Topic: I am very confused. - page 4. (Read 10283 times)

I'm quite certain my folks honored that election. And if you don't remember you folk had the House as well as the Senate. Then you fought amongst yourselves like children and failed to follow through on your own campaign promise. My folks then spoke loudly and took the House back. In a year, "we people" will speak loudly again and take back the Senate and the White House. The math already seem pretty clear on this.

And if it is hard for you to conceive, look no farther then the census. The people are voting with their feet, by moving to conservative states. Now there is a movement to "Occupy Detroit." My god people! You already OWN Detroit! There are no oligarchs left. All the conservatives are gone, the population has fallen by 50%. It's yours! Now fix it!

But don't try to tell me the left can't fix it without the right's help. We are already pretty clear on that.

How are you defending America by bombing people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

If invading countries, toppling foreign governments, and bombing and murdering over a hundred thousands civilians is "defense of the nation," then such a nation is not worthy of defense.

Rarity - if you'd like to fund murder, please do it with your own money. Forcing me to pay for the murder of people around the world is abhorrent.

You said, "And the things libertarians advocate in the name of being left alone are tremendously destructive to the rest of society." This pretty much implies that if you just let libertarians be, your society is somehow damaged.

What I mean is, the tea party isn't demanding that liberals join in their conservatism ELSE conservatism's plan fails. It means we leave liberals alone to be liberals. Our societal structure isn't damaged by liberals playing there own silly games off by themselves. Never once has a tea partier said, "No liberals! You can't pay more taxes! It fucks up society for the rest of us!"

However, every liberal argument starts with, "Everyone must do (X) or there's no chance (Y) can happen." Notice, most liberal arguments don't even imply that if everyone does (X), (Y) must happen. Only that we really really wish (Y) would happen and we are willing to demand any antecedent that pops into our heads.



You totally ignored everything I wrote about "properly educated" people failing miserably when given large scale responsibilities. Then you randomly switched the subject to not being "properly educated" as to empathy and that disqualifying people from having "free will". That was the lamest dodge ever. So I trolled you. Duh!

Either you tolerate every human's belief in their own free will. Or you don't get the courtesy of people like me respecting your right to declare your own free will. In no case do you get a free pass to declare there is a "proper free will" and a "delusional free will". That is a definition of tyranny.

You appear to be the one defending the totalitarian system of oligarchical rulership by financial centers and central banks.  I believe in the power of the people to rule themselves.


People not voting the way you want isn't tyranny. Did the people you know vote for Barack Obama and a Senate controlled by Democrats?  Those are the people you know?   The majority of the country will come around to the leftist point of view, conservative government and rulership by financial elites has not proven worthwhile.


I've linked a thread where I get more in depth on the details, it would be silly to go all over it in another thread when there is one still open with all that discussed.


Defense of the nation is a duty a Democratic government cannot ignore.  I am also a fan of our efforts in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to overthrow authoritarian governments and replace them with the power of the people.  One of the greatest strengths of Democratic governments is the ability to triumph over the weaker systems of government in military conflict.

As for private charity, it is great and I do give some of my income towards it but governments are much better at total coverage.  Healthcare charity doesn't produce universal coverage of everyone in any country on Earth, only socialism does that.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but your society includes quite a few liberals even if you live in the Deep South. I've lived there before, too, so I know.


I honestly have no idea how this line follows from what I wrote. Are you drunk? You went from assuming all of the protesters were overweight thieves based on a typically inflammatory article from the NY freaking Post and then took it a step further to assume that all college kids are like the protesters. Do I have that right? Also you seem to have assumed that the 18-year-olds today are the children of the 65-year-old hippies, which is... yeah. I give up.

Let's examine this.

Say you have $100,000 at the end of the year. You can either send it to the IRS, or your can make a tax-deductible donation to a charity of your choice. In one case, $100,000 of funding goes to the Government, in the other case $100,000 of funding goes to charity.

It seems you'd rather let the government have it, instead of the charity. Now, you'll argue that much of what the government does is valuable "charity" work. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a whopping 90% of government funding goes to benevolent, wonderfully effective charity programs. The remaining 10% goes to war, bombs, killing people, subsidizing oil companies, paying massive farm corporations to sit on excess crops and burn them to raise prices, and paying foreign dictators to suppress and harm their people.

Alternatively, 100% of it could go to a wonderful private charity group, and 0% to war, bombs, killing people, and the myriad evils of government.  

Why is it that you choose to bomb and kill people with 10% of your money? And why do you think it's okay to force me to bomb and kill people? Please make the argument why that money isn't better given to the private charity that isn't killing people.

There's no form. Just a little kool-aid. No wait... There is a form! Maybe they mail you the kool-aid.

But trust me, if really want to spend "less time working for the man." Then when you go to parties, stick to the tea.

And we drink more beer and look for ways to beat the man just so we can spend less time working for the man. And we cavort. And we post inane things on Bitcoin forums. Guess I should sign up to be a libertarian. Where's the official form to do that?

If your society can't get along without the libertarians, well I think you aught to give them a little more respect.
My society, however, gets along fine without liberals


Laughing my ass off at the use of propaganda phrases as if it's his genuine will!


They're autistic, fat and read Japanese comic books too. And when they gather in groups they tend to steal from one another as well. So what's your point? It has been no secret since the sixties that hippies don't know how to raise kids.

But now with all you've given them, you want to take away their "free" will too?

There are several different groups here:

Miners: Hash power lags price, so when the price is rising, miners make money; when it's falling, they're unprofitable.  Right now mining is useful to people who want to acquire coins without exchanges, or who just want to support the network.  Bitcoin is dead to for-profit miners, and will stay dead unless the price surges again, in which case it'll be profitable briefly.

Speculative investors:  A few got in early and aren't about to complain.  Most bought in above $10, and they're in the middle of a bloodbath.  The ones who say it's dead lost it all; the ones who say it's alive are trying to catch a falling knife.  Most will grab too early and get a handful of blade, but a few will get lucky and grab the handle.

Trolls:  Bitcoin was stillborn, is dead, was always dead, will always be dead, and anything it ever does is because it's a fucking zombie and we need to shoot it in the head.

Cryptoconsumers (My camp): We want to buy and sell things and don't care much about the exchange rate.  For us, Bitcoin is still in its infancy: there are still far too few places accepting it, and volatility is a real drag on acceptance; in my opinion a more stable altchain may eventually win for this reason.  But it (Bitcoin proper, and cryptocurrency generally) is still very much alive, and I have no reason to run away.

Um, how so?



What about addresses owned by people in other countries? Would all of their addresses have to be whitelisted? And if not, what would prevent someone from receiving illegitimate money, sending it to an account overseas, and then having that money sent back to their own whitelisted address? (i.e. money laundering) You can't blame someone who doesn't even belong to our legal system for not keeping track of "legal" vs "illegal" money, can you?

This is why I think bitcoin will succees as a currency.  It requires no trust. Our modern sociopathic culture will embrace bitcoin until they realize that money does not build a society.

The price will stabilize eventually, at least for a while. I see the next few months being fairly stable unless some big developments come up in the Bitcoin world that get us more demand. We're seeing a stabilization to $1 - $3 right now which is probably where it'll be until Bitcoin starts to fulfill its potential a little more.

This is a good thing for Bitcoin, now everyone sees it's extremely risky as an investment. It's better to focus on developing it as a currency and using it, instead of trying to get rich by investing in it.

Investing is fine but people need to understand it's very high risk, you need to know what you're doing.

Touché.

The thing about being left alone in today's society is that it's entirely impossible. And the things libertarians advocate in the name of being left alone are tremendously destructive to the rest of society.

And of course the person who readily consumes propaganda thinks it's his genuine will. It wouldn't be very effective propaganda if he didn't.

In American society's rush to the right, a lot has been left behind. For instance,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100528081434.htm

Was that their will? I'm sure every one of them would say yes, but does that make it so?

I can assure you this is genuinely my will. It is genuinely the will of the people around me. Quite frankly, most of the people around me deliberately left the people around you. Not because life would be easier out in the wilderness, but because their life would be better without people like you. It is quite disingenuous to question their "education" because they don't agree with you. My people aren't asking to rule over you. They are asking to be left alone by you.

You certainly didn't address any of my above comments about "education" above. It sure seems like "the proper education" doesn't correlate to actually being successful at the job responsibilities those bankers asked for. Why do your presume the same education would lead to success in those you wish to rule over me?

Enacting the will of the people is important if it's genuinely their will. If they don't even know what to believe after a lifetime of lies, omissions, and indoctrination, education is a more important first step.

So are you saying, enacting the will of the people is not so important. What is important is enacting the will of "the right people."  How would you differentiate that from tyranny?

The will of the people you know is largely shaped by over 100 years of anti-leftist propaganda saturating every facet of American society.