If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.
(Red colorization mine.) “Tax revenue” is a form of collateral for the loans provided to governments by central banks. (Blue colorization added.) In the US, the people are the gold that backs the currency, and the currency is the signature. By using an endorsement before the signature and on the face of the bill, you can qualify the instrument being negotiated. For example, discharging bills (which are really credit vouchers in disguise) and receiving your pay in tax-free notes. In the US, it is only a presumption that the people are debtors; they are really the creditors but too few are asserting their rights! Just remember the central bank aka federal reserve is a private bank. Its a bank that has share holders for only with banks, and that itself is crazy. So when we pay our taxes we are only paying back the banks in a different form which then goes to the actual private banks.
|
|
|
|
username18333
|
|
August 18, 2015, 10:56:34 PM Last edit: August 18, 2015, 11:15:49 PM by username18333 |
|
[...]
Just remember the central bank aka federal reserve is a private bank.
Its a bank that has share holders for only with banks, and that itself is crazy. So when we pay our taxes we are only paying back the banks in a different form which then goes to the actual private banks.
(Colorization mine.) The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.
As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."
The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
(Colorization mine.)
|
|
|
|
username18333
|
|
August 18, 2015, 10:59:29 PM Last edit: August 18, 2015, 11:11:47 PM by username18333 |
|
(Note: the post cited below is reproduced with the egregious misquote, original thereto, corrected.) This is all to say that you cannot cancel out a debt with another debt; you cannot make payment on a debt with a promise to pay (bank note); that is not a payment and discharge of the debt. Demand lawful money and full discharge, and start utilizing the alternative currency that is in place. See my earlier posts here.
(Colorization mine.) The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.
Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.
You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.
These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.
The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.
If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.
(Red colorization mine.) “Tax revenue” is a form of collateral for the loans provided to governments by central banks. (Blue colorization added.) In the US, the people are the gold that backs the currency, and the currency is the signature. By using an endorsement before the signature and on the face of the bill, you can qualify the instrument being negotiated. For example, discharging bills (which are really credit vouchers in disguise) and receiving your pay in tax-free notes. In the US, it is only a presumption that the people are debtors; they are really the creditors but too few are asserting their rights!
|
|
|
|
1aguar
|
|
August 19, 2015, 02:12:55 AM |
|
(Note: the post cited below is reproduced with the egregious misquote, original thereto, corrected.) This is all to say that you cannot cancel out a debt with another debt; you cannot make payment on a debt with a promise to pay (bank note); that is not a payment and discharge of the debt. Demand lawful money and full discharge, and start utilizing the alternative currency that is in place. See my earlier posts here.
(Colorization mine.) The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.
Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.
You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.
These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.
The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.
If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.
(Red colorization mine.) “Tax revenue” is a form of collateral for the loans provided to governments by central banks. (Blue colorization added.) In the US, the people are the gold that backs the currency, and the currency is the signature. By using an endorsement before the signature and on the face of the bill, you can qualify the instrument being negotiated. For example, discharging bills (which are really credit vouchers in disguise) and receiving your pay in tax-free notes. In the US, it is only a presumption that the people are debtors; they are really the creditors but too few are asserting their rights! I assert that there is a remedy, that you can use the lawful currency that already "circulates" debt-free and tax-free, and in this way reduce the national debt. What are you asserting?
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
August 19, 2015, 01:36:10 PM |
|
Just remember the central bank aka federal reserve is a private bank.
Its a bank that has share holders for only with banks, and that itself is crazy. So when we pay our taxes we are only paying back the banks in a different form which then goes to the actual private banks.
Yes it is a private bank, many other countries have private central banks. So what? Stupid monkeys on the street get upset that their central bank is private? Is that the real issue here? Some butthurt nationalists complaining? Let me tell you the real problem. The real problem is that there exist a central bank in the first place. It doesnt matter if its public or private, the mere fact that there is an entity that controls the money supply and financial system is outrageous, because it gives it unlimited power over the citizens. Power corrupts, and unlimited power corrupts in unlimited ways!So the mere concept of central bank, centralization, central planninng, is a communist doctrine, and doesn't fit a civilized capitalist society.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
August 19, 2015, 05:23:52 PM Last edit: August 19, 2015, 11:48:39 PM by CoinCube |
|
My whole point is that the wealthy decide the future of humanity weather you like it or not, and they, do not like low IQ people. … So either nature will eliminate low IQ or the elite will.
What that means is that you and no one else can top-down decide which individuals in which situations will be worthwhile. It won't depend on just one metric such as IQ. Life is much more complex, chaotic, and higher entropy than just IQ.
Edit: even if were true that low IQ individuals are worthless to society, then they will be culled by nature and evolution will raise the IQ levels rapidly with natural selection. Nature is not as helpless as you seem to imply with your top-down proscriptions.
One-standard-deviation increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points) decreases women’s odds of parenthood by 21–25%... dysgenic fertility among women is predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population An interesting back an forth. This is a deep and complex issues that is complicated by the horrible history of eugenics. TPTB is correct in that no individual, government, or IQ test can top-down decide which individuals in which situations will be worthwhile. This was the primary failure of Nazi Germany. They top-down defined what was superior "tall, blond, blue eyed and Aryan" and top-down decided that everyone else was inferior slated either for servitude or liquidation. The Nazi's subsequently liquidated millions of very high IQ Ashkenazi Jews, millions more high IQ "inferior Slavs" and their actions in the end lead to millions of German deaths. It is interesting but not surprising that everyone advocating for "elimination of the undesirables" places their group in the role of the superior cast. Today we have vast social welfare systems that discourage productive work and encourages government dependence. A single mom in the US is better of earning a gross income of $29,000 then to earn a gross income of $69,000 due to the government benefits provided to low income mothers. Our system discourages work and encourages government dependence. There are undoubtedly some individuals living off of government who are entirely incapable of a productive contribution to society. There is likely a much larger portion that is capable of some contribution to society who are currently following the logical path of government dependence as this is easier, less risky, and involves less work. The argument that socialism is eliminates natural selection on the population is flawed as it assumes that our current models of welfare will continue as they are today. This will not happen. Social Security and welfare in the US date back to 1935. Medicare and Medicaid are far more recent and date back to 1965. These are historical blips. These programs are unsustainable and thus will end or more likely be significantly changed long before they result in a significant effect on population genetics. As government finances deteriorate they will continue to pay these obligations but will do so with increasingly devalued currency reducing the overall subsidy over time. In regards to dysgenic fertility in high IQ women I believe this will also prove to be a transient phenomena. Right now we are living through perhaps the most profound shift in natural selective pressure since the development of agriculture 8000+ years ago. In 1960 the birth control pill was approved by the FDA. Since that time women who wish to control their fertility do so and women who do not desire children do not have children. This is unprecedented in human history and represents a profound shift in selective pressure from males to females. We have decoupled sex from reproduction and in doing so have displaced male success at sexual relations as the primary driver of human evolution. Today the primary driver of human reproduction is the desire of women to have children. A substantial portion of the female population is not adapted to the new environment and are in the process of selecting themselves partially or completely out of the gene pool. After a few generations this will leave us with a population that prioritize children and I believe that the trend towards dysgenic fertility will dissipate.
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
August 19, 2015, 05:35:22 PM |
|
An interesting back an forth. This is a deep and complex issues that is complicated by the horrible history of eugenics.
They do not have the moral authority to do eugenics, but they will still do it, if they have the power to do so. Socialism indeed messes up the gene pool, and low IQ people are subsidized to reproduce in masses, while high IQ people have 1 or max 2 children, some of them don't even get children. It's also noted that nerds, are underisable for women, yet they have the highest IQ, so it's obvious why humanity is so stupid, because nerdness is not sexually attractive. So they wont reproduce.' While big macho grunts with no brains are attractive to women, and they will have 5-10 children, so the gene pool gets downgraded. === Of course it's horrible to cleanse the population because it violates basic human rights, yet the current model is also unsustaineable. So what will happen in the future?
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
August 19, 2015, 05:54:01 PM |
|
It's also noted that nerds, are underisable for women, yet they have the highest IQ, so it's obvious why humanity is so stupid, because nerdness is not sexually attractive. So they wont reproduce.'
While big macho grunts with no brains are attractive to women, and they will have 5-10 children, so the gene pool gets downgraded.
This is incorrect. The selective pressures going forward will increasingly favor nerds over "grunts" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375720/What-women-really-want--money-Research-finds-women-look-paid-job-partner.htmlWomen may say they are looking for tights abs or a sense of humor in their man, but he had better have a health bank balance to go with it.
According to new research published yesterday in Germany, more women are using money as overriding criteria for choosing their partners. http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/do-women-really-value-income-over-looks-in-a-mateFor women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000.
|
|
|
|
username18333
|
|
August 19, 2015, 07:32:32 PM |
|
Today the primary driver of human reproduction is the desire of women to have children. A substantial portion of the female population is not adapted to the new environment and are in the process of selecting themselves partially or completely out of the gene pool. After a few generations this will leave us with a population that prioritize children and I believe that the trend towards dysgenic fertility will also dissipate.
If a woman is to grow her career (as one might expect a more intelligent woman would), she will have to decide between the substantial amounts of time she could dedicate thereto and the substantial amounts of time she could dedicate to child rearing (if she, not someone else, is to also raise her biological children).
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
August 19, 2015, 07:37:49 PM |
|
It's also noted that nerds, are underisable for women, yet they have the highest IQ, so it's obvious why humanity is so stupid, because nerdness is not sexually attractive. So they wont reproduce.'
While big macho grunts with no brains are attractive to women, and they will have 5-10 children, so the gene pool gets downgraded.
This is incorrect. The selective pressures going forward will increasingly favor nerds over "grunts" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375720/What-women-really-want--money-Research-finds-women-look-paid-job-partner.htmlWomen may say they are looking for tights abs or a sense of humor in their man, but he had better have a health bank balance to go with it.
According to new research published yesterday in Germany, more women are using money as overriding criteria for choosing their partners. http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/do-women-really-value-income-over-looks-in-a-mateFor women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000. Well there are 2 things women want and need: attractive man & resources. Now socialism provides resources for women so they are not necessarly inclined to rich people, so they only look for hot men. It's for note that socialism favors alpha-males, because alpha-males can conquer women without money (because they can just live on welfare) and only with their muscles and attractiveness. Beta males have lesser luck with women and mostly only get MILFS , then they have to have bigger income to pay your MILF girlfriend and her kid. But we know that this socialism wont last for long, or it should not last long. So if the economy gets free without welfare, then "macho" boys will need to get to work, and earn money if they want to get pussy. While beta males, are usually intelligent and they will earn tons of money and then get even more pussy then alpha males. There is rivalry between males too, so it's not a uniform world in any case.
|
|
|
|
username18333
|
|
August 19, 2015, 07:50:10 PM |
|
Well there are 2 things women want and need: attractive man & resources.
Your bald assertion carries an authority that is inferior to that of the article CoinCube cited.
Now socialism provides resources for women so they are not necessarly inclined to rich people, so they only look for hot men.
Unlike within the natural environment, it is practical for a woman to acquire without male provision.
|
|
|
|
username18333
|
|
August 19, 2015, 07:54:36 PM |
|
What are you asserting?
The post contends that "that is . . . a payment and discharge of the debt" ( 1aguar).
|
|
|
|
1aguar
|
|
August 20, 2015, 03:30:55 AM |
|
What are you asserting?
The post contends that "that is . . . a payment and discharge of the debt" ( 1aguar). You have misquoted me. I asserted that a note (debt) is NOT a payment and discharge of the debt. Payment and discharge (of debt) cannot be accomplished by a note (a debt). A POSITIVE CANNOT CANCEL OUT ANOTHER POSITIVE. Only by realizing your creditor status can you discharge a debt. I have knowledge and resources standing by for those inquiring on how to more-fully effectuate the remedies on the iuvdeposit website.
|
|
|
|
username18333
|
|
August 20, 2015, 03:38:47 AM |
|
What are you asserting?
The post contends that "that is . . . a payment and discharge of the debt" ( 1aguar). You have misquoted me. I asserted that a note (debt) is NOT a payment and discharge of the debt. Payment and discharge (of debt) cannot be accomplished by a note (a debt). A POSITIVE CANNOT CANCEL OUT ANOTHER POSITIVE. Only by realizing your creditor status can you discharge a debt. I have knowledge and resources standing by for those inquiring on how to more-fully effectuate the remedies on the iuvdeposit website. 1. An ellipsis was used to indicate the omission of "not," and the citation includes a hyperlink to the source material. 2. See the blue text of this post.
|
|
|
|
1aguar
|
|
August 20, 2015, 03:44:42 AM |
|
What are you asserting?
It is far from obvious to me...
I wanted to inform the readers of this thread about remedy...
I doubt that you were aware that a debt can be discharged by an individual who has the knowledge.
I would prefer if your replies to my posts would reference what I am saying directly and show how it applies (or not) to what you say. Otherwise, there is no way for me to see what you are asserting.
Again, I am proposing a remedy/solution to this issue, i.e. lawful money; what exactly are you asserting... and how does it relate to what I said?
|
|
|
|
username18333
|
|
August 20, 2015, 03:55:59 AM |
|
What are you asserting?
It is far from obvious to me...
I wanted to inform the readers of this thread about remedy...
I doubt that you were aware that a debt can be discharged by an individual who has the knowledge.
I would prefer if your replies to my posts would reference what I am saying directly and show how it applies (or not) to what you say. Otherwise, there is no way for me to see what you are asserting.
Again, I am proposing a remedy/solution to this issue, i.e. lawful money; what exactly are you asserting... and how does it relate to what I said?
(Though it makes the quick review of these posts tedious, the entirety of your post has been cited.) 1. A government can pay its loan(s) with (an)other loan(s) (essentially, postponing the settlement thereof ad infinitum). 2. Since government enforces law, the enforcement of law necessarily entails an appeal to government. Since your proposal seems to lack such an appeal, there is no (at least, standard) reason to anticipate the compliance of government with the enforcement of the special "lawful[ness]" (1aguar) of your "lawful money" (1aguar).
|
|
|
|
1aguar
|
|
August 20, 2015, 04:58:40 AM |
|
What are you asserting?
It is far from obvious to me...
I wanted to inform the readers of this thread about remedy...
I doubt that you were aware that a debt can be discharged by an individual who has the knowledge.
I would prefer if your replies to my posts would reference what I am saying directly and show how it applies (or not) to what you say. Otherwise, there is no way for me to see what you are asserting.
Again, I am proposing a remedy/solution to this issue, i.e. lawful money; what exactly are you asserting... and how does it relate to what I said?
(Though it makes the quick review of these posts tedious, the entirety of your post has been cited.) 1. A government can pay its loan(s) with (an)other loan(s) (essentially, postponing the settlement thereof ad infinitum). 2. Since government enforces law, the enforcement of law necessarily entails an appeal to government. Since your proposal seems to lack such an appeal, there is no (at least, standard) reason to anticipate the compliance of government with the enforcement of the special "lawful[ness]" (1aguar) of your "lawful money" (1aguar). 1. Most of the debt is owed to the people (e.g. entitlements), so the people can discharge the debt and then there is no need to postpone the settlement. 2. My proposal does not lack such an appeal, it is just that you have not looked into the lawful money which is referenced in 12 USC 411 and supported in other citations of US Federal law (as described in links already posted). Kindly read the links and study this subject in detail, for therein is contained the remedy for this whole situation. I will link you to my first post in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg12109249#msg12109249
|
|
|
|
username18333
|
|
August 20, 2015, 05:04:45 AM |
|
1. Most of the debt is owed to the people (e.g. entitlements), so the people can discharge the debt and then there is no need to postpone the settlement. 2. My proposal does not lack such an appeal, it is just that you have not looked into the lawful money which is referenced in 12 USC 411 and supported in other citations of US Federal law (as described in links already posted). Kindly read the links and study this subject in detail, for therein is contained the remedy for this whole situation. I will link you to my first post in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg12109249#msg121092491. In which case, they would not receive the capital they otherwise would. 2. A law code does not enforce itself. (E.g., the steele whereupon the Code of Hammurabi was inscribed did not, itself, physically beat the violators of that law code.)
|
|
|
|
|