Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[AnonyMint]

If you want to say that by not supporting people who brandish weapons in support of Bundy's illegal theft from the public is somehow not supporting the 2nd, go ahead.  It's a stupid argument.

The Federal government is stealing from all of us everyday. It is a huge corruption that lines the pockets of the elite at the expense of all of us.

Bundy has said he is willing to pay the grazing fees to the local county.

In short, this is a proxy for our collective angst against the growth of the government from 12% in 1930 to over 75% of GDP (once compliance with all regulations is factored in).

You have proposed no solution to this. You propose we lay down like chattel.

I am confident that I would indeed give up my constitutional 2nd amendment rights in some circumstances.  The most likely of these would be that if the 2nd is being abused by lunatics like the militia clowns and is causing unacceptable troubles for the nation at large.

The unacceptable trouble is an elephant that is exacerbated by traitors like you who help sustain the elephant in the room and then deny it exists.

I guess I don't have some psychological need to stroke my ego by being some sort of internet tough-guy or armchair warrior.  To each his own though.

You stroke your ego by ignoring Jesus's wisdom in Matthew 7.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Ask, Seek, Knock

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

I support the government's specific efforts in areas where I think they are doing the right thing, and I believe that most of the things they do are perfectly fine.

Thanks for confirming you support the insane growth of the elephant in the room. You've just admitted you love massive corruption.

 'Terrorizing' the population is not one of these, and I speak against it all the time.  This to call attention to it which is a the most logical first step in making the problem get better.

Speaking out of both sides of your mouth, doing nothing, proposing nothing viable, and all the while saying you support most of the massive corruption. The government doesn't get to 75% of GDP without massive corruption.

Don't worry, you will soon die from this, as all good Communists do. My popcorn is ready. I'll be watching it on CNN.

Fact is that ranchers who use public lands for private gain don't even come close to paying the costs of management and thus are highly subsidized.  I don't even mind that that much since I think that maintaining a not insignificant portion of the vast public land holding for ranching and grazing is an appropriate use.

I am perfectly happy if the Federal government stops maintaining anything and lets the land return to wild unkept form. Then let ranchers pay their own way. This will be ultimate outcome any way, because uneconomic activities eventually cease. Given our Federal government's power to steal from us massively and a Central Bank to help them, this ongoing default takes a while and it will be horrific when this shit finally hits the fan.

I'm fine with people doing more or less whatever they like on their own land.  Nobody has convinced me yet that anyone in the U.S. should have some sort of dynastic entitlement to almost anything, and certainly not the likes of Cliven Bundy.

Who should work that land then? The whole point is we want that land returned back to the local governments and then the local people decide what to do with their land. They can auction it off or whatever. Many competing locales, means the best practices eventually get copied and adopted. The others fail and default.

Since I am part owner of public lands, I've got an entitlement to it.  But since I am part owner, I don't get to use a disproportionate amount of it for private gain.  Nor does Bundy who has no more entitlement to it than I.

Bundy has paid his dues. He has worked that land and made it productive for a long time. This is form of ownership. You should study homesteading law sometime.

None of us have a problem with that land being reclassified such that it has to be auctioned and owned. But Bundy has investments already there, that have to be honored (fences, structures, etc).

I believe are country will be stronger and more unified and just all around better if we do have some amount of social support to act as a safety net and backstop.  From an economies-of-scale perspective it is efficient to implement a lot of things in this way.

Communists are clueless this way. And you still haven't learned how simulated annealing and degrees-of-freedom applies to economics.

Any way, there is no way to teach a Communist. We have to opt-out of their morass and let them kill themselves. All examples in history prove this is the case.

 It should be designed, however, that it is not useful as a permanent fixture but something to be leveraged only in times of need.

Keynes actually proposed this. But government can never limit itself to "times of need".

[1715160470]

1715160470

[bryant.coleman]

http://rt.com/usa/156900-rep-horsford-bundy-ranch

Nevada lawmaker demands immediate action against ‘armed separatists’ at Bundy ranch

The United States congressman who represents most of Clark County, Nevada is calling on the state’s governor to intervene in the situation at Cliven Bundy’s cattle ranch and “get rid of these armed separatists” who have stood guard there for weeks. Although a land dispute between the 67-year-old cattle rancher and US Bureau of Land Management is relatively calm after escalating to the point of becoming an armed-standoff involving militiamen and the federal government in mid-April, at least one lawmaker is still upset about the situation in Bunkerville, NV.

[solarion]

I consider the 2nd to be not some forum post typo, but a clear indication of the author's posture that private citizens should have a means of violent resistance to provide strategic pressures offsetting the power that the Federal government may amass if they abuse it sufficiently.  And I believe that the 2nd remains valid to this day on that basis.

If you want to say that by not supporting people who brandish weapons in support of Bundy's illegal theft from the public is somehow not supporting the 2nd, go ahead.  It's a stupid argument.

My argument here is based on my own interpretation of your previous posts and nothing more. I'm not arguing for the validity of the Second Amendment; I'm insinuating that you're being hypocritical and unfair in your generalizations.

I suggest ignore. tvbcof's positions are so bizarre they don't make a lick of sense to a rational mind. When you point out the inconsistencies of his positions in clear terms a 10yr old could understand, he just ignores you and moves on to the next nonsensical rant. The bulk of his posts are little more than redneck bashing and unjustifiably arrogant judgmental rubbish. If there are any paid disrupters in this thread, he's it. If he's not being paid to post in this thread then he needs to seek counseling.   

[tvbcof]

As I've mentioned, I'm a lefty and don't really mind if society gives people a hand in limited times of need.  Of course many people will take advantage of things (e.g., 'bleeding the beast') so in order to make the best use of limited resources, we do need to check up on people who are on the Government dole.  Else we end up with single women claiming more dependents than they have and folks like Cliven Bundy claiming special rights and needs.

In looking at things, it seems that a trust entity associated with the late David and Bodel (nee Jensen) own the land shown here.

This outlay does seem to include several independent areas which have been variously described as Bundy's place.  It also seems to include some of the land that the milita wackos and other riffraff are allowed to wander about.  Noteworthy is that it also includes the highly impressive manor complex which has been completely missing from any analysis in either the mainstream or the 'guerrilla' media.

If one is going to raise melons, one need have melon fields to do so.  The area describe in the map does seem to include a contiguous series of cultivated lands which is about the only likely land in the immediate area for large scale agricultural production.

The one sticking point is that it closer to 2500 arces.  Not 150 or 160.  Nor is it consistent with the 80 acres describing in shorthand one of the trust holdings property.  It's also a bit inconsistent with the $60k or so appraised value...it's almost like Bundy might have a family member in the appraiser's office or something.

---

Google Earth goes back to 1994 and shows that at that time the manor complex was already well developed (it had it's tennis court installed, for instance.)  This was a the time when Cliven was going bust from his mismanagement of the ranching side of the equation.

It is said that although the ranch was obtained by David Bundy shortly after WWII, he didn't start to dink around with cattle until the 50's.  Then he stopped for a number of year.

I'll hypothesis:

 - David focused no building up the farming end of things, and was pretty proficient at it.  Bundy melons are reputed to be the best in the state, and the estate is a work of art (ya, I am jealous!)

 - Cliven had heard stories of the families ranching days in Bundyville (the ghost-town in AZ) growing up.  Doubtless the stories included the glory days when his family amassed the wealth needed to dominate the area, but the part about where they mis-managed it into the uninhabitable wasteland that it is today were not so widely relayed.  In other words, Cliven always dreamed of ranching and didn't like farming.

 - When David Bundy kicked the bucket and Cliven took over he proceeded to embark on his foolhardy Mexican cattle drive and it nearly broke the whole thing.  Even BLM subsidies were not enough to save him and only by turning into a blatant thief was he able to continue (and indeed apparently thrive.)

---

Lastly I'll point out some amusing and noteworthy hypocritical behavior here:

 - The Bundy clan is all about defending their rights and loves them some 2nd amendment powers to do so.  Funny we never seem to see them armed among the bristling militia clowns (or actors+dupes.)

 - Nobody has every claimed that Bundy doesn't pay his Federal taxes, and I've heard claims that he does.  Granted, his property is valued on par with a double-wide trailer in my area so the taxes probably are not that high, but it's a matter of principle.  Right?  

 - Mormon women, and particularly those under FLDS rule, are distinctly second-class citizens.  In fact they are more akin to personal property and breeding stock of the male head of the family than they are to human peers.  Cliven and his family may or may not be polygamous fundies but there is little doubt that his immediate fore-family were.  Given this it is funny that it is from his maternal side that Cliven is trying to lay claim to a fair chunk of the state of Nevada.  Or at least that's the claim he lays out for public consumption.

 - edits: minor.

[Bit_Happy]

http://rt.com/usa/156900-rep-horsford-bundy-ranch

Nevada lawmaker demands immediate action against ‘armed separatists’ at Bundy ranch

The United States congressman who represents most of Clark County, Nevada is calling on the state’s governor to intervene in the situation at Cliven Bundy’s cattle ranch and “get rid of these armed separatists” who have stood guard there for weeks. Although a land dispute between the 67-year-old cattle rancher and US Bureau of Land Management is relatively calm after escalating to the point of becoming an armed-standoff involving militiamen and the federal government in mid-April, at least one lawmaker is still upset about the situation in Bunkerville, NV.

“get rid of these armed separatists”
Not happy to see that.
Will a 2nd American Civil War start in a place called Bunkerville?

[tvbcof]

I suggest ignore. tvbcof's positions are so bizarre they don't make a lick of sense to a rational mind. When you point out the inconsistencies of his positions in clear terms a 10yr old could understand, he just ignores you and moves on to the next nonsensical rant. The bulk of his posts are little more than redneck bashing and unjustifiably arrogant judgmental rubbish. If there are any paid disrupters in this thread, he's it. If he's not being paid to post in this thread then he needs to seek counseling.  

You nailed it with your arguments being 'in terms a 10yr old could understand'.  We often tell our kids 'because I say so'.  This is because at an earlier stage of intellectual development this is indeed an understandable justification, and not much else is.

But you run into problems when you try to employ a similar strategy with adults (or even intelligent kids for that matter.)  Indeed, when you use that strategy of argument with adults they pretty much must assume that you yourself have not progressed to a very high level of intellectual development.  There is not really much a thinking person can do when we meet someone like this so we often just sort of quietly move on.

[AnonyMint]

I suggest ignore. tvbcof's positions are so bizarre they don't make a lick of sense to a rational mind. When you point out the inconsistencies of his positions in clear terms a 10yr old could understand, he just ignores you and moves on to the next nonsensical rant. ... If there are any paid disrupters in this thread, he's it. If he's not being paid to post in this thread then he needs to seek counseling.  

He is not paid. This is the illogic of a lefty communist. You can't reason with them because their brain stem is not functioning. Their brains are operative and they can make semi-coherent arguments and even appear to be reasonably intelligent and articulate, yet always the logical consistency is absent.

I think it is because their philosophy is lacking an understanding of thermodynamics and the fact that only a free market of competing actors can optimize (anneal) a dynamic system. He doesn't understand that nature's optimization algorithm is simulated annealing. This is why if ice is cooled slowly, then there are less cracks because the local molecules have more time to find optimum structure.

What a lefty doesn't understand is that no entity can top-down manage resources better than the local competing actors (some perform worse and some perform better and thus the system learns). There is no way that the Feds can monitor every dynamic opportunity and problem experienced by 300 million people every day and decide on the appropriate actions in real-time. Thus every edict and requirement from the Feds is stomping on and preventing the free market of local actors from optimizing with the most degrees-of-freedom.

In the Economics Devastation thread, I explained with respected citations that degrees-of-freedom is known to be equivalent to potential energy.

In your car had no reverse gear (one less degree-of-freedom), then you need to drive in a circle (e.g. around the block) in order to go reverse, i.e. much more inefficient. Government makes the free market adaptation and optimization less efficient.

When government grows from 12% in 1930 to over 75% of GDP (once compliance with all regulations is factored in) as it is now, then we reach negative marginal utility of debt, which means adding new debt actually shrinks the real GDP. Debt reduces degrees-of-freedom too, because everyone and his half brother copies each other, because resources are declared to be free.

As I've mentioned, I'm a lefty and don't really mind if society gives people a hand in limited times of need.  Of course many people will take advantage of things (e.g., 'bleeding the beast') so in order to make the best use of limited resources, we do need to check up on people who are on the Government dole.  Else we end up with single women claiming more dependents than they have and folks like Cliven Bundy claiming special rights and needs.

You attack the symptoms and not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is the power vacuum of democracy, i.e. the government grows without bound. The only way to fix that is to deny the ability of the government to tax, so that the citizens have a (individual opt-out) veto against unjust taxation. We must defund the beast. And thus why I am working on such a technological solution.

You have no idea whom you've been debating with. If you knew, you'd feel pretty stupid for stereotyping me the way you did upthread.

[solarion]

Good post AnonyMint. I've had first hand experience observing the mental gymnastics the liberal mind can embrace to justify some pretty awkward or outright contradictory positions. Illogical is an appropriate description imo.

[AnonyMint]

Collective management of resources lead to the death of 7.5 million in Ukraine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Causes

Communist lefties never learn from history.

[tvbcof]

...
In the Economics Devastation thread, I explained with respected citations that degrees-of-freedom is known to be equivalent to potential energy.
...

Ya well, one can glance at your assertion and know that it is wrong.  The units don't even match.  'degrees-of-freedom' is, in fact, unit-less.

Just like I'm not inclined to crack open my Mother Goose to analyze the validity of the assertion that the moon is made of green-cheese, I'm not planning on wasting a lot of time on your more tedious rendition.  I'm simply not interested in metaphysical flights of fancy replete with newly minted Anonymintian fundamental unit systems.  Solarian is kind of a mouth-breather so maybe he'll bite.

When I choose to work, I work as an Engineer.  All of my experiences in that field demonstrate that pretty much everything is a compromise.  It's not easy to weigh the compromises sometimes or predict all of them, but I find it fun and I'm good enough at it to where I've never had to go actively looking for a job (or at least not in the past decade and a half.)  Although I've never worked as a scientist, I've been fascinated by scientific subjects since childhood and read more about them than any other subject.  I can typically parse most scientific literature relatively readily, and the processes that successful scientists employ are very familiar to me.

Everything about you screams 'absolutist' and 'fundamentalist'.  I've never known anyone displaying these features who is an effective Engineer or Scientist.  OTOH, it is a good characterization of most right-wingers and Libertarians I know.

Being the curious type I learned of Bitcoin relatively early on.  Being an analytical type I decided that it was worth taking a position.  The happy fallout is that at this point I can be unemployed and waste time on anything which happens to catch my interest.  The ground will be dry enough tomorrow that I hope to continue my road building project.

The subject under analysis here (the Bundy event) has caught my interest in part because of the three events Newtown, Boston, and Bunkerville (all quite possible fabricated psyops) Bunkerville is hands down the most damaging to the 2nd amendment and our potential to retain it (and, of course, the utility of this right in very unpleasant but increasingly possible scenarios.)

[AnonyMint]

...
In the Economics Devastation thread, I explained with respected citations that degrees-of-freedom is known to be equivalent to potential energy.
...

Ya well, one can glance at your assertion and know that it is wrong.  The units don't even match.  'degrees-of-freedom' is, in fact, unit-less.

Educate yourself:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Entropic%20derivation

The energy E_absorbable that matter can absorb is related to the degrees-of-freedom (entropy) N by the equipartition theorem.

Just like I'm not inclined to crack open my Mother Goose to analyze the validity of the assertion that the moon is made of green-cheese, I'm not planning on wasting a lot of time on your more tedious rendition.  I'm simply not interested in metaphysical flights of fancy replete with newly minted Anonymintian fundamental unit systems.  Solarian is kind of a mouth-breather so maybe he'll bite.

When I choose to work, I work as an Engineer.

The above is widely peer reviewed research from Eric Verlinde, a well respected theoretical physicist.

An engineer is not usually trained in theoretical physics.

All of my experiences in that field demonstrate that pretty much everything is a compromise.  It's not easy to weigh the compromises sometimes or predict all of them,

Engineering and theoretical physics are starkly different disciplines. I am trained in both, so I am able to compare.

Everything about you screams 'absolutist' and 'fundamentalist'.  I've never known anyone displaying these features who is an effective Engineer or Scientist.  OTOH, it is a good characterization of most right-wingers and Libertarians I know.

To a hammer everything appears to be a nail. And to an idiot, a genuis appears to be word-salad.

Being the curious type I learned of Bitcoin relatively early on.  Being an analytical type I decided that it was worth taking a position.  The happy fallout is that at this point I can be unemployed and waste time on anything which happens to catch my interest.  The ground will be dry enough tomorrow that I hope to continue my road building project.

Your smug confirmation bias will likely evaporate 2016ish, as well as your networth and perhaps even your life.

The subject under analysis here (the Bundy event) has caught my interest in part because of the three events Newtown, Boston, and Bunkerville (all quite possible fabricated psyops) Bunkerville is hands down the most damaging to the 2nd amendment and our potential to retain it (and, of course, the utility of this right in very unpleasant but increasingly possible scenarios.)

While you are off inventing conspiracy theories, the rest of us remain grounded in the "no taxation without representation" concept.

[tvbcof]

...
In the Economics Devastation thread, I explained with respected citations that degrees-of-freedom is known to be equivalent to potential energy.
...

Ya well, one can glance at your assertion and know that it is wrong.  The units don't even match.  'degrees-of-freedom' is, in fact, unit-less.

Educate yourself:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Entropic%20derivation

The energy E_absorbable that matter can absorb is related to the degrees-of-freedom (entropy) N by the equipartition theorem.

Educate yourself.  'equivalent' and 'related to' are two completely different things.

[AnonyMint]

...
In the Economics Devastation thread, I explained with respected citations that degrees-of-freedom is known to be equivalent to potential energy.
...

Ya well, one can glance at your assertion and know that it is wrong.  The units don't even match.  'degrees-of-freedom' is, in fact, unit-less.

Educate yourself:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Entropic%20derivation

The energy E_absorbable that matter can absorb is related to the degrees-of-freedom (entropy) N by the equipartition theorem.

Educate yourself.  'equivalent' and 'related to' are two completely different things.

It is an emergent theory of gravity, meaning the entropy (degrees-of-freedom) is the fundamental. Thus 'equivalent' is a superset of 'related to'.

You fucking dolt. How much more of my time are you going to waste!

Fuck!

P.S. if you don't understand the importance and relevance of the term 'emergent' in this context, then watch some of Verlinde's Youtubes and bring yourself up to speed.

There is nothing more annoying than a student who fails to do his homework before asking stupid questions that he could have found the answer to if he wasn't so fucking obstinate and lazy.

You could spend less time fantasizing about pysops conspiracy theories and more time actually reviewing research and science. You wouldn't be making a complete fool of yourself here.

[tvbcof]

It is an emergent theory of gravity, meaning the entropy (degrees-of-freedom) is the fundamental. Thus 'equivalent' is a superset of 'related to'.

You fucking dolt. How much more of my time are you going to waste!

Fuck!

From wikipedia about 'entropic gravity':

Since it does not make new physical predictions, it can not be falsified with existing experimental methods ...

I'll translate that for the layman:

  It's completely useless for anything but trying to either trying impress people like you (laymen) or on rare occasion to have mental circle-jerk with your like-minded friends.

Certainly it is utterly useless for anything remotely related to Bundy, the 2nd, economics, or pretty much anything else under the sun.

[AnonyMint]

It is an emergent theory of gravity, meaning the entropy (degrees-of-freedom) is the fundamental. Thus 'equivalent' is a superset of 'related to'.

You fucking dolt. How much more of my time are you going to waste!

Fuck!

From wikipedia about 'entropic gravity':

Since it does not make new physical predictions, it can not be falsified with existing experimental methods ...

I'll translate that for the layman:

  It's completely useless for anything but trying to either trying impress people like you (laymen) or on rare occasion to have mental circle-jerk with your like-minded friends.

Certainly it is utterly useless for anything remotely related to Bundy, the 2nd, economics, or pretty much anything else under the sun.

Scientists don't cite Wikipedia as a canonical reference and for very good reason, because it is a manipulated resource.

Your lazy arse will need to expend more time learning (as I suggested you do in my prior post) if you hope to understand.

Remember Einstein was ignored (and maligned in some circles) for some time before his theories were recognized to be widely predictive and fundamental.

If you dig, you will learn that this is a fundamental breakthrough with wide ranging implications on unifying quantum mechanics and relativity. As with most new theories, there is some debate and contention. I've refuted one of the primary antagonists (who seems to get along in public about as well as you do).

[tvbcof]

From wikipedia about 'entropic gravity':

Since it does not make new physical predictions, it can not be falsified with existing experimental methods ...

I'll translate that for the layman:

  It's completely useless for anything but trying to either trying impress people like you (laymen) or on rare occasion to have mental circle-jerk with your like-minded friends.

Certainly it is utterly useless for anything remotely related to Bundy, the 2nd, economics, or pretty much anything else under the sun.

Scientists don't cite Wikipedia as a canonical reference and for very good reason, because it is a manipulated resource.

Your lazy arse will need to expend more time learning (as I suggested you do in my prior post) if you hope to understand.

Well then, Mr. geenyus, why don't you use 'entropic gravity' to make some new physical predictions or invalidate Maxwell's equations or something and get your ass a big fat Nobel prize?  Oh.  To busy wasting all your time on some random forum on the internets I guess.

[AnonyMint]

Does anyone besides me see a pattern here, of how "might is always right" and how top-down control always tries to find some way to discredit science.

The world was flat and the sun revolves around the earth! And you say otherwise, you will be executed.

http://www.wired.com/2012/06/famous-persecuted-scientists/

Rhazes (865-925)
Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī or Rhazes was a medical pioneer from Baghdad who lived between 860 and 932 AD. He was responsible for introducing western teachings, rational thought and the works of Hippocrates and Galen to the Arabic world. One of his books, Continens Liber, was a compendium of everything known about medicine. The book made him famous, but offended a Muslim priest who ordered the doctor to be beaten over the head with his own manuscript, which caused him to go blind, preventing him from future practice.

Michael Servetus (1511-1553)
Servetus was a Spanish physician credited with discovering pulmonary circulation. He wrote a book, which outlined his discovery along with his ideas about reforming Christianity — it was deemed to be heretical. He escaped from Spain and the Catholic Inquisition but came up against the Protestant Inquisition in Switzerland, who held him in equal disregard. Under orders from John Calvin, Servetus was arrested, tortured and burned at the stake on the shores of Lake Geneva – copies of his book were accompanied for good measure.

Galileo
 (1564-1642)
The Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei was trialled and convicted in 1633 for publishing his evidence that supported the Copernican theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. His research was instantly criticized by the Catholic Church for going against the established scripture that places Earth and not the Sun at the center of the universe. Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy” for his heliocentric views and was required to “abjure, curse and detest” his opinions. He was sentenced to house arrest, where he remained for the rest of his life and his offending texts were banned.

Henry Oldenburg (1619-1677)
Oldenburg founded the Royal Society in London in 1662. He sought high quality scientific papers to publish. In order to do this he had to correspond with many foreigners across Europe, including the Netherlands and Italy. The sheer volume of his correspondence caught the attention of authorities, who arrested him as a spy. He was held in the Tower of London for several months.

Gerhard Domagk (1895-1964)
Domagk was a German pathologist and bacteriologist who is credited with the discovery of the first commercially-available antibiotic, sulfonamide, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1939. Because a Nazi-critical Carl von Ossietzky had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1935, Domagk was forced by the Nazi regime to refuse the prize. He was arrested by the Gestapo for a week. After the war, in 1947, he was finally able to receive his Nobel Prize, but not the associated cash prize because too much time had elapsed.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/models/the-end-of-time/

Nikolai Dmyitriyevich Kondratieff (1892-1938) was a Russian economist. Following the 1917 Russian Revolution, Kondratieff was an economics professor who was called upon by the new government to create the first Soviet Five-Year-Plan. Kondratieff was thus given the opportunity to draw the economic plan for Russia based upon a blank slate. Kondratieff explored the past to gather empirical data upon which to construct the new economy. What he observed was the cyclical nature of society through its booms and busts, and that knowledge would later cost him his life.

...

Kondratieff effectively reached his conclusion that the economy was driven by cyclical activity and thus this was implicitly against Hegel and Marx insofar as that the new government would not be able to reach some perfect state of synthesis. For this reason, Kondratieff’s work was seen as a criticism of Stalin’s goals. He was arrested in July 1930 and accused of being a member of a non-existent “Peasants’ Labour Party” and he was sent to prison for 8 years. Stalin wanted him dead and expressed that in a letter dated August 1930. When his 8 year sentence was complete, he was put on trial again with new charges during the “Great Purge” and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

However, upon sentencing September 17th, 1938, he was taken outside and then shot to death at the age of 46. Kondratieff died for his research as a political prisoner for his research was something that the government did its best to destroy and to prevent from influencing anyone.

Kondratieff’s work was compelling and contributed greatly to the Austrian School of Economics that first began to develop the concept of a business cycle.

Contrast that with Wikipedia's manipulated spin on the facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Kondratiev

Kondratiev was removed from the directorship of the Institute of Conjuncture in 1928 and arrested in July 1930, accused of being a member of a "Peasants Labour Party" (allegedly a non-existent party invented by the NKVD). Convicted as a "kulak-professor" and sentenced to 8 years in prison, Kondratiev served his sentence, from February 1932 onwards, at Suzdal, near Moscow. Although his health deteriorated under poor conditions, Kondratiev continued his research and decided to prepare five new books, as he mentioned in a letter to his wife. Some of these texts were indeed completed and were published.[citation needed]

His last letter was sent to his daughter, Elena Kondratieva, on 31 August 1938. In September 1938 during Stalin's Great Purge, he was subjected to a second trial, condemned to ten years without the right to correspond with the outside world. However, Kondratiev was executed by firing squad on the same day the sentence was issued. Kondratiev was 46 at the time of his execution.[citation needed]

In the 1970s increased interest in business cycles led to the rediscovery of Kondratiev's work

[tvbcof]

Does anyone besides me see a pattern here, of how "might is always right" and how top-down control always tries to find some way to discredit science.
...

Wrong thread Bozo.  Take of your clown nose if it's interfering with your vision.

[AnonyMint]

Does anyone besides me see a pattern here, of how "might is always right" and how top-down control always tries to find some way to discredit science.
...

Wrong thread Bozo.  Take of your clown nose if it's interfering with your vision.

So now we've established that my theory about the source of your illogic is correct. You refuse to believe that the free market is fundamental. And you claim the science that supports that is off-topic.

Bundy is fighting for a market of local representation (no "taxation without representation" and no top-down federal bureaucracy), i.e. more granular and thus greater degrees-of-freedom.

And you claim that is off-topic.

I think it is time to put you on ignore.

Done.

[AnonyMint]

I am sure tbvcof is a Judging personality type.

A test claimed I used to be ENFP, 44/88/25/22%. Took the test again, and P increased but more balanced E @ ENFP, 22/88/25/56%.

ENFP
Extravert(22%)  iNtuitive(88%)  Feeling(25%)  Perceiving(56%)
You have slight preference of Extraversion over Introversion (22%)
You have strong preference of Intuition over Sensing (88%)
You have slight preference of Feeling over Thinking (25%)
You have moderate preference of Perceiving over Judging (56%)

As for the slight preference for F but it is local in scope (e.g. I didn't hesitate to predict massive technological unemployment ahead), and let's say I can switch it off and go into thinking mode. The update is saying I am less extroverted but only very slightly so, because I answered that I get pleasure from quiet and solitude, but this only so I can think and it didn't ask me if I am constantly interacting with others in forums. I just find the forum interaction more stimulating than parties which are superficial and less focused on common interests. I answered that have empathy for others and that I proceed on problems without calculating the complete solution in advance. This isn't lack of T and S, rather it is me incrementing the "publish early and often" process of open sourcing my learning and  R&D process.

So actually I am very balanced ET, and moderating more on P for perceiving than Judging, but on the N I am very intuitive even though I do incorporate sensing but I don't allow sensing to slow down my process of discovery and experimentation.

This is what I strive for, balance on ET, more P but not carelessly, and turboboost on intuitive experimentation and inquiry.

I share more in common with these people:

http://www.celebritytypes.com/entp.php (Visionary)
http://www.celebritytypes.com/intp.php (Thinker)

Than these:

http://www.celebritytypes.com/infp.php (Indealist)

Or these (although I share slight characteristics with Mark Twain and some other writers/artists there):

http://www.celebritytypes.com/enfp.php (Inspirer)

See also:

https://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html

Add:

BS Obama is not ENTP, rather he is ?N?J (and not quite sure if he is extrovert with feelings or if that is a facade), as quite evident by these quotes and joins Newton, Karl Marx, Aryn Rand, Nietzsche, ZSuckerberg, Elon Musk, Keynes, and other judgmental introverted thinkers or the extrovert judgmental thinkers such as Napoleon, Caesar, Bill Gates, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove or the introverted judgmental feelers such as Noam Chomsky, Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe, Chiang Kai-shek, Osama bin Laden or the extroverted judgmental feelers such as Cicero, Joe Biden, Tony Blair, Michael Moore, Joseph Goebbels, Oprah Winfrey, Bono. The key is that all evil politicians and wacko philosophers are judging types. They want to force their will on others, rather letting the free market decide and just perceive what the free market is doing.

I am nearly sure Obama is non-feeling and is feigning empathy. His "you didn't build that" is an example of his judgments. He isn't perceiving and interacting with the world. He is privately forming his pet Theory of the Day which is based in his sole judgment not on actual data or perception. One of the quotes Obama says he is faced with decisions every day where at best one can only be 30 - 40% chance of being correct. So he is saying that his judgment is applied. An ENTP would refuse to make a decision in that case. We would step away and let the free market decide. You can see him say in the linked video that the American dream of non-ideological liberalism wasn't working out, so clearly he is making a judgment. Obama was exposed to a lot of judging in his childhood and decided to make its his role to fix it (with more judging).

The salient trait of judging is they think they must act and it must be applied to others against their will for the greater good.