Topic: Bitcoin Jesus ministry not to preach from American soil - page 7. (Read 6662 times)

Hmmm. I had the impression you were equating them with the murderers. Internet communications, I guess. But why do you think he might have anything germane to discuss with them?

And it is a conversation I have been having for decades. But thanks for your suggestion.


I see. For creating a venue in which willing buyers can trade with willing sellers, he should fry. Do I have that right?

Are you suggesting that had it not been for Ulbricht, such addicts would be free of their affliction?

And regardless of whether you say yes or no to the previous question - from whence do you derive the authority to determine what another person is free to ingest into their own body? Do you believe your claim upon their bodies supersedes their own?

Incidentally, I know little to nothing about Xanax. I do know something about heroin, however. Yes, I know one person that has been addicted to heroin for decades, others who have been addicted and quit, others that have used with no descent into addiction, and other occasional current users who seem to be free of addiction. Do you know anyone addicted to alcohol? What's your point?

Skipping completely around the Waco massacre noted....


Non sequitur is non sequitur. You're telling me that the act of exchanging units of money for other units of money has victims? That's just stupid. The act of terrorism has victims. The exchange of money does not.


Now *that's* a mature comment.


You look into Waco: A New Revelation, provide evidence that you've done so, and then I'll read your blog. Deal?
I'll make it easy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr9pQ1pIbiU

Criminals will always find ways to move money, and if there is a law then there are people that will find ways to circumvent them. Nothing new there.

I didn't do anything except suggest Theymos present his agenda to the French public.  It is your perception of that suggestion that seems to be the problem.  Maybe you know there is something wrong with your ideas and you are reacting in this way?  As someone else pointed out, take your ideas to your friends, family, and strangers on the street and see how that pans out. 

As for Ross Ulbricht, irrespective of the murder for hire issues, do you know anyone addicted to Xanax or heroin?  Do you know how these drugs work?

As for money laundering, there are large numbers of criminals who have laundered money in order to engage in terrorism, human trafficking, etc.  Those are the victims you say don't exist.

Welcome to the real world and adulthood.

https://blog.caseykuhlman.com/entries/2014/bitcoin-somaliland.html

I wonder if he got a refund for his ticket

It's a stretch. But isn't that just what you've done? Equated your 'unholy trinity' to murderers?


If Ulbricht is the victim of a disinfo campaign about the hits -- a possibility which I believe plausible, if not necessarily probable -- then I would wholeheartedly agree with Ver's alleged characterization.

I'll assume you've never bothered to dig any deeper than the MSM accounts of the Waco incident? View "Waco: A New Revelation" then get back to the discussion. Protip: the victors get to write the "official" "history". Fun fact for today: Lon Horiuchi - the very butcher who senselessly murdered Vicki Weaver while she held her baby in her arms, was on scene coordinating the snipers during the last moments of conflagration at Waco.


Childish? 'Money laundering' is a silly made up 'crime'. Protip2: If a single incident of a so-called 'crime' does not result in at least one single identifiable direct victim, then there are many who would agree that such a thing is not actually a crime at all. I mean - sure - I abide by such stupid laws. But only from a desire not to be thrown in a cage by scary people with guns.

It is more likely due to the combination of renouncing citizenship. running an offshore tax shelter business, and keeping citizenship in 2 different countries. 

As for Ulbricht, Ver had his Mother make those video so he could promote his agenda.  She is going through probably the worst time of her life and she has to put up with being used by some agenda-pusher like Ver to try to get funds for the legal defense.

What are you saying?  Ver, Vorhees and Theymos are wrong on so many levels?  What levels are those?  I just think Theymos should present his agenda to the French public so we can see what they think.  I didn't present an opinion, I am just repeating theymos' agenda.  Is there something wrong with it?

it's because Ver is contributing to Ulbricht's defense fund

gotta admit .. I respect Roger Ver

When I first got involved in Bitcoin I listened to the coverage of the first big conference by Free State radio.  They ran an announcement several times throughout the conference where they claim all government employees were murderers.  In other words, janitors, social security clerks, astronauts, etc. ... all "murderers."  

Ver is the one who equates the agents at WACO and the ones who took down Silk Road as "the violent ones" and "murderers."  

theymos always presents his chidish arguments that money laudering laws are immoral so what is wrong with presenting that idea to the French public?

Wow, that's wrong on so many levels. If you hate theymos so bad that you have to bitch about him constantly then why do you hang out on his forum?

Well, seeing as you put this on BCT for the whole world to see, I can tell you what I think.

I think that you equating anything Ver, Vorhees, or Theymos may have done with violent murder is absolutely repugnant.

I think Ver should go France this week along with Vorhees and Theymos.  They can set up public discussion explaining how the government agents who are tracking the terrorists are really the violent ones.  Then Theymos can start crying about how money laundering laws are immoral.  Then put the whole thing on youtube and see what people think.

poor btc jesus.

The last two responses were stellar. You each win a gold star.

Many other civilised countries have income tax laws to the effect that, if you are resident there 6 months and a day, then you owe income tax there. Less than that period may apply if you have been in their country fewer than 6 months, but not as long in any other one country, and maintain what appears to be a principal residence there. This standard even applies to citizens such that, should they be resident abroad for 6+ months, they are not resident in country of citizenship and only owe income tax locally.

The US however, takes the view that US citizen income is taxable wherever the citizen is resident. i.e. income taxed by host country, then again by US. Further, in order to prevent "tax abuse" the US has forced agreements upon major nations to fully report banking activities and amounts of all US citizens to IRS. This is so onerous a requirement that no foreign banks want to do business with anyone they might suspect of being a US citizen. Anyway, upshot of all this, is that many US citizens who have settled elsewhere and have expectations of remaining there, are wanting to revoke citizenship. US calls this "for tax evasion" purposes, no shit, who wants to be double taxed, and have raised renunciation fees to something astronomical in recent months.

The weird thing is, that officially, you cannot have dual citizenship with the US, it's not permitted to hold any other citizenship and be a US citizen. This should mean that if you acquire citizenship of another country, you should automatically not be a US citizen... in fact, if you are a citizen in a country, say you take Bulgarian citizenship (No connotation implied) and you fall afoul of their justice system, get framed by corrupt officials, whatever, and go to US Embassy/Consulate for help, they will tell you tough shit, you're a citizen there, so they can't help.... meanwhile IRS regards you as fully fledged US citizen and will still want income tax!

Anyway, the most tenacious tentacle of US citizenship appears to be the IRS, they grab and hold and are with you wherever, no matter what other residence or citizenship you take up. So to hack that off, you have to do the $$$$ renunciation, even if, by all laws and statutes you invalidated your US citizenship already... then of course, since that is the final connection it's automatically "For tax evasion"  

edit: dammit, not tenuous, tenacious, that's the word...

When you look at the laws regarding citizenship in the United States, you are only a citizen if one of three things fits your circumstances. These are:
1. You were born in the United States;
2. You were naturalized;
3. You said you are a citizen but you lied, and government accepted your lie.

That's about it. Maybe none of us are citizens. Maybe not even residents. Certainly not in our capacities as human beings. Maybe we as humans are only domiciled here.

There is question as to whether or not you were born in the United States, even if you were. Why? Simply because there are several definitions of the term "United States." The term is ambiguous, and you probably didn't understand - and don't understand now - the legalease (legal meanings of) regarding which "United States" you were talking about when you renounced your citizenship. Ambiguity is not allowed in law. Besides this, the definition that you would fall under when you were born is not the definition that applies to you when you are entering the country, and it is not the definition that you renounced when you renounced your citizenship.

In other words, when you present a passport or other documentation to port authorities, and they say, "This looks like you." And then they ask you, "Is this you?" What is your answer? You say, "Yes, it's me." What you have just done is turned yourself into a piece of paper, a passport, or some other documentation. And, since you are still a human being, the word "you" when they ask, "Is this you," is plural, meaning both you, the human, and you, the documentation.

Your answer should have been, "That is not me. I am a man/woman. As a man/woman born in the United States, I claim right of entry." Then, if they don't let you enter, you can file suit on the individual in his/her private capacity, who wouldn't let you enter.

Take a look at the info in the links listed at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10079836, and see that government's determination of illegality about anything doesn't apply to you except if you are in government, or if you want it to. It becomes applicable to you when you say, "Yes, that's me," regarding some government documentation.

In particular, watch the 10 videos at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D.

If he renounced his citizenship, does he have to pay taxes?

But he owns MemoryDealers in Silicon Valley. How can he avoid paying taxes with a business based in San Jose? He still pays taxes.

It's because he clearly and admittedly renounced his citizenship for the purpose of not paying U.S. taxes. That bolded part is important. We don't need any conspiracy theories here, it's been U.S. policy for many years that if you renounce your citizenship for the purpose of not paying U.S. taxes you are not to be admitted back into the country. Eduardo Saverin (co-founder of Facebook) is likely in the same boat, since he also clearly renounced his citizenship to avoid taxes.

Of course, it could also have something to do with the fact that Ver was convicted of selling explosives on eBay, that's something I'd think most governments (not just the U.S.) wouldn't take too lightly.. but no, let's forget about any plausible explanations based on long-standing U.S. laws and policies and just assume it's a conspiracy against Bitcoin.

If the U.S. blocked all idiots from being in the country there wouldn't be a government.