Because people have tendencies to turn everything into debates, this was moved and renamed. Have at it.
+1 for going out of your way to help the community, cool stuff
Thank ya! Im just doing my part as a mod to help make trading safer.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 06:50:58 AM
Why is it a sticky situation to post their address? I'm not sure I follow.
We don't know the legalities involved in each state/country when it comes to posting someone's address on a public forum without their consent, so we're avoiding it altogether. In some places, even if they did steal cards from you, posting their address without their consent can be considered harassment, and courts take that very seriously.
You know this could be over written with a disclaimer post under tradeing rules or what ever post is a list of rules for tradeing. All you would have to do is state that failure to complete a trade will result in your address being posted for vereafaction for other traders and by agreeing to trade in any form on this fourm through pm or standard post you agree to these terms of use. If you get pitor to post a must read trade rules thread under the trades section then it would trump any privacy laws in place because you are agreeing to the rules upon attempting trades. Or it could be put in to a disclaimer when you sign up to the site or app. Or something else you can do is post a name and street adress without a town or state it would be enough verafacion for people who have traded with that person as they will both have the full adress but for others it would not be enough info to be traced with out some leg work and at that point it puts the blame on the individual not the community.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 29, 2013, 04:12:20 AM
Yeah, personally I was finished with trading when I got ripped and you guys seemed more concerned with hiding his address.
I'm guessing this is your first forum? You can't be held responsible for what people post on here. He offered his address to me, and I posted his address publicly. If anyone could potentially get in trouble (they can't) it would be me.
You yanks are always scared of getting sued.
You seem to be a person that always needs something to disagree with, no matter how trivial it is. Piotr doesn't want addresses to be publicly posted because it violates iMtG law. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry. I don't know what else to say to you. We tried to come up with a solution to please everyone and you are still complaining about it.
Well...we could start enforcement teams in major areas. these people will relentlessly approach said untrustworthy traders and inquire why they aren't keeping their end of the deal. If they appear to live with their parents, then the parents shall be notified!
Enforcement teams are paid in standard staples for their time.
Quote from: Muggywuggy on April 29, 2013, 03:47:01 PM
Well...we could start enforcement teams in major areas. these people will relentlessly approach said untrustworthy traders and inquire why they aren't keeping their end of the deal. If they appear to live with their parents, then the parents shall be notified!
Enforcement teams are paid in standard staples for their time.
That is a really bad idea its full blown harassment in certain states it could even be assault. My post b4 had a very sound solution to this issue but you guy's need to realize that it's Pitors fourm and if he says no we either live with it or go to a diffrent fourm. I don't agree with not posting the address and want to put these guys on the stand. But I respect Pitor and his wishes as should you.
Quote from: Cal8301 on April 29, 2013, 04:26:18 PM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on April 29, 2013, 03:47:01 PM
Well...we could start enforcement teams in major areas. these people will relentlessly approach said untrustworthy traders and inquire why they aren't keeping their end of the deal. If they appear to live with their parents, then the parents shall be notified!
Enforcement teams are paid in standard staples for their time.
That is a really bad idea its full blown harassment in certain states it could even be assault. My post b4 had a very sound solution to this issue but you guy's need to realize that it's Pitors fourm and if he says no we either live with it or go to a diffrent fourm. I don't agree with not posting the address and want to put these guys on the stand. But I respect Pitor and his wishes as should you.
99% sure muggy was being sarcastic
Quote from: Mike_garzone on April 29, 2013, 07:25:09 PM
Quote from: Cal8301 on April 29, 2013, 04:26:18 PM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on April 29, 2013, 03:47:01 PM
Well...we could start enforcement teams in major areas. these people will relentlessly approach said untrustworthy traders and inquire why they aren't keeping their end of the deal. If they appear to live with their parents, then the parents shall be notified!
Enforcement teams are paid in standard staples for their time.
That is a really bad idea its full blown harassment in certain states it could even be assault. My post b4 had a very sound solution to this issue but you guy's need to realize that it's Pitors fourm and if he says no we either live with it or go to a diffrent fourm. I don't agree with not posting the address and want to put these guys on the stand. But I respect Pitor and his wishes as should you.
99% sure muggy was being sarcastic
More than likely but if he wasn't or if other people thought it was a good idea then we could have some weird situations on our hand. It only takes one retard to ruin it for everyone.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 30, 2013, 10:24:44 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 29, 2013, 10:26:46 AM
You seem to be a person that always needs something to disagree with, no matter how trivial it is. Piotr doesn't want addresses to be publicly posted because it violates iMtG law. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry. I don't know what else to say to you. We tried to come up with a solution to please everyone and you are still complaining about it.
If its so trivial than I should expect you to mail me the money I lost?
The reason I seem to disagree with 'everything' is because so many people on this forum seemed to have latched on to ideals that makes Americans resented around the world without even realizing it, and frankly it's embarrassing to be associated with some of you sometimes.
Then don't associate with any of them. GTFO if you don't like how they do things.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 01, 2013, 12:48:56 AM
Except I've paid money to be here
False. You paid for the extra parts of the app. You didn't pay a dime to join Gathering.
Yup, gathering is free, extra decks, binders, Ext. are paid though.
See this situation could totally use a local enforcement team, we can get letterman jackets too!
his! we could be.. THE PLANESFORCERS
Quote from: KangaRod on April 30, 2013, 10:24:44 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 29, 2013, 10:26:46 AM
You seem to be a person that always needs something to disagree with, no matter how trivial it is. Piotr doesn't want addresses to be publicly posted because it violates iMtG law. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry. I don't know what else to say to you. We tried to come up with a solution to please everyone and you are still complaining about it.
If its so trivial than I should expect you to mail me the money I lost?
The reason I seem to disagree with 'everything' is because so many people on this forum seemed to have latched on to ideals that makes Americans resented around the world without even realizing it, and frankly it's embarrassing to be associated with some of you sometimes.
I'm sorry to ask but I would love to hear these ideals that make us resented worldwide.
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 07:59:22 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on April 30, 2013, 10:24:44 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 29, 2013, 10:26:46 AM
You seem to be a person that always needs something to disagree with, no matter how trivial it is. Piotr doesn't want addresses to be publicly posted because it violates iMtG law. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry. I don't know what else to say to you. We tried to come up with a solution to please everyone and you are still complaining about it.
If its so trivial than I should expect you to mail me the money I lost?
The reason I seem to disagree with 'everything' is because so many people on this forum seemed to have latched on to ideals that makes Americans resented around the world without even realizing it, and frankly it's embarrassing to be associated with some of you sometimes.
I'm sorry to ask but I would love to hear these ideals that make us resented worldwide.
There are several parts of the world that do not like people from the USA. Just because we are from here.
America, what happened.
We have an idiot as president. Let's start that off.
My reasoning for that statement is the Obama is a socialist, A COMMUNIST if you ask me. Look at his policies. First off he is trying to give more power to the government, which is the BIGGEST mistake of his presidency. That choice means he is trying to take away freedom, he is trying to make it so you have to do what he says exactly. Like you can only have a small drink at a restaurant, guns are illegal, all that crap he is trying to shove down the American peoples throat.
Not to mention he will avoid anything he said in order to save his ass. Remember Bengazi anyone. Barely anybody does, but let me tell you what happened that time. The ambassador was in Bengazi, while people of Bengazi were trying to beat down on that base to kill him. And they did, they got through and killed everybody. A small group of troops went to help fight off the attackers, but to no avail they died too.
The entire time they were calling for backup and it never came, why you ask. Even though there was a military base not far from their location who could have walked in and helped them? People who listened and watched the entire thing take place via cameras placed inside the ambassadors base. Because when the military base called Obama who was also watching the entire thing, he said no. Over and over he was asked and then he said no. THEN he went and LIED to America about "He didn't know anything about it" all that crap.
Fox News went down to Bengazi and asked questions about the attack, and they uncovered the whole COVERUP. So that answers why Obama is terrible, and why Fox News is still the top news station.
Obama later said he would face a court after the election for his actions. Has he faced court yet, something that was going to happen last December? I want you to answer that question.
Guns. They did a study about guns. Liscenes gun carriers prevent more crimes then without them. Most likely to get shot my ass, if a maniac didn't have a gun, he would use a black market gun, or a knife, an axe, etc... You don't need a gun to be an idiot, or a serial killer. And what if one of those killers came into your house, how would you defend yourself without said guns. You would be dead.
Any other reasons America is hated Kanga?
Lol!
Oh whoops, sorry. :(
Quote from: KangaRod on May 05, 2013, 09:27:06 AM
Invading sovereign nations against the will of the UN will do that for starters. Had Bush's invasion of Iraq been 30 years ago, it probably would've started world war 3, but I suppose most other countries are now understandably apprehensive to get into a confrontation with a country that spends more on national defense than the next 12 countries combined.
While other countries are tackling problems like how to pay for public health care (something you haven't been 'burdened' with until just recently) America has been busy cohorting with lobby groups and lunatic organizations to put more guns out in the streets and into the hands of the public. You are now 8 times more likely to get shot in the US than you are in any other developed nation in the entire world, and up until recently it was the only nation where you could go bankrupt after being shot by one of the almost 300 million guns in the country.
The real reason that people resent the US is because it is potentially the greatest county in the world. It has everything that everyone anywhere could ever want, the best universities, the brightest scholars, the most diverse cuisine, the natural resources and the people. Oh, and the people don't even know it. They're afraid of everything. Their government, terrorists, black people, getting fat you name it.
You have democracy, but refuse to use it. More people vote for the next American idol than the leader of the most powerful country in the history of the world. It's a slap in the face to the people around the world that must bare the brunt of your .poo.-kicking ways because of your physical and financial isolation.
It's getting better in recent times, but the reality is that American culture is a bit complacent, and for a country so based on fear doesn't really know what it's like to actually be afraid.
Pearl Harbour and 9-11, while terrible - occurred every day during The Blitz. Remember that war, that you keep reminding the world that you saved us from? Coincidently you seem to forget that there was a lot of support for the nazis before Japan kicked your ass for cutting off its oil.
The Boston Marathon bombing? That occurs daily in many places around the world. 3 people killed is a joke. You guys should consider yourself lucky that your terrorists are as inept as your bakers.
But, then I guess America wouldn't be America without its media to spin it people into thinking they are hard done by, or that Obamacare is anything but in their best interest, or the guns don't actually kill people...
How is Fox 'News' even on the air still, let alone the most popular news network?
First: how does this have anything to do with people's behavior on this forum.
Second, your generalization of a country and people is biased to the point of where it seems like you're watching some version of Fox News yourself. You bring up Bush...look man, most of "smart" America shook their heads when Gore didn't win. We would be much further in our global impact with environmental concern, but bullshit happened. Hell the millennium happened and big brother is stepping in. More devices that track you, more putting out your personal info etc. it's not the American people's fault bullshit happened. It's been happening for centuries
What socialist things did Obama do exactly that Bush hasn't? He hasn't relinquished his emergency powers, he hasn't gotten rid of the Patriot act, he continues a wars AND started another, he supports Israel, he bails out capitalists, still continues the crony capitalist things, kills people for absolutely no reason, violate the Geneva conventions, drone strikes on innocent children and people. What else? Raise taxes? Confiscate rich people's money? Forces new regulations?
Quote from: Dudecore on May 05, 2013, 03:18:29 PM
What socialist things did Obama do exactly that Bush hasn't? He hasn't relinquished his emergency powers, he hasn't gotten rid of the Patriot act, he continues a wars AND started another, he supports Israel, he bails out capitalists, still continues the crony capitalist things, kills people for absolutely no reason, violate the Geneva conventions, drone strikes on innocent children and people. What else? Raise taxes? Confiscate rich people's money? Forces new regulations?
This, exactly. He's continued to abuse his military powers, albeit on a smaller scale than Bush did.
Wait what do you mean by "smart" Americans shook their heads when Gore didn't win. In all retrospect, he is, well.....
I can't put into words how stupid he is.
By the way, there was something else that's funny. There once was a boy who called into the Shnit show. He called in, and he told him that he went and researched in a library about Global Warming. He went through that library and proved that Global Warming is a fraud. It was quite recent. This was a recent story in fact. Although, democratic media said the this boy lied. This articulate boy who researched all of this and compiled his research in a quite adult fashion. They said he was a fraud and that Shnit encouraged this.
This just proves how corrupted the democratic media is.
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 03:32:39 PM
Wait what do you mean by "smart" Americans shook their heads when Gore didn't win. In all retrospect, he is, well.....
I can't put into words how stupid he is.
By the way, there was something else that's funny. There once was a boy who called into the Shnit show. He called in, and he told him that he went and researched in a library about Global Warming. He went through that library and proved that Global Warming is a fraud. It was quite recent. This was a recent story in fact. Although, democratic media said the this boy lied. This articulate boy who researched all of this and compiled his research in a quite adult fashion. They said he was a fraud and that Shnit encouraged this.
This just proves how corrupted the democratic media is.
I totally get you now kanga.
Quote from: Dudecore on May 05, 2013, 03:18:29 PM
What socialist things did Obama do exactly that Bush hasn't? He hasn't relinquished his emergency powers, he hasn't gotten rid of the Patriot act, he continues a wars AND started another, he supports Israel, he bails out capitalists, still continues the crony capitalist things, kills people for absolutely no reason, violate the Geneva conventions, drone strikes on innocent children and people. What else? Raise taxes? Confiscate rich people's money? Forces new regulations?
Hey I support Isreal, Obama supports Syria too, who he also gave money too, who was Harboring Osama Bin Ladin.
I never said Bush was a good president, in fact he really wasn't. Obama is ten times worse. At least Bush had class.
If you want to compare Obama to a good president, compare him to Ronald Reagan.
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 05, 2013, 03:33:57 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 03:32:39 PM
Wait what do you mean by "smart" Americans shook their heads when Gore didn't win. In all retrospect, he is, well.....
I can't put into words how stupid he is.
By the way, there was something else that's funny. There once was a boy who called into the Shnit show. He called in, and he told him that he went and researched in a library about Global Warming. He went through that library and proved that Global Warming is a fraud. It was quite recent. This was a recent story in fact. Although, democratic media said the this boy lied. This articulate boy who researched all of this and compiled his research in a quite adult fashion. They said he was a fraud and that Shnit encouraged this.
This just proves how corrupted the democratic media is.
I totally get you now kanga.
I'm not Kanga.
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 05, 2013, 03:33:57 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 03:32:39 PM
Wait what do you mean by "smart" Americans shook their heads when Gore didn't win. In all retrospect, he is, well.....
I can't put into words how stupid he is.
By the way, there was something else that's funny. There once was a boy who called into the Shnit show. He called in, and he told him that he went and researched in a library about Global Warming. He went through that library and proved that Global Warming is a fraud. It was quite recent. This was a recent story in fact. Although, democratic media said the this boy lied. This articulate boy who researched all of this and compiled his research in a quite adult fashion. They said he was a fraud and that Shnit encouraged this.
This just proves how corrupted the democratic media is.
I totally get you now kanga.
I'm not Kanga.
You don't say?
How about the factory producing all those tanks we don't ever use that are just sitting in the Arizona desert because some politician doesn't want to cause lots of people to lose jobs
Why don't they rework the factory to make something that we will actually use, instead of wasting gobs of money and putting a good chunk of the defense budget to something useless
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 03:35:52 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on May 05, 2013, 03:18:29 PM
What socialist things did Obama do exactly that Bush hasn't? He hasn't relinquished his emergency powers, he hasn't gotten rid of the Patriot act, he continues a wars AND started another, he supports Israel, he bails out capitalists, still continues the crony capitalist things, kills people for absolutely no reason, violate the Geneva conventions, drone strikes on innocent children and people. What else? Raise taxes? Confiscate rich people's money? Forces new regulations?
Hey I support Isreal, Obama supports Syria too, who he also gave money too, who was Harboring Osama Bin Ladin.
I never said Bush was a good president, in fact he really wasn't. Obama is ten times worse. At least Bush had class.
If you want to compare Obama to a good president, compare him to Ronald Reagan.
I hope you calling Reagan a good president was a joke.
This arguement is getting hilarious
All presidents made mistakes. Also, sometimes its the administration. Not the president that makes the mistakes. Yes the president can veto stuff. But the house and the senate make many decisions that are outside the presidents control. Maybe if certain presidents were kings, they would have done a better job. Some that were well liked might have been tyrants
The president though takes all the heat for bad choices of his administration. Because the people subconsisly think its all the president, and can't see behind the scenes
OOOFFFFFF WITH HIS HEAD!
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 04:01:17 PM
All presidents made mistakes. Also, sometimes its the administration. Not the president that makes the mistakes. Yes the president can veto stuff. But the house and the senate make many decisions that are outside the presidents control. Maybe if certain presidents were kings, they would have done a better job. Some that were well liked might have been tyrants
The president though takes all the heat for bad choices of his administration. Because the people subconsisly think its all the president, and can't see behind the scenes
I see your point, and I realize it isn't all the president's fault (a majority of it is though,) but that comes with the job. They are the commander in chief. It all falls on them. That's how it is.
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 22, 2013, 05:14:33 PM
Because people have tendencies to turn everything into debates, this was moved and renamed. Have at it.
No, people don't tend to debate and no it wasn't moved NOR was it renamed. This is NOT a debate thread. 😏
Quote from: Langku on May 05, 2013, 04:28:09 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 22, 2013, 05:14:33 PM
Because people have tendencies to turn everything into debates, this was moved and renamed. Have at it.
No, people don't tend to debate and no it wasn't moved NOR was it renamed. This is NOT a debate thread. 😏
You are wrong, and here is why:
Bananas.
I want to ask a question why do you think Ronald Reagan was bad. During his presidency we were prosperous as a nation. He lowered taxes for everybody, cutting government spending by getting rid of stupid programs that are funded by the government.
If you think he's bad because Obama bases his policies of Reaganomics, (Which is a lie Obama does the exact opposite) then that's stupid
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 05:01:17 PM
I want to ask a question why do you think Ronald Reagan was bad. During his presidency we were prosperous as a nation. He lowered taxes for everybody, cutting government spending by getting rid of stupid programs that are funded by the government.
If you think he's bad because Obama bases his policies of Reaganomics, (Which is a lie Obama does the exact opposite) then that's stupid
So cutting Head Start by 90% was a good thing? It worries me if you think funding for a program that helps struggling youth in school being cut made sense. Not to mention not funding AIDs research at all until he was called out on it. Didn't he also fire air traffic controllers, which led to fatalities in air traffic increasing?
Don't put words into someone's mouth. No one said Obama based his policies off of Reaganomics.
I think "democrat" vs. "republican" is the dumbest argument ever, they're both crony capitalist parties meant to make a much money for their corporate masters as possible. You're not getting anything new with Obama - he is George W. Bush. Anyone who thinks that he's a socialist is just regurgitating political buzzwords. He's keeping rich people plenty fat, and that isn't changing.
What is "classy" about Bush? His violation of our civil liberties? His sending Americans to their deaths for corporations? His handling of this whole situation? I have never heard a single explanation that made ANY sense about why we should go kill thousands of innocent people in a foreign country for what Saudi terrorists did during 9/11. Not a single logical reason.
And "Anti-global warming" is a decisively conservative agenda. I think they'd like to see the earth ruined before it effects their profit margins. Pretty typical line of approach here. Jesus is real, global warming is fake, Bush wasn't a bad president, Israel isn't the problem, Obama is a socialist, America has the most freedom. It's all a scheme.
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 05:01:17 PM
I want to ask a question why do you think Ronald Reagan was bad. During his presidency we were prosperous as a nation. He lowered taxes for everybody, cutting government spending by getting rid of stupid programs that are funded by the government.
If you think he's bad because Obama bases his policies of Reaganomics, (Which is a lie Obama does the exact opposite) then that's stupid
When did trickle down economics work? It caused an unsubstainable boom in the 80s that collapsed with another market failure. The quest to make things BIGGER! Bigger! Bigger!!!
Reagan was a great president if you were rich. Not if you were black, crippled, a veteran, or in a union.
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on May 05, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 05:01:17 PM
I want to ask a question why do you think Ronald Reagan was bad. During his presidency we were prosperous as a nation. He lowered taxes for everybody, cutting government spending by getting rid of stupid programs that are funded by the government.
If you think he's bad because Obama bases his policies of Reaganomics, (Which is a lie Obama does the exact opposite) then that's stupid
So cutting Head Start by 90% was a good thing? It worries me if you think funding for a program that helps struggling youth in school being cut made sense. Not to mention not funding AIDs research at all until he was called out on it. Didn't he also fire air traffic controllers, which led to fatalities in air traffic increasing?
Don't put words into someone's mouth. No one said Obama based his policies off of Reaganomics.
Yes, someone did say that. In fact I believe Obama himself said that. During his run for re-election in fact. He kept referencing his actions to Reagan. In fact people made it a running thing, "What would Reagan do?". He hasn't been doing anything Reagan would have done, and look where that has gotten us. He keeps wasting money on inconvenient programs let me post a few in fact.
1. The federal government is spending 25 billion dollars a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused, or totally vacent.
2. One professor is Stanford University was sent 239,100 dollars to study how Americans find love.
3. The US spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese Prostitutes to drink responsibly.
4. The department of Health and Human Services plans on spending 500 million dollars on a program that will, among others things, seek to solve the problem of why 5-6 year old children "can't sit still" in a kindergarten classroom.
5. The US government spent 175,587 dollars, "to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior.
There are so many more stupid thing the government funds that they can just cut, but they are too stupid to realize that there is this much, and so many more programs that lead to trivial answers that nobody cares about.
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on May 05, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
So cutting Head Start by 90% was a good thing? It worries me if you think funding for a program that helps struggling youth in school being cut made sense.
Yes, because goal never justifies the means and the means for Head Start are taxpayers money. Taxpayers didn't want their money forcefully taken away and spent on Head Start.
Quote from: Piotr on May 05, 2013, 06:23:41 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on May 05, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
So cutting Head Start by 90% was a good thing? It worries me if you think funding for a program that helps struggling youth in school being cut made sense.
Yes, because goal never justifies the means and the means for Head Start are taxpayers money. Taxpayers didn't want their money forcefully taken away and spent on Head Start.
Thank you. +1 :)
Being Irish, I can tell you that your American .politics. are not nearly as bad as ours were under the Crown :)
Quote from: Piotr on May 05, 2013, 06:23:41 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on May 05, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
So cutting Head Start by 90% was a good thing? It worries me if you think funding for a program that helps struggling youth in school being cut made sense.
Yes, because goal never justifies the means and the means for Head Start are taxpayers money. Taxpayers didn't want their money forcefully taken away and spent on Head Start.
Under iMtG law, you are correct. But that's not how America operates. If your taxes are going to be forcibly taken away, whether you're okay with that or not, wouldnt you rather then go towards a greater good such as education or research for a virus that's wiping people out?
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on May 05, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 05:01:17 PM
I want to ask a question why do you think Ronald Reagan was bad. During his presidency we were prosperous as a nation. He lowered taxes for everybody, cutting government spending by getting rid of stupid programs that are funded by the government.
If you think he's bad because Obama bases his policies of Reaganomics, (Which is a lie Obama does the exact opposite) then that's stupid
So cutting Head Start by 90% was a good thing? It worries me if you think funding for a program that helps struggling youth in school being cut made sense. Not to mention not funding AIDs research at all until he was called out on it. Didn't he also fire air traffic controllers, which led to fatalities in air traffic increasing?
Don't put words into someone's mouth. No one said Obama based his policies off of Reaganomics.
Yes, someone did say that. In fact I believe Obama himself said that. During his run for re-election in fact. He kept referencing his actions to Reagan. In fact people made it a running thing, "What would Reagan do?". He hasn't been doing anything Reagan would have done, and look where that has gotten us. He keeps wasting money on inconvenient programs let me post a few in fact.
1. The federal government is spending 25 billion dollars a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused, or totally vacent.
2. One professor is Stanford University was sent 239,100 dollars to study how Americans find love.
3. The US spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese Prostitutes to drink responsibly.
4. The department of Health and Human Services plans on spending 500 million dollars on a program that will, among others things, seek to solve the problem of why 5-6 year old children "can't sit still" in a kindergarten classroom.
5. The US government spent 175,587 dollars, "to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior.
There are so many more stupid thing the government funds that they can just cut, but they are too stupid to realize that there is this much, and so many more programs that lead to trivial answers that nobody cares about.
What does any of that have to do with whether Reagan was a good president or not?
Education spending is somewhat of a sham. It goes under the pretention of it's the teachers that are the problem, not a child that is unwilling to learn.
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on May 05, 2013, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 05, 2013, 06:23:41 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on May 05, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
So cutting Head Start by 90% was a good thing? It worries me if you think funding for a program that helps struggling youth in school being cut made sense.
Yes, because goal never justifies the means and the means for Head Start are taxpayers money. Taxpayers didn't want their money forcefully taken away and spent on Head Start.
Under iMtG law, you are correct. But that's not how America operates. If your taxes are going to be forcibly taken away, whether you're okay with that or not, wouldnt you rather then go towards a greater good such as education or research for a virus that's wiping people out?
No, I would rather have my taxes lowered.
It's not just teachers if we're talking education
People having children : if you allow your child to be an uneducated 💩 and think that public school is free babysitting then you're just an unfit parent, thank you for addIng to the problem
I grew up as a child in the 90s, we averaged 20-25 kids in a class, everyone with their own books...now on average there is 35-40 children per class who must share books. In some areas they speak 2 languages.
So you have to think; they probably need some more funding too for education. We don't need to keep upgrading security items and giving (indirectly) law enforcement funds to buy technology for the government to regulate us more with.
Now if we could have a proper fiscal report I'm sure people would like to be informed where money is REALLY being spent
Part of the problem of course, is politicians wining and dinning lawmakers to get them to make laws that benefit them. The upper class is being catered to, while the middle and lower classes are out in the back alley digging for scraps In the garbage cans.
Meanwhile. The government is stupidly printing more money to pay for there debt. Which is putting them deeper into debt. Like paying for a credit card with another credit card. And using the second credit card to pay for the first...
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Part of the problem of course, is politicians wining and dinning lawmakers to get them to make laws that benefit them. The upper class is being catered to, while the middle and lower classes are out in the back alley digging for scraps In the garbage cans.
Meanwhile. The government is stupidly printing more money to pay for there debt. Which is putting them deeper into debt. Like paying for a credit card with another credit card. And using the second credit card to pay for the first...
Not quite how the US money system works. While the US is constantly printing money through the FED, it's taking out money at the same time. Why? To battle inflation. The bills which are destroyed are ones which are worn out or ripped. New ones are printed to replace them; the Fed determines at what rate money is created and destroyed, and it has nothing to do with fixing the debt. Rather, the Fed bases the ratio off of the perceived best way to battle inflation. Not to mention, printing more money to reduce the debt would only scale the debt to match the jump in inflation rates.
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Part of the problem of course, is politicians wining and dinning lawmakers to get them to make laws that benefit them. The upper class is being catered to, while the middle and lower classes are out in the back alley digging for scraps In the garbage cans.
Meanwhile. The government is stupidly printing more money to pay for there debt. Which is putting them deeper into debt. Like paying for a credit card with another credit card. And using the second credit card to pay for the first...
In all retrospect I believe that you shouldn't have a creditcard in the first place
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 07:50:53 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Part of the problem of course, is politicians wining and dinning lawmakers to get them to make laws that benefit them. The upper class is being catered to, while the middle and lower classes are out in the back alley digging for scraps In the garbage cans.
Meanwhile. The government is stupidly printing more money to pay for there debt. Which is putting them deeper into debt. Like paying for a credit card with another credit card. And using the second credit card to pay for the first...
In all retrospect I believe that you shouldn't have a creditcard in the first place
Yea credit cards are bad ideas. Why not just use real cash lol
Quote from: Bozo_Law on May 05, 2013, 08:07:20 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 07:50:53 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Part of the problem of course, is politicians wining and dinning lawmakers to get them to make laws that benefit them. The upper class is being catered to, while the middle and lower classes are out in the back alley digging for scraps In the garbage cans.
Meanwhile. The government is stupidly printing more money to pay for there debt. Which is putting them deeper into debt. Like paying for a credit card with another credit card. And using the second credit card to pay for the first...
In all retrospect I believe that you shouldn't have a creditcard in the first place
Yea credit cards are bad ideas. Why not just use real cash lol
People are drawn by the appeal of being able to pay for something you can't afford, and slowly paying off the debt.
Quote from: Xaol on May 05, 2013, 07:50:05 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Part of the problem of course, is politicians wining and dinning lawmakers to get them to make laws that benefit them. The upper class is being catered to, while the middle and lower classes are out in the back alley digging for scraps In the garbage cans.
Meanwhile. The government is stupidly printing more money to pay for there debt. Which is putting them deeper into debt. Like paying for a credit card with another credit card. And using the second credit card to pay for the first...
Not quite how the US money system works. While the US is constantly printing money through the FED, it's taking out money at the same time. Why? To battle inflation. The bills which are destroyed are ones which are worn out or ripped. New ones are printed to replace them; the Fed determines at what rate money is created and destroyed, and it has nothing to do with fixing the debt. Rather, the Fed bases the ratio off of the perceived best way to battle inflation. Not to mention, printing more money to reduce the debt would only scale the debt to match the jump in inflation rates.
Do you know what is the rate at which the money is printed and at which it is destroyed?
Quote from: Piotr on May 05, 2013, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 05, 2013, 07:50:05 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Part of the problem of course, is politicians wining and dinning lawmakers to get them to make laws that benefit them. The upper class is being catered to, while the middle and lower classes are out in the back alley digging for scraps In the garbage cans.
Meanwhile. The government is stupidly printing more money to pay for there debt. Which is putting them deeper into debt. Like paying for a credit card with another credit card. And using the second credit card to pay for the first...
Not quite how the US money system works. While the US is constantly printing money through the FED, it's taking out money at the same time. Why? To battle inflation. The bills which are destroyed are ones which are worn out or ripped. New ones are printed to replace them; the Fed determines at what rate money is created and destroyed, and it has nothing to do with fixing the debt. Rather, the Fed bases the ratio off of the perceived best way to battle inflation. Not to mention, printing more money to reduce the debt would only scale the debt to match the jump in inflation rates.
Do you know what is the rate at which the money is printed and at which it is destroyed?
No idea. I'm not sure if that is privatised information or common knowledge. I'll try and look it up. I know the rate changes constantly.
I wish credit card companies would stop sending you spam mail, it annoys the hell out of me. >:(
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
I wish credit card companies would stop sending you spam mail, it annoys the hell out of me. >:(
you could always send THEM spam mail in return
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
I wish credit card companies would stop sending you spam mail, it annoys the hell out of me. >:(
you could always send THEM spam mail in return
Doesn't help, already tried.
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 10:35:28 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
I wish credit card companies would stop sending you spam mail, it annoys the hell out of me. >:(
you could always send THEM spam mail in return
Doesn't help, already tried.
LMAFO!
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 05, 2013, 03:35:52 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on May 05, 2013, 03:18:29 PM
What socialist things did Obama do exactly that Bush hasn't? He hasn't relinquished his emergency powers, he hasn't gotten rid of the Patriot act, he continues a wars AND started another, he supports Israel, he bails out capitalists, still continues the crony capitalist things, kills people for absolutely no reason, violate the Geneva conventions, drone strikes on innocent children and people. What else? Raise taxes? Confiscate rich people's money? Forces new regulations?
Hey I support Isreal, Obama supports Syria too, who he also gave money too, who was Harboring Osama Bin Ladin.
I never said Bush was a good president, in fact he really wasn't. Obama is ten times worse. At least Bush had class.
If you want to compare Obama to a good president, compare him to Ronald Reagan.
Bush couldn't spell "class", he probably needed someone to tie his shoes.
Just my opinion, but Fox News is almost always pushing an agenda. They are actually hard to watch.
If you think Americas financial problems do not have something to do with the one percent, than you are truly delusional. Regan did some good things...25+ years ago! Times have changed. Bush screwed the population and entered a war inwhich we had no business being involved. He set us so far back it's pathetic. And now congress works against everything the Pres wants just to keep lobbyists and the uber rich happy.
Ronald Reagan... *sigh* why can't we have another Ronald Reagan?
Quote from: Stoneco1d869 on May 06, 2013, 12:30:03 AMAnd now congress works against everything the Pres wants
And rightly so because the Pres is trying to implement socialism.
Socialism is an evil thing, indeed. It violates all the basic natural laws and ethics, starting with 'goal does not justify the means'. It is absurdly inefficient as an economic system, it demoralises the population by growing the 'needy' class. It ends in tears every single time it is implemented anywhere on the planet, yet there are hordes of people naive enough to believe that socialism is a good thing. Or maybe they are not naive, just crooks?
Quote from: Xaol on May 05, 2013, 09:16:30 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 05, 2013, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 05, 2013, 07:50:05 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Part of the problem of course, is politicians wining and dinning lawmakers to get them to make laws that benefit them. The upper class is being catered to, while the middle and lower classes are out in the back alley digging for scraps In the garbage cans.
Meanwhile. The government is stupidly printing more money to pay for there debt. Which is putting them deeper into debt. Like paying for a credit card with another credit card. And using the second credit card to pay for the first...
Not quite how the US money system works. While the US is constantly printing money through the FED, it's taking out money at the same time. Why? To battle inflation. The bills which are destroyed are ones which are worn out or ripped. New ones are printed to replace them; the Fed determines at what rate money is created and destroyed, and it has nothing to do with fixing the debt. Rather, the Fed bases the ratio off of the perceived best way to battle inflation. Not to mention, printing more money to reduce the debt would only scale the debt to match the jump in inflation rates.
Do you know what is the rate at which the money is printed and at which it is destroyed?
No idea. I'm not sure if that is privatised information or common knowledge. I'll try and look it up. I know the rate changes constantly.
I'll help you with that: it is destroyed at insignificant rate and it is printed at stupidly high rate, so your claim is false and BB is quite correct in his view of how the money system in US works.
Quote from: Piotr on May 06, 2013, 04:21:27 AM
Quote from: Xaol on May 05, 2013, 09:16:30 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 05, 2013, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 05, 2013, 07:50:05 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Part of the problem of course, is politicians wining and dinning lawmakers to get them to make laws that benefit them. The upper class is being catered to, while the middle and lower classes are out in the back alley digging for scraps In the garbage cans.
Meanwhile. The government is stupidly printing more money to pay for there debt. Which is putting them deeper into debt. Like paying for a credit card with another credit card. And using the second credit card to pay for the first...
Not quite how the US money system works. While the US is constantly printing money through the FED, it's taking out money at the same time. Why? To battle inflation. The bills which are destroyed are ones which are worn out or ripped. New ones are printed to replace them; the Fed determines at what rate money is created and destroyed, and it has nothing to do with fixing the debt. Rather, the Fed bases the ratio off of the perceived best way to battle inflation. Not to mention, printing more money to reduce the debt would only scale the debt to match the jump in inflation rates.
Do you know what is the rate at which the money is printed and at which it is destroyed?
No idea. I'm not sure if that is privatised information or common knowledge. I'll try and look it up. I know the rate changes constantly.
I'll help you with that: it is destroyed at insignificant rate and it is printed at stupidly high rate, so your claim is false and BB is quite correct in his view of how the money system in US works.
Not quite. I did a bit of research, actually. It seems that the rate our money is destroyed at annually is shown here, by the Fed itself:
http://www.moneyfactory.gov/uscurrency/annualproductionfigures.html
Their statistic shows that 8.4 billion notes were printed in 2012.
Our rate of bill destruction? In 2010, it was:
"In 2010, [the Fed's] cash offices destroyed 5.95 billion notes"
From http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/the-destruction-of-money-who-does-it-why-when-and-how/236990/
So with inflation rates of 1.5% currently (see http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi) I'm having trouble understanding how the US is printing money to pay for its debt. If they were, we wouldn't have interest rates nearly as low; in fact, to cover our debt, we'd essentially have inflation so high it would be like post WW1 Germany.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 06, 2013, 06:46:49 AM
Don't bother with objective facts. Piotr dismisses as irrelevant them when they run divergent to his point of view.
Really? We will see.
Xaol. The only reason it isn't so high is because oil is payed for around the world in dollars. Which countries are gradually working to change
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 06, 2013, 07:25:55 AM
Xaol. The only reason it isn't so high is because oil is payed for around the world in dollars. Which countries are gradually working to change
Do you mind elaborating a bit more? I'm not quite sure I understand.
In order to buy oil, other countries have to convert there currency into dollars to buy it. This of course, is holding up the value of the dollar. If all other countries stop doing this, however (which they are). The value of the dollar will CRASH beyond repair
This of course. Will lead to rioting and {faithless looting} and eventually force the nation into {Marshall law}
May I point out we have a debt the likes of which is FAR beyond anyone could have imagined 50 years ago
._. I got nothing to debate, would someone like to debate in a respectful manner upon the happenings of some interesting and controversial thing?
Public Shootings(batman guy, Norway guy, vtech, school shooter etc): Government ploys or just crazy people with guns?
GO!
Crazy people obviously. no one in their right mind would do such a thing.
Quote from: IceScythe on May 06, 2013, 02:59:58 PM
Crazy people obviously. no one in their right mind would do such a thing.
Or
are they??
Quote from: Xaol on May 06, 2013, 06:09:04 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 06, 2013, 04:21:27 AM
Quote from: Xaol on May 05, 2013, 09:16:30 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 05, 2013, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 05, 2013, 07:50:05 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 05, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Part of the problem of course, is politicians wining and dinning lawmakers to get them to make laws that benefit them. The upper class is being catered to, while the middle and lower classes are out in the back alley digging for scraps In the garbage cans.
Meanwhile. The government is stupidly printing more money to pay for there debt. Which is putting them deeper into debt. Like paying for a credit card with another credit card. And using the second credit card to pay for the first...
Not quite how the US money system works. While the US is constantly printing money through the FED, it's taking out money at the same time. Why? To battle inflation. The bills which are destroyed are ones which are worn out or ripped. New ones are printed to replace them; the Fed determines at what rate money is created and destroyed, and it has nothing to do with fixing the debt. Rather, the Fed bases the ratio off of the perceived best way to battle inflation. Not to mention, printing more money to reduce the debt would only scale the debt to match the jump in inflation rates.
Do you know what is the rate at which the money is printed and at which it is destroyed?
No idea. I'm not sure if that is privatised information or common knowledge. I'll try and look it up. I know the rate changes constantly.
I'll help you with that: it is destroyed at insignificant rate and it is printed at stupidly high rate, so your claim is false and BB is quite correct in his view of how the money system in US works.
Not quite. I did a bit of research, actually. It seems that the rate our money is destroyed at annually is shown here, by the Fed itself:
http://www.moneyfactory.gov/uscurrency/annualproductionfigures.html
Their statistic shows that 8.4 billion notes were printed in 2012.
Our rate of bill destruction? In 2010, it was:
"In 2010, [the Fed's] cash offices destroyed 5.95 billion notes"
From http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/the-destruction-of-money-who-does-it-why-when-and-how/236990/
So with inflation rates of 1.5% currently (see http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi) I'm having trouble understanding how the US is printing money to pay for its debt. If they were, we wouldn't have interest rates nearly as low; in fact, to cover our debt, we'd essentially have inflation so high it would be like post WW1 Germany.
Most of money is created as debt in the banks and never printed, simply transferred within the banking system, but still it is ending in your grocery bag at the end. BB mentioned debt at the very beginning, so I can safely call a lie on your thesis: the truth is that physical destruction of paper money is insignificant to the amount of money printed in digital form. Think MTGO ;)
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 06, 2013, 02:48:37 PM
Public Shootings(batman guy, Norway guy, vtech, school shooter etc): Government ploys or just crazy people with guns?
GO!
The government doesn't need to make ploys to take away our human rights. If they supposedly crashed planes into the towers to get us into a war with Iraq? Their cover story is horrible, because Saudis did it. They made up all of their intell on Iraq anyways. They've created several laws to subvert the constitution in public. What's to stop them from just removing the 2nd amendment? I don't think CovertOps creating mass shootings is even worth it at that point - just make new laws restricting guns.
During the Boston bombing police were pulling people out of their houses at gun point because they're allowed to do that during "terrorist" investigations. They did it because they passed laws removing our civil liberties and rights to property. It's all on the books, conspiracy theorists dream up elaborate, illogical plans for things that are in plain sight.
Staging 9/11 and run the risk of something going wrong, or someone speaking about it. Or just point at tractor trailers and say they're "mobile chemical factories" and invade Iraq anyway. We let them get away with it all the time, there is no armed revolution nor will there be. We're too busy working to pay our debts for things we need to live.
The American government is horribly inept anyway. Do you really think they're capable of staging these events? They couldn't keep the atom bomb a secret! The most important thing to our continued global dominance was stolen by 2 spies, sparking a several trillion dollar Cold War and space program. These are the same people?
Quote from: Dudecore on May 06, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
The American government is horribly inept anyway. Do you really think they're capable of staging these events? They couldn't keep the atom bomb a secret! The most important thing to our continued global dominance was stolen by 2 spies, sparking a several trillion dollar Cold War and space program. These are the same people?
Maybe the Russians figured the bomb themselves, they are smart people. Government killed two unimportant people to make an example?
What exactly did Chris Dorner know? They chased him down according to gang rules, not the law.
The government has to Many gun laws already, they just don't apply them. Which annoys me that nobody sees that.
You don't need more gun laws, just apply the ones you have. :(
Quote from: Piotr on May 06, 2013, 03:58:49 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on May 06, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
The American government is horribly inept anyway. Do you really think they're capable of staging these events? They couldn't keep the atom bomb a secret! The most important thing to our continued global dominance was stolen by 2 spies, sparking a several trillion dollar Cold War and space program. These are the same people?
Maybe the Russians figured the bomb themselves, they are smart people. Government killed two unimportant people to make an example?
Then why the space race? We spent tons of money to beat them to the moon to show American superiority. We haven't been back since the Cold War ended, because it was never about exploring the moon - it was to demoralize Russia.
Quote from: Dudecore on May 06, 2013, 04:59:44 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 06, 2013, 03:58:49 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on May 06, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
The American government is horribly inept anyway. Do you really think they're capable of staging these events? They couldn't keep the atom bomb a secret! The most important thing to our continued global dominance was stolen by 2 spies, sparking a several trillion dollar Cold War and space program. These are the same people?
Maybe the Russians figured the bomb themselves, they are smart people. Government killed two unimportant people to make an example?
Then why the space race? We spent tons of money to beat them to the moon to show American superiority. We haven't been back since the Cold War ended, because it was never about exploring the moon - it was to demoralize Russia.
It was NOT to mainly demoralise Russia; rather, it was to show the American people and the rest of the world that the US was the stronger of the two powers.
Wait...I don't understand. Do they take out a bigger loan?
Quote from: KangaRod on May 06, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 06, 2013, 03:14:54 PM
Most of money is created as debt in the banks and never printed, simply transferred within the banking system, but still it is ending in your grocery bag at the end. BB mentioned debt at the very beginning, so I can safely call a lie on your thesis: the truth is that physical destruction of paper money is insignificant to the amount of money printed in digital form. Think MTGO ;)
Actually,
http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Federal-Reserve-Printing-Money.htm
It looks like you are the liar.
Good one. I see.
I don't think there is much for me to debate about. imma drop out of this convo. ✌
Quote from: KangaRod on May 06, 2013, 08:47:38 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 06, 2013, 03:14:54 PM
Most of money is created as debt in the banks and never printed, simply transferred within the banking system, but still it is ending in your grocery bag at the end. BB mentioned debt at the very beginning, so I can safely call a lie on your thesis: the truth is that physical destruction of paper money is insignificant to the amount of money printed in digital form. Think MTGO ;)
Actually,
http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Federal-Reserve-Printing-Money.htm
It looks like you are the liar.
How an article which confirms what I said makes me a liar? Do you understand that false accusation is a particularly bad form of lying?
I hate to butt my head into this pillow fight and interrupt, but I must ask - why are you so hellbent on picking a fight with Piotr, Kanga? You've been instigating for the last week. I'm just curious.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 07, 2013, 07:39:15 AM
Did you miss the part about how they can just as easily uncreate money digitally by increasing the rate at which the loan was paid out, and it's not in fact as you implied, a one way system?
and...how are they going to pay for the loan? What do they use to pay out the loan?
Quote from: KangaRod on May 07, 2013, 09:13:18 AM
Quote from: Gorzo on May 07, 2013, 08:16:35 AM
I hate to butt my head into this pillow fight and interrupt, but I must ask - why are you so hellbent on picking a fight with Piotr, Kanga? You've been instigating for the last week. I'm just curious.
Because his philosophy runs so disagreeable to mine. For all intents and purposes he seems to be absolutely my polar opposite. That's fine, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I would like people that do disagree with me to be able to back it up.
I also find it particularly offensive when someone is presented with objective evidence and just simply dismisses it with "no" and believes that is an appropriate argument, and that the ball is back in my court.
Not once has Piotr presented anything other than his opinion, yet he has repeatedly called me a liar when I give mine. Without once presenting evidence to the contrary.
I am of the opinion that if you are going to have (in my opinion) views as ignorant as his, at least I could respect them, if you could give me reason to empathize with them - which he had failed to do time and time again.
Basically, I believe he is overly opinionated, but lacks the ability to back those opinions up as anything factual; yet continues to spout it as hard fact.
I'm sure some people might think the same of me, but I hope that people can actually see that while I may be extremely opinionated, I generally try to back it up with support from 3rd parties.
As I touched on earlier, he also has the habit of calling people liars, instead of saying they are incorrect, and explaining why they are.
I find this practice to be particularly offensive since it implies that I am deliberately presenting a premise that I know to be false for the purposes of misleading you, which I can assure you is not the case.
I may be mistaken from time to time, but I don't think I've ever deliberately tried to mislead you people to believing a premise that I knew was incorrect for some perverted ulterior motive.
A certain amount of discourse is required on the part of Piotr. I agree with the "lying" card in place of an actual exchange of ideas. However i believe you seeing this divide between you and Piotr as somewhat troubling, as if there isn't any common ground. You've decided to butt heads and that is fine. It's been a volley of sorts, and its not a battle anyone can theoretically win.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 07, 2013, 07:39:15 AM
Did you miss the part about how they can just as easily uncreate money digitally by increasing the rate at which the loan was paid out, and it's not in fact as you implied, a one way system?
No I didn't, did you miss the point that the rates are at all time low? And that in any case you are talking porkies because the interest on debt has nothing to do with the FACT that FED is printing way more money that it is destroying. The article you claim to be proving that I lied at no point suggests that what I said is false. You LIED that I provide no factual backup for my calling out a lie on yours, AGAIN. I provide factual or logical evidence every time I call out someones lie.
We need to have it settled, mate. I'm sick and tired of your accusations and personal attacks on me. I feel victim of this situation and demand a punishment for KangaRod. 2 weeks of Liar replacing your Boss label. Can we have a judge, please?
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 11:11:52 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on May 07, 2013, 07:39:15 AM
Did you miss the part about how they can just as easily uncreate money digitally by increasing the rate at which the loan was paid out, and it's not in fact as you implied, a one way system?
No I didn't, did you miss the point that the rates are at all time low? And that in any case you are talking porkies because the interest on debt has nothing to do with the FACT that FED is printing way more money that it is destroying. The article you claim to be proving that I lied at no point suggests that what I said is false. You LIED that I provide no factual backup for my calling out a lie on yours, AGAIN. I provide factual or logical evidence every time I call out someones lie.
We need to have it settled, mate. I'm sick and tired of your accusations and personal attacks on me. I feel victim of this situation and demand a punishment for KangaRod. 2 weeks of Liar replacing your Boss label. Can we have a judge, please?
Maybe this Debate thread is a little too destructive. I thought we were having a friendly debate... I personally was not offended by any of the comments thrown at me.
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 11:27:52 AM
Maybe this Debate thread is a little too destructive. I thought we were having a friendly debate... I personally was not offended by any of the comments thrown at me.
I'm personally offended by this lie:
Quote from: KangaRod on May 06, 2013, 06:46:49 AM
Don't bother with objective facts. Piotr dismisses as irrelevant them when they run divergent to his point of view.
Quote from: Dudecore on May 07, 2013, 10:20:20 AM
A certain amount of discourse is required on the part of Piotr.
http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/Where_does_Money_Come_From.pdf
http://www.mindcontagion.org/fed/createmoney.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 11:27:52 AM
Maybe this Debate thread is a little too destructive. I thought we were having a friendly debate... I personally was not offended by any of the comments thrown at me.
I'm personally offended by this lie:
Quote from: KangaRod on May 06, 2013, 06:46:49 AM
Don't bother with objective facts. Piotr dismisses as irrelevant them when they run divergent to his point of view.
Understandable. I think personal slights shouldn't be used in arguments, to be honest, and the same with accusing/name calling. I think that kind of goes for the two of you, though.
I'm not reading the prior 7 pages.
Penne noodles, I hate them! Debate!
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 11:27:52 AM
Maybe this Debate thread is a little too destructive. I thought we were having a friendly debate... I personally was not offended by any of the comments thrown at me.
I'm personally offended by this lie:
Quote from: KangaRod on May 06, 2013, 06:46:49 AM
Don't bother with objective facts. Piotr dismisses as irrelevant them when they run divergent to his point of view.
Understandable. I think personal slights shouldn't be used in arguments, to be honest, and the same with accusing/name calling. I think that kind of goes for the two of you, though.
Can I have an example of me doing to KangaRod what he did to me, please?
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 11:11:52 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on May 07, 2013, 07:39:15 AM
Did you miss the part about how they can just as easily uncreate money digitally by increasing the rate at which the loan was paid out, and it's not in fact as you implied, a one way system?
No I didn't, did you miss the point that the rates are at all time low? And that in any case you are talking porkies because the interest on debt has nothing to do with the FACT that FED is printing way more money that it is destroying. The article you claim to be proving that I lied at no point suggests that what I said is false. You LIED that I provide no factual backup for my calling out a lie on yours, AGAIN. I provide factual or logical evidence every time I call out someones lie.
We need to have it settled, mate. I'm sick and tired of your accusations and personal attacks on me. I feel victim of this situation and demand a punishment for KangaRod. 2 weeks of Liar replacing your Boss label. Can we have a judge, please?
I believe it was keyeto who said you would never ban/punish someone for going against your opinion, because it would be breaking imtg law back when I called you out for pulling the lying card all the time. I've been following this thread, and I havnt seen kangarods supposed lies, even when you provide supposed truth. You are just (in my opinion) throwing a tantrum. I see no reason for a punishment to befall kanga because of that.
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 02:51:08 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 11:27:52 AM
Maybe this Debate thread is a little too destructive. I thought we were having a friendly debate... I personally was not offended by any of the comments thrown at me.
I'm personally offended by this lie:
Quote from: KangaRod on May 06, 2013, 06:46:49 AM
Don't bother with objective facts. Piotr dismisses as irrelevant them when they run divergent to his point of view.
Understandable. I think personal slights shouldn't be used in arguments, to be honest, and the same with accusing/name calling. I think that kind of goes for the two of you, though.
Can I have an example of me doing to KangaRod what he did to me, please?
Well you've accused Kanga of lying, and he's accused you of being infantile. You also said I was lying when I stated facts on the Fed.
Just these kinds of things. Personally I think that calling you infantile or ignorant is worse than you accusing others of lying, but I don't want to get involved in the conflict between the two of you.
I'd like to respectfully suggest that we either:
Delete the thread
Resolve in another thread
Resolve over private messages between you and Kanga.
Cheers.
Quote from: Monrodesign on May 07, 2013, 02:46:55 PM
I'm not reading the prior 7 pages.
Penne noodles, I hate them! Debate!
I'm for Penne. When you have pasta you have so many choices for shape/texture. I find spaghetti boring and usually wrong with ratio of sauce to pasta. Often the pasta drops and can make a bite less desirable as you stab for the same bite again.
Penne provides enough space inside to round up sauce, yet also allow it to be compressed further when picked up with a fork, resulting in better bites, more filling bites and ease of gathering pasta compared to the old stab and twirl for spaghetti.
Quote from: Vyse on May 07, 2013, 02:55:45 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 11:11:52 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on May 07, 2013, 07:39:15 AM
Did you miss the part about how they can just as easily uncreate money digitally by increasing the rate at which the loan was paid out, and it's not in fact as you implied, a one way system?
No I didn't, did you miss the point that the rates are at all time low? And that in any case you are talking porkies because the interest on debt has nothing to do with the FACT that FED is printing way more money that it is destroying. The article you claim to be proving that I lied at no point suggests that what I said is false. You LIED that I provide no factual backup for my calling out a lie on yours, AGAIN. I provide factual or logical evidence every time I call out someones lie.
We need to have it settled, mate. I'm sick and tired of your accusations and personal attacks on me. I feel victim of this situation and demand a punishment for KangaRod. 2 weeks of Liar replacing your Boss label. Can we have a judge, please?
I believe it was keyeto who said you would never ban/punish someone for going against your opinion, because it would be breaking imtg law back when I called you out for pulling the lying card all the time. I've been following this thread, and I havnt seen kangarods supposed lies, even when you provide supposed truth. You are just (in my opinion) throwing a tantrum. I see no reason for a punishment to befall kanga because of that.
Thank you for picking up this case. I cannot agree with your judgement because I find it not logical:
Fact: I was personally called a liar by KangaRod in response to my calling a lie on Xaol's thesis.
Fact: Xaol was not offended by me calling a lie on his thesis.
Fact: My thesis was this: the truth is that physical destruction of paper money is insignificant to the amount of money printed in digital form.
Testimony, believed to be true: I believe I provided links to appropriate pages as to what I mean by the above thesis. I believe my thesis is true.
Testimony, believed to be true: I don't remember calling KangaRod a liar in the past, I did call a lie on certain statements which he presented as true.
The above facts contradict your theory. I'm not having a tantrum, I'm simply following iMtG Law.
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 07, 2013, 03:24:56 PM
Quote from: Monrodesign on May 07, 2013, 02:46:55 PM
I'm not reading the prior 7 pages.
Penne noodles, I hate them! Debate!
I'm for Penne. When you have pasta you have so many choices for shape/texture. I find spaghetti boring and usually wrong with ratio of sauce to pasta. Often the pasta drops and can make a bite less desirable as you stab for the same bite again.
Penne provides enough space inside to round up sauce, yet also allow it to be compressed further when picked up with a fork, resulting in better bites, more filling bites and ease of gathering pasta compared to the old stab and twirl for spaghetti.
Elbow noodles? :) love it for goolash.
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 02:51:08 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 11:27:52 AM
Maybe this Debate thread is a little too destructive. I thought we were having a friendly debate... I personally was not offended by any of the comments thrown at me.
I'm personally offended by this lie:
Quote from: KangaRod on May 06, 2013, 06:46:49 AM
Don't bother with objective facts. Piotr dismisses as irrelevant them when they run divergent to his point of view.
Understandable. I think personal slights shouldn't be used in arguments, to be honest, and the same with accusing/name calling. I think that kind of goes for the two of you, though.
Can I have an example of me doing to KangaRod what he did to me, please?
Well you've accused Kanga of lying, and he's accused you of being infantile. You also said I was lying when I stated facts on the Fed.
Just these kinds of things. Personally I think that calling you infantile or ignorant is worse than you accusing others of lying, but I don't want to get involved in the conflict between the two of you.
I believe I called your thesis a lie, and defined the thesis that I believe to be true, and then later you said that that you are not offended by this. Are you offended now?
Then KangaRod called me a liar (I don't remember being called infantile though ;), assuming he meant good rather than simply insulting me with the word, I assumed that he called a lie on my thesis.
He provided a link which in no way whatsoever proves my thesis false, at which point (it took a while to read the article) I assumed that he was simply trying to insult me, hence I called a lie on his thesis that my thesis was false. True or false?
I also called a lie that I'm not bothered with objective facts. I provide this forum and its law as my testimony :P
{Piotr} your doing an awesome job btw, forget the haters.
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 03:46:38 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 02:51:08 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 11:27:52 AM
Maybe this Debate thread is a little too destructive. I thought we were having a friendly debate... I personally was not offended by any of the comments thrown at me.
I'm personally offended by this lie:
Quote from: KangaRod on May 06, 2013, 06:46:49 AM
Don't bother with objective facts. Piotr dismisses as irrelevant them when they run divergent to his point of view.
Understandable. I think personal slights shouldn't be used in arguments, to be honest, and the same with accusing/name calling. I think that kind of goes for the two of you, though.
Can I have an example of me doing to KangaRod what he did to me, please?
Well you've accused Kanga of lying, and he's accused you of being infantile. You also said I was lying when I stated facts on the Fed.
Just these kinds of things. Personally I think that calling you infantile or ignorant is worse than you accusing others of lying, but I don't want to get involved in the conflict between the two of you.
I believe I called your thesis a lie, and defined the thesis that I believe to be true, and then later you said that that you are not offended by this. Are you offended now?
Then KangaRod called me a liar (I don't remember being called infantile though ;), assuming he meant good rather than simply insulting me with the word, I assumed that he called a lie on my thesis.
He provided a link which in no way whatsoever proves my thesis false, at which point (it took a while to read the article) I assumed that he was simply trying to insult me, hence I called a lie on his thesis that my thesis was false. True or false?
I also called a lie that I'm not bothered with objective facts. I provide this forum and its law as my testimony :P
Oh no! Don't get me wrong; I'm not offended by you saying that! The rest of what you said I agree with, that's the way it went down.
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 03:15:05 PM
I'd like to respectfully suggest that we either:
Delete the thread
Resolve in another thread
Resolve over private messages between you and Kanga.
Cheers.
As a kindly reminder to someone who aspires to become a moderator of this forum, you never delete threads like this one. People do not post to have their posts deleted, they do not want this to be done to them. Makes sense?
Quote from: Monrodesign on May 07, 2013, 03:48:28 PM
{Piotr} your doing an awesome job btw, forget the haters.
I'm just trying to have fun, is all :D
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 03:15:05 PM
I'd like to respectfully suggest that we either:
Delete the thread
Resolve in another thread
Resolve over private messages between you and Kanga.
Cheers.
As a kindly reminder to someone who aspires to become a moderator of this forum, you never delete threads like this one. People do not post to have their posts deleted, they do not want this to be done to them. Makes sense?
Thank you. That's the way to look at it, then. I was under the impression that if feelings were getting hurt, it merits deletion, but now I know. Cheers!
Quote from: Monrodesign on May 07, 2013, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 07, 2013, 03:24:56 PM
Quote from: Monrodesign on May 07, 2013, 02:46:55 PM
I'm not reading the prior 7 pages.
Penne noodles, I hate them! Debate!
I'm for Penne. When you have pasta you have so many choices for shape/texture. I find spaghetti boring and usually wrong with ratio of sauce to pasta. Often the pasta drops and can make a bite less desirable as you stab for the same bite again.
Penne provides enough space inside to round up sauce, yet also allow it to be compressed further when picked up with a fork, resulting in better bites, more filling bites and ease of gathering pasta compared to the old stab and twirl for spaghetti.
Elbow noodles? :) love it for goolash.
Hey man, this debate is about Penne and it's pros an cons, not preferred pasta.
Penne beats elbow Mac hands down as more sauce can easily flow through it, enhancing flavor
Bring it on!!!!
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 04:31:52 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 03:15:05 PM
I'd like to respectfully suggest that we either:
Delete the thread
Resolve in another thread
Resolve over private messages between you and Kanga.
Cheers.
As a kindly reminder to someone who aspires to become a moderator of this forum, you never delete threads like this one. People do not post to have their posts deleted, they do not want this to be done to them. Makes sense?
Thank you. That's the way to look at it, then. I was under the impression that if feelings were getting hurt, it merits deletion, but now I know. Cheers!
If you can prove that a poster broke the law, his posts may be deleted as punishment if that would be logical punishment for his crime. To delete a thread you would have to prove and punish all the posters of the thread. Possible but very unlikely ;)
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 04:48:53 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 04:31:52 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 03:15:05 PM
I'd like to respectfully suggest that we either:
Delete the thread
Resolve in another thread
Resolve over private messages between you and Kanga.
Cheers.
As a kindly reminder to someone who aspires to become a moderator of this forum, you never delete threads like this one. People do not post to have their posts deleted, they do not want this to be done to them. Makes sense?
Thank you. That's the way to look at it, then. I was under the impression that if feelings were getting hurt, it merits deletion, but now I know. Cheers!
If you can prove that a poster broke the law, his posts may be deleted as punishment if that would be logical punishment for his crime. To delete a thread you would have to prove and punish all the posters of the thread. Possible but very unlikely ;)
I see. So it actually takes quite a bit to delete a thread, then.
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 07, 2013, 04:58:29 PM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 07, 2013, 04:48:47 PM
Quote from: Monrodesign on May 07, 2013, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Muggywuggy on May 07, 2013, 03:24:56 PM
Quote from: Monrodesign on May 07, 2013, 02:46:55 PM
I'm not reading the prior 7 pages.
Penne noodles, I hate them! Debate!
I'm for Penne. When you have pasta you have so many choices for shape/texture. I find spaghetti boring and usually wrong with ratio of sauce to pasta. Often the pasta drops and can make a bite less desirable as you stab for the same bite again.
Penne provides enough space inside to round up sauce, yet also allow it to be compressed further when picked up with a fork, resulting in better bites, more filling bites and ease of gathering pasta compared to the old stab and twirl for spaghetti.
Elbow noodles? :) love it for goolash.
Hey man, this debate is about Penne and it's pros an cons, not preferred pasta.
Penne beats elbow Mac hands down as more sauce can easily flow through it, enhancing flavor
Bring it on!!!!
You are all buzzing off your nut!!! Tagliatelle is King of pasta!!!! Carbonara sauce and bacon you can't beat it!!!
Oh guys you are totaly wrong about that... The best pasta ever are fusilli... Bolognese or Carbonara... Or with stripped roasted sirloin, beschamel sauce and Parmigiano on top...:)
This isn't pasta opinion. This is penne debate!
Besides fettuccini is the best pasta.
I'm a real sucker for Angel's Hair myself. Pretty rare that I find it, though.
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 06:44:35 PM
I'm a real sucker for Angel's Hair myself. Pretty rare that I find it, though.
Check the pasta aisle at your local grocery store
Or
http://www.soap.com/p/hodgson-mill-gluten-free-brown-rice-pasta-all-natural-angel-hair-w-milled-flaxseed-297165?site=CA&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc_S&utm_term=ZQB-17397B&utm_campaign=GoogleAW&CAWELAID=1323241939&utm_content=pla&adtype=pla&cagpspn=pla#
Quote from: Rass on May 07, 2013, 06:49:14 PM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 06:44:35 PM
I'm a real sucker for Angel's Hair myself. Pretty rare that I find it, though.
Check the pasta aisle at your local grocery store
Or
http://www.soap.com/p/hodgson-mill-gluten-free-brown-rice-pasta-all-natural-angel-hair-w-milled-flaxseed-297165?site=CA&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc_S&utm_term=ZQB-17397B&utm_campaign=GoogleAW&CAWELAID=1323241939&utm_content=pla&adtype=pla&cagpspn=pla#
Words cannot describe how much I love you right now.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 07, 2013, 07:10:42 PM
I was talking about the digital destruction of money, through the raising of interests rates.
If you want to talk about digital money creation it's only fair to talk about digital money destruction as well. If we're going to talk about paper money destruction, then lets talk about paper money creation, but interchanging between them is comparing apples to oranges, and that's exactly what you're doing right now.
Quote
People get concerned about the Federal Reserve printing money because they don't understand how the Fed can "unprint" money. However, by raising the Fed funds rate and other constrictive monetary policy measures, the Fed can dry up liquidity. This has the same effect as taking money out of circulation.
You called me liar because I said this: the truth is that physical destruction of paper money is insignificant to the amount of money printed in digital form. It was always about digital and paper money printing. Taking money out of circulation is not at all destroying money. The money is there, sinked into Wall Street bubble and housing bubble and whatnot. It can explain why the inflation is low, but it doesn't logically prove my thesis false. And in no way it proves false the original thesis of BB, that we print more money created from debt to repay debt, to repay debt, ...
Edit: furthermore, showing that something 'can' be done withouth showing that it is 'being' done is useless for the purpose of disproving something which is clearly being done. We print more money than we destroy and the fact that we 'can' unprint it, doesn't undo the fact that we 'do' print more money to repay debt, which puts us deeper in the debt with each printing (or 'quantative easing' if you want to be politically correct).
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 08:21:12 PM
Quote from: KangaRod on May 07, 2013, 07:10:42 PM
I was talking about the digital destruction of money, through the raising of interests rates.
If you want to talk about digital money creation it's only fair to talk about digital money destruction as well. If we're going to talk about paper money destruction, then lets talk about paper money creation, but interchanging between them is comparing apples to oranges, and that's exactly what you're doing right now.
Quote
People get concerned about the Federal Reserve printing money because they don't understand how the Fed can "unprint" money. However, by raising the Fed funds rate and other constrictive monetary policy measures, the Fed can dry up liquidity. This has the same effect as taking money out of circulation.
You called me liar because I said this: the truth is that physical destruction of paper money is insignificant to the amount of money printed in digital form. It was always about digital and paper money printing. Taking money out of circulation is not at all destroying money. The money is there, sinked into Wall Street bubble and housing bubble and whatnot. It can explain why the inflation is low, but it doesn't logically prove my thesis false. And in no way it proves false the original thesis of BB, that we print more money created from debt to repay debt, to repay debt, ...
"we"? I thought you lived in...some country were the Vikings lived
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 07, 2013, 08:36:50 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 07, 2013, 08:21:12 PM
Quote from: KangaRod on May 07, 2013, 07:10:42 PM
I was talking about the digital destruction of money, through the raising of interests rates.
If you want to talk about digital money creation it's only fair to talk about digital money destruction as well. If we're going to talk about paper money destruction, then lets talk about paper money creation, but interchanging between them is comparing apples to oranges, and that's exactly what you're doing right now.
Quote
People get concerned about the Federal Reserve printing money because they don't understand how the Fed can "unprint" money. However, by raising the Fed funds rate and other constrictive monetary policy measures, the Fed can dry up liquidity. This has the same effect as taking money out of circulation.
You called me liar because I said this: the truth is that physical destruction of paper money is insignificant to the amount of money printed in digital form. It was always about digital and paper money printing. Taking money out of circulation is not at all destroying money. The money is there, sinked into Wall Street bubble and housing bubble and whatnot. It can explain why the inflation is low, but it doesn't logically prove my thesis false. And in no way it proves false the original thesis of BB, that we print more money created from debt to repay debt, to repay debt, ...
"we"? I thought you lived in...some country were the Vikings lived
Piotr either lives in England or Poland (if I remember correctly)
Oh. My mistake
"We" because the mechanism of creating fiat money based on debt is used by pretty much every government on the planet. Please note that this does not make the mechanism right nor using it wise. Billions of flies can be wrong and we really shouldn't eat .poo. ;)
EDIT: what I mean by this is that truth cannot be decided by the number of people claiming it to be true. It takes one man with logical explanation to falsify any statement which is backed by millions, providing his proof is logical and based on facts.
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 08:37:44 PM
Piotr either lives in England or Poland (if I remember correctly)
I used to live in Poland which gave me first hand experience of living in a country with socialism pretty much implemented. Now I live UK and see socialism in the final stages of being implemented. UK is part of EU same as Texas is part of US.
Here's a thesis for you: socialist countries are much worse to live in for generally everyone, than countries with free market as an economical system, assuming all other variables being equal.
People generally try to emigrate from countries which are worse to live in to countries which are better to live in, fact. Looking at best available examples of Western and Eastern Germany, and North and South Korea, it can be seen that people try to emigrate to a country with the least amount of socialism, fact.
Feel free to call a lie on any of this, just make sure that if you do yo make it in polite scientific way, and you backup your claim with logical explanation and corresponding facts, not a link to logically unrelated leftish blog, please.
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 05:08:50 AM
Quote from: Xaol on May 07, 2013, 08:37:44 PM
Piotr either lives in England or Poland (if I remember correctly)
I used to live in Poland which gave me first hand experience of living in a country with socialism pretty much implemented. Now I live UK and see socialism in the final stages of being implemented. UK is part of EU same as Texas is part of US.
Here's a thesis for you: socialist countries are much worse to live in for generally everyone, than countries with free market as an economical system, assuming all other variables being equal.
People generally try to emigrate from countries which are worse to live in to countries which are better to live in, fact. Looking at best available examples of Western and Eastern Germany, and North and South Korea, it can be seen that people try to emigrate to a country with the least amount of socialism, fact.
Feel free to call a lie on any of this, just make sure that if you do yo make it in polite scientific way, and you backup your claim with logical explanation and corresponding facts, not a link to logically unrelated leftish blog, please.
If this is directed to you, I completely agree. Having moved from Ireland to the US I can say that the only real difference is the US has a better economy. The .politics. still suck.
Having said that, I do plan to move back to Ireland when the economy stabilises a bit. Already the terrorism and violence has died down quite a bit, which I'm thankful for.
Personally I think free market systems would be better for everyone. However, when things take a turn for the worst, people (wrongly) expect the government to fix things.
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 05:08:50 AM
Here's a thesis for you: socialist countries are much worse to live in for generally everyone, than countries with free market as an economical system, assuming all other variables being equal.
Piotr I have to disagree with your terminology here... I guess you are more talking about communism, not about socialism... Bcs socialism itself does not exclude free market. For example Norway is proof that socialism can work. And it is free market here...;)
There is a quite big difference between those two expressions (even though they have roots in same philosophy)... And believe me I know what I am talking about I was born and lived in Czech Republic during the time when communistic party was in charge...
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 06:44:09 AM
How long have you been living in the UK? The reason I say this is because it hardly is in the final stages of being a socialist country.
Since 2004, with a year gap in 2010/2011 when I was living in South Korea and Malaysia.
I'm not sure if I want to call a lie on your thesis, could you clarify if you mean that UK is not at all in the final stages because you believe it to be mostly free market economy, or that you believe it already is a socialist country, please? ;)
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 09:07:35 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 06:57:39 AM
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 06:44:09 AM
How long have you been living in the UK? The reason I say this is because it hardly is in the final stages of being a socialist country.
Since 2004, with a year gap in 2010/2011 when I was living in South Korea and Malaysia.
I'm not sure if I want to call a lie on your thesis, could you clarify if you mean that UK is not at all in the final stages because you believe it to be mostly free market economy, or that you believe it already is a socialist country, please? ;)
Ha ha what I am saying is in the UK you have Labour which which is basically conservatives but in red which part privatised a lot of industries and gave out insane public-private contracts which only benefitted the private companies( well those that did not go bankrupt). Now they have been kicked out you have the Tories basically scrabbling to privatise the rest of the stuff they did not do last time they were in. They are also trying to change employment laws for the worse, massive cuts to benefits while giving a tax cut of 5% to the rich. The Lib dems which sold out their supporters by agreeing to hike university education to £9000 instead of the usual £3000. Then you have UKIP on the rise which is euro sceptic far right ex-conservatives which are basically on par with the BNP. Social? More like anti-social!!!
Ok now it's clear enough, so let me clarify my reasoning as well: I define free market as a place where everyone is free to operate their business however they like, as long as they do not hurt other people in the process. Like operating under iMtG Law for example.
I do not define free market by ownership. It doesn't matter if a company is private or not if they have government granted monopoly, for example. It doesn't matter if a company is private if it is not free to enter agreements without governmental approval, like for example I cannot hire you for £3/hour even if you would be happy to work for me at this rate. It isn't free market nor proper private property if I cannot change my garden shed for bigger without governmental approval. There are plethora of examples along these lines.
Now what you are complaining about is indeed confirmation that we are in the late stages of socialism implementation. You see, socialism is very very inefficient and in the long run it always always runs out of money. That's what I've seen in Poland where we had food rationing in 70's and 80's. We are not as bad in the UK because we still have some freedom left, but the implementation stage is advanced enough for everyone to see that the money is gone. Socialism is also, by design, promoting corruption and the private-public sector contracts are just that.
BTW, I vote UKIP and they are right indeed (not as right as iMtG Law, but closest of all UK parties that I know of), and no they are not even close to BNP. BNP is left: national socialists, the same ideology as NSDAP.
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 10:57:11 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 09:36:29 AM
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 09:07:35 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 06:57:39 AM
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 06:44:09 AM
How long have you been living in the UK? The reason I say this is because it hardly is in the final stages of being a socialist country.
Since 2004, with a year gap in 2010/2011 when I was living in South Korea and Malaysia.
I'm not sure if I want to call a lie on your thesis, could you clarify if you mean that UK is not at all in the final stages because you believe it to be mostly free market economy, or that you believe it already is a socialist country, please? ;)
Ha ha what I am saying is in the UK you have Labour which which is basically conservatives but in red which part privatised a lot of industries and gave out insane public-private contracts which only benefitted the private companies( well those that did not go bankrupt). Now they have been kicked out you have the Tories basically scrabbling to privatise the rest of the stuff they did not do last time they were in. They are also trying to change employment laws for the worse, massive cuts to benefits while giving a tax cut of 5% to the rich. The Lib dems which sold out their supporters by agreeing to hike university education to £9000 instead of the usual £3000. Then you have UKIP on the rise which is euro sceptic far right ex-conservatives which are basically on par with the BNP. Social? More like anti-social!!!
Ok now it's clear enough, so let me clarify my reasoning as well: I define free market as a place where everyone is free to operate their business however they like, as long as they do not hurt other people in the process. Like operating under iMtG Law for example.
I do not define free market by ownership. It doesn't matter if a company is private or not if they have government granted monopoly, for example. It doesn't matter if a company is private if it is not free to enter agreements without governmental approval, like for example I cannot hire you for £3/hour even if you would be happy to work for me at this rate. It isn't free market nor proper private property if I cannot change my garden shed for bigger without governmental approval. There are plethora of examples along these lines.
Now what you are complaining about is indeed confirmation that we are in the late stages of socialism implementation. You see, socialism is very very inefficient and in the long run it always always runs out of money. That's what I've seen in Poland where we had food rationing in 70's and 80's. We are not as bad in the UK because we still have some freedom left, but the implementation stage is advanced enough for everyone to see that the money is gone. Socialism is also, by design, promoting corruption and the private-public sector contracts are just that.
BTW, I vote UKIP and they are right indeed (not as right as iMtG Law, but closest of all UK parties that I know of), and no they are not even close to BNP. BNP is left: national socialists, the same ideology as NSDAP.
Your argument is quite flawed. It's seems that you have not looked into UKIP and its membership. Corruption occurs in any system to state in appears in just a socialist one is quite ridiculous, unfortunately capitalist approaches do not work, privatisation of certain services does not work. It's not about socialism it is about common sense. Anyone that votes UKIP needs their head examined as they would be disasterous for the UK and truly not understand their agenda.
I never said that corruption appears just in socialism, I said that by design socialism promotes corruption. Socialism was designed to redistribute wealth and this very fact makes all sort of crooks flock to it, because where wealth is redistributed, especially as large wealth as it is extorted in taxes these days, it is relatively easy to divert part of this wealth where the crooks want it to go, which is their own pockets. This is easy in socialism because when wealth is extorted from its owners, it looses the ownership and becomes 'common good' and the rightful owner doesn't mind it anymore. It is almost always easier to steal from 'everyone' than from a particular entity, and furthermore it is almost always easier to steal from a large single sum of money, than from many smaller sums of money. This is what I meant and it is quite logical, you are more than welcome to refute my logic, please. If you on the other hand continue along the lines of 'my head needs to be examined', you may find your Gathering membership revoked, so please be careful.
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 10:58:57 AM
Oh and BNP is a left organisation? Hate to see what you call right wing, they swing more to the right than Tories!!
You seem to have fallen a victim of the common misconception that BNP and the likes (NSDAP comes to mind immediately) are far right. They are not, they are socialist party calling for reductions in free market, under nationalist slogans. They are national socialists, if you will. It doesn't particularly matter if freedoms are removed because socialists want to redistribute wealth from its rightful owners to members of particular nation, or to members of particular social class, or any other group of people. What matters is that socialists are forcefully, at gunpoint, extorting wealth from the people who were rightful owners of the wealth, to some other people. They do it under many mostly false pretences, and what is common to all socialists is that they believe that goal justifies the means. They believe it is ok to rob one group of people and give to other group of people. That makes them left, not right.
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 12:03:04 PM
Don't agree with that at all. Their views and policies make them far right I'm afraid. Seems you slate the left anyway so I can understand why you don't want to be lumped in with racists and bigots, mr righty?
You are free to disagree. Can I ask you which of BNP's views and policies make them right, please?
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 02:14:12 PM
Quite frankly all of them, unfortunately while you are quite literate you seem to confuse logic with the actual reality of the policies. This is quite dangerous as it implies you have no understanding of levels of society and dare say had a great deal of life experience. I don't know you so can't really make that assumption just an observation. It's funny as I am a activist for the Green party and hear what people say what is wrong with the world but do nothing to change it. But never heard in my life the argument that BNP is a left wing organisation, that actually makes my blood run cold.
You mad bro:
"BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers." - free market reduction -> left.
"To that end the BNP will restore our economy and land to British ownership" - wealth redistribution -> left.
"Fully cognisant of the reality that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise, a BNP government will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates. Such schemes are the only guarantee of workers being motivated to ensure the success of their employers." - lol sounds like a bloody communist manifesto, no less -> left.
"The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism, which means that British workers must compete against those in China and India who work for as little as a pound a day." - centrally planned economy -> left.
"Originally, benefits were meant as the state's obligation to support those who genuinely are not in a position to support themselves. This guiding principle must always remain the guiding light for a just and humane system – and it is the core of the British National Party's welfare policy." - socialism -> left.
These are all from BNP manifesto. They are on your side, on the left, bro :D You hate them because you compete for the same voters, but they think very similar to you: goal justifies the means.
As for my life experience, well, I'm a retired SAP consultant, married with two daughters. I own this forum and a house in Chobham, Surrey. I've been around for 37 years.
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 03:26:13 PM
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 02:14:12 PM
Quite frankly all of them, unfortunately while you are quite literate you seem to confuse logic with the actual reality of the policies. This is quite dangerous as it implies you have no understanding of levels of society and dare say had a great deal of life experience. I don't know you so can't really make that assumption just an observation. It's funny as I am a activist for the Green party and hear what people say what is wrong with the world but do nothing to change it. But never heard in my life the argument that BNP is a left wing organisation, that actually makes my blood run cold.
You mad bro:
"BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers." - free market reduction -> left.
"To that end the BNP will restore our economy and land to British ownership" - wealth redistribution -> left.
"Fully cognisant of the reality that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise, a BNP government will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates. Such schemes are the only guarantee of workers being motivated to ensure the success of their employers." - lol sounds like a bloody communist manifesto, no less -> left.
"The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism, which means that British workers must compete against those in China and India who work for as little as a pound a day." - centrally planned economy -> left.
"Originally, benefits were meant as the state's obligation to support those who genuinely are not in a position to support themselves. This guiding principle must always remain the guiding light for a just and humane system – and it is the core of the British National Party's welfare policy." - socialism -> left.
These are all from BNP manifesto. They are on your side, on the left, bro :D You hate them because you compete for the same voters, but they think very similar to you: goal justifies the means.
As for my life experience, well, I'm a retired SAP consultant, married with two daughters. I own this forum and a house in Chobham, Surrey. I've been around for 37 years.
Ehm most of this is like they would cut it out from Marx and Engels... What a weird politic scene you have in UK...? :D
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 04:15:07 PMEhm most of this is like they would cut it out from Marx and Engels... What a weird politic scene you have in UK...? :D
National socialists hasn't changed much since NSDAP, I wouldn't say it's especially weird. I would say it's a known problem ;)
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 10:57:11 AMAnyone that votes UKIP needs their head examined as they would be disasterous for the UK and truly not understand their agenda.
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 04:10:03 PM
I feel very sorry Pitor as it seems you have not learnt anything in your life.
I find the above statements bigoted, false and personally insulting. Could you apologise, please?
Heh ok, one source of ideology, same herd...
Honestly I would let them to show themselves... People would be rioting in couple of months...
The thing is that after all that happened in 20th century, 2nd ww, 40 yrs of communism in the eastern block of europe noone can be fooled anymore... Even during the so called economy crisis...
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 04:41:38 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 04:28:18 PM
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 10:57:11 AMAnyone that votes UKIP needs their head examined as they would be disasterous for the UK and truly not understand their agenda.
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 04:10:03 PM
I feel very sorry Pitor as it seems you have not learnt anything in your life.
I find the above statements bigoted, false and personally insulting. Could you apologise, please?
I apologise for your head examined but not my views on UKIP which is a camouflaged right wing party with awful members representing it.
Quite right about your life experience as I do not know you so will apologise for that and can I have an apology for calling me mad please 😁
'You mad bro' is an idiom: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%20mad%20bro%3F not an insult ;)
UKIP is an openly right wing party, the very opposite of BNP which is on the left, as I have proven with appropriate statements from their own manifesto.
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
Heh ok, one source of ideology, same herd...
Honestly I would let them to show themselves... People would be rioting in couple of months...
The thing is that after all that happened in 20th century, 2nd ww, 40 yrs of communism in the eastern block of europe noone can be fooled anymore... Even during the so called economy crisis...
How come people elect socialists to power, then? :D
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 05:13:15 PM
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
Heh ok, one source of ideology, same herd...
Honestly I would let them to show themselves... People would be rioting in couple of months...
The thing is that after all that happened in 20th century, 2nd ww, 40 yrs of communism in the eastern block of europe noone can be fooled anymore... Even during the so called economy crisis...
How come people elect socialists to power, then? :D
The same way how it happened in 20th and 30th of last century... Make people to starve... Give them charismatic, populistic, and manipulative leader... If it would be done in right ( read correct :D )way then most of middle-class would elect his party...;)
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 05:28:00 PM
Keep telling yourself BNP is left 😀😀😀at least I had a laugh at that!!!
It is customary in debates amongst respectable adults to refute each other arguments using logic and facts rather than laugh at them like little children. This is what we aspire to in debates on Gathering. I find your behaviour far from appropriate here, sir, maybe you should move back to the Guardian forums?
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 05:53:04 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 05:13:15 PM
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
Heh ok, one source of ideology, same herd...
Honestly I would let them to show themselves... People would be rioting in couple of months...
The thing is that after all that happened in 20th century, 2nd ww, 40 yrs of communism in the eastern block of europe noone can be fooled anymore... Even during the so called economy crisis...
How come people elect socialists to power, then? :D
The same way how it happened in 20th and 30th of last century... Make people to starve... Give them charismatic, populistic, and manipulative leader... If it would be done in right ( read correct :D )way then most of middle-class would elect his party...;)
People are electing socialists to power in Europe, on an off, for the last 50 years. Obama is a socialist and he is elected POTUS. True, they are not national socialists, but they still steal ;)
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 05:28:00 PM
Keep telling yourself BNP is left 😀😀😀at least I had a laugh at that!!!
In fact if those quotes that Piotr posted here are really from their manifesto then that party is not right wing but left wing of politic spectrum... At least their ideology is...
I was always wondering why nacionalists are called as a ultra-right... Because the promises and ideology is left winged... Only the ways and tools how to accomplish that are right winged....
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 06:04:15 PM
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 05:53:04 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 05:13:15 PM
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
Heh ok, one source of ideology, same herd...
Honestly I would let them to show themselves... People would be rioting in couple of months...
The thing is that after all that happened in 20th century, 2nd ww, 40 yrs of communism in the eastern block of europe noone can be fooled anymore... Even during the so called economy crisis...
How come people elect socialists to power, then? :D
The same way how it happened in 20th and 30th of last century... Make people to starve... Give them charismatic, populistic, and manipulative leader... If it would be done in right ( read correct :D )way then most of middle-class would elect his party...;)
People are electing socialists to power in Europe, on an off, for the last 50 years. Obama is a socialist and he is elected POTUS. True, they are not national socialists, but they still steal ;)
Oh socialists in Norway do not steal... Honestly they are making quite good job... But they have all those weird ideas like that they canceled Anti-begging law... And now is Oslo flooded by beggars from Romania and Bulgaria... I am not Xenophobe or racist if they would come because of work I would not have problem with them at all... But to come only because they are begging on the street???
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 06:08:48 PM
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 08, 2013, 05:28:00 PM
Keep telling yourself BNP is left 😀😀😀at least I had a laugh at that!!!
In fact if those quotes that Piotr posted here are really from their manifesto then that party is not right wing but left wing of politic spectrum... At least their ideology is...
I copy pasted it from here: http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/economics and here: http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/housing-welfare and there's more if you want to waste your time reading this poo.
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 06:08:48 PM
I was always wondering why nacionalists are called as a ultra-right... Because the promises and ideology is left winged... Only the ways and tools how to accomplish that are right winged....
They are called ultra-right by the left, for obvious reasons: they do not want to be associated with them. This is a lie, national socialists are left wing both in their ideology and their methods. It was communist Lenin who started murdering millions, his socialist buddy Hitler added a few, then their buddy Stalin had his turn, then their pupil Pol-Pot added a few... Goal justifies the means, they say.
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 06:15:33 PM
Oh socialists in Norway do not steal... Honestly they are making quite good job... But they have all those weird ideas like that they canceled Anti-begging law... And now is Oslo flooded by beggars from Romania and Bulgaria... I am not Xenophobe or racist if they would come because of work I would not have problem with them at all... But to come only because they are begging on the street???
All socialists steal, by definition of socialism: they forcefully take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor, they say. I say they steal from working class and give it to bankers, themselves and to needy class, don't they?
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 06:24:31 PM
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 06:15:33 PM
Oh socialists in Norway do not steal... Honestly they are making quite good job... But they have all those weird ideas like that they canceled Anti-begging law... And now is Oslo flooded by beggars from Romania and Bulgaria... I am not Xenophobe or racist if they would come because of work I would not have problem with them at all... But to come only because they are begging on the street???
All socialists steal, by definition of socialism: they forcefully take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor, they say. I say they steal from working class and give it to bankers, themselves and to needy class, don't they?
Mhmm would not say so but economic situation in Norway is a little different from the rest of europian countries...;)
They do not need to steal...;)
Quote from: whitedrake on May 08, 2013, 06:39:12 PM
Mhmm would not say so but economic situation in Norway is a little different from the rest of europian countries...;)
They do not need to steal...;)
Forced taxation on labour, known as income tax, is stealing in my book. I live by iMtG Law ;)
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 09, 2013, 03:53:29 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 06:01:15 PM
sir, maybe you should move back to the Guardian forums?
Well it looks you came straight from the Daily mail forum. If I find something amusing about what you said then I will laugh. It is not disrespectful it is called a sense of humor. Plus still waiting for an apology 😢
I do not find it funny when people accuse me of being immature and then behave immaturely themselves, in a an obviously serious debate.
You have been found guilty of insulting me, you apologised so the restitution part of your punishment is done. I will stick a 'Bozo' label* on you for a week as the retribution part, you will be not guilty after that.
I do not feel an apology from my side is required, please open a case with one of the moderators if you do.
* pending some development work.
Logic and facts are the only things which have place in a serious debate, unfortunately you are not providing any.
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 09, 2013, 07:09:02 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 09, 2013, 06:43:34 AM
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 09, 2013, 03:53:29 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 08, 2013, 06:01:15 PM
sir, maybe you should move back to the Guardian forums?
Well it looks you came straight from the Daily mail forum. If I find something amusing about what you said then I will laugh. It is not disrespectful it is called a sense of humor. Plus still waiting for an apology 😢
I do not find it funny when people accuse me of being immature and then behave immaturely themselves, in a an obviously serious debate.
You have been found guilty of insulting me, you apologised so the restitution part of your punishment is done. I will stick a 'Bozo' label* on you for a week as the retribution part, you will be not guilty after that.
I do not feel an apology from my side is required, please open a case with one of the moderators if you do.
* pending some development work.
Ha ha ha label me with whatever you want as I'm not a child and emotionally stable 😃
That you are so easily offended by people who question your views I'm amazed you actually do want to debate. Applying logic and facts in a Mr Spock manner is only part of it and appears you lack the social ability to see that as you don't know the representaives of the parties concerned and mood of the people. I wasn't actually offended by "you mad bro" just wanted to see your reaction which unfortunately is a disappointing one. Oh and Daily mail forum for you was a bit polite as what you have written definitely labels you as a Sun reader. 😘
I'll butt in for a moment just to say that you cannot have a strong argument if you don't separate emotion from fact. One fundamentally undermines the other.
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 09, 2013, 08:57:14 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 09, 2013, 07:42:37 AM
Logic and facts are the only things which have place in a serious debate, unfortunately you are not providing any.
Then you have not been using logic. If you are a UK resident then it is widely accepted that BNP is a far right organisation widely affiliated with other such organisations. UKIP is not openly right wing party as you suggest which is in poor taste. The representatives of UKIP have been found to have extremely distasteful xenophobic, homophobic views. The fact that you're polish and voting for UKIP is even funnier as if you look at their members a lot wanted nothing at all to do with Eastern Europe. Taking any parties policy as gospel is foolish as you also have to look at the driving force behind it as well. 😘
I am using logic: truth is determined by objective facts, not by number of people believing in it. You can believe all you want that Earth is flat and the Cosmos evolves around it, but it takes a few simple facts to prove that thesis wrong. You can believe all you want that BNP is right wing, and millions of others with you, but it takes just a few statements from BNP manifesto to see that they are left, which I did and all you had to say about it is that I'm funny.
What representatives of UKIP do in their free time is their own problem, what is interesting to me is that they openly advertise themselves as right wing:
"The Party is a democratic, libertarian Party and will espouse policies which:
(...)
seek to diminish the role of the State;
lower the burden of taxation on individuals and businesses;"
This is from the UKIP Constitution, available publicly on their web page.
What you are doing is spreading false propaganda* on my forum and frankly I wont have that, this is your last warning.
* defined as spreading false information based on emotional view of the world not on logic and facts.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 09, 2013, 09:13:07 AM
It seems as though some of us are having difficulty separating liberal social policy and liberal economic policy. It's not entirely 2 dimensional as 'left' and 'right' implies. There is actually 3 dimensions.
Ironically enough, and I thought this was understood, is that the "left" and "right", when taken to the extreme often end up at the same place, like a horseshoe.
This is because, at its core, the most liberal socio value you can have is that every person has the equal amount of worth to the country. Everyone shall always be put before the betterment of society as a whole. This is communism.
The most conservative social approach one can take is that nobody matters, only the good of the country is what counts, and that nobody will be put before the betterment of the country. This is facism.
The most conservative economic approach you can have is that everyone needs to be looked after. This is socialism.
The most liberal economic approach is that nobody needs to be looked after, and we can leave them to their own devices. This is capitalism.
What is commonly referred to as "the right" will take a liberal ecomic approach, with a conservative social approach. As you add more conservative economic approach you will end up with facism eventually, not communism - though most fascists are usually socialists as well. It's apples and oranges. Socialism and communism are not the same thing.
At no point does this actually cross back over center. It actually goes further and further right, so far back that; as you pointed out - starts to curve back on itself and ends up looking like some of the aspects of having a liberal-liberal social/economic approach, even though the way it derives its polices is the complete opposite.
I'm sorry to say, but in no circles will anyone ever understand the conservative-conservative approach as being on any side of the house other than right, and as was stated, is a concept that is laughable at best.
The reason it looks like its on the left is because you are seeing it as a 1 dimensional object with left and right, when in reality it is more like a 2 dimensional square with left right, up and down.
Nice try, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Can we have a few concrete examples of BNP proposed policies from their manifesto which make them right wing, to clarify, please?
My logic is this: for the BNP to be on the far-right wing of the political spectrum, they would have to have at least 1 objectively right wing (defined as non-left wing (A cannot be B at the same time)) policy, can you name one to prove wrong my thesis that BNP is not right wing? If not then I will call a lie and find it personally offensive if someone falsely calls them right wing party, let alone far-right. I have proven my thesis not false by providing chiefly left wing proposals from BNP political manifesto.
,_, don't mess with the Admin bro. insulting someone on there own forum is not the smartest choice.
Quote from: IceScythe on May 09, 2013, 12:09:52 PM
,_, don't mess with the Admin bro. insulting someone on there own forum is not the smartest choice.
True that. A bit like being invited to someones dinner party and proclaiming in front of the guests that the host is a moron and his wife is a fat bitch. Very unlikely that you would be invited to this house again ;)
Do you guys think drugs should be legalized??
My answer is no and here are my reasons:
•Addiction rate would increase. When addiction rates increase, purchase related crime would increase as well.
•If legalization of drugs decreases the price of substances that more people will buy more less expensive products. However, addicts do not only steal money to buy drugs. They steal money to meet a standard of living
• If drugs become legalized, less expensive and more accessible, this may affect the drug-users' habits. The use of drugs will increase more side effects like violence and paranoia etc.
•Criminals commit six times more homicides, four times assaults, and almost one and a half times as many robberies under the influence of drugs
I would like your opinions
Quote from: All-Mana Mania on May 09, 2013, 06:59:56 PM
Do you guys think drugs should be legalized??
My answer is no and here are my reasons:
•Addiction rate would increase. When addiction rates increase, purchase related crime would increase as well.
•If legalization of drugs decreases the price of substances that more people will buy more less expensive products. However, addicts do not only steal money to buy drugs. They steal money to meet a standard of living
• If drugs become legalized, less expensive and more accessible, this may affect the drug-users' habits. The use of drugs will increase more side effects like violence and paranoia etc.
•Criminals commit six times more homicides, four times assaults, and almost one and a half times as many robberies under the influence of drugs
I would like your opinions
I would say it depends. I'd love to see some sources on your facts, too. Some drugs are a lot more harmful than others. Marijuana is an okay drug to legalise, bath salts or meth is most assuredly not.
@All-mana Mania weird is that there was no criminality increase in Holland after they legalized prostitution and soft drugs... Amsterdam is tourist paradise with beaitiful streets and almost no criminality..
It depends also on mentality in current society...;)
Quote from: KangaRod on May 09, 2013, 06:46:09 PM
As I said, you are understanding the "right" amd "left" to be a 1 dimensional scale, when in reality it is really across 2 dimensions. There is a socio scale of left right, and an economic scale of left right.
What you understand as right is actually right-left.
Lol typical leftish propaganda, they will try to tell you that you are in fact an elephant. Why are you an elephant? Because they say so, and billions of others. Can you name one policy of BNP which is right on any bloody scale, will ya?
Quote from: All-Mana Mania on May 09, 2013, 06:59:56 PM
Do you guys think drugs should be legalized??
Yes, because nobody has the right to tell you what or what not you should do with your body. If an adult wants to take drugs, who am I to prevent that? It his choice not mine. He is not hurting anyone, no victim no crime.
When he harms other people while under drugs, he should be punished for harming other people, not for taking drugs.
Breaking the law in prevention of lawbreaking = goal justifies the means. No no :)
Besides, your predictions are dubious. What happened after legalisation of alcohol?
._. staying out of this one with my conservative republican self, but if you must know, I shall vote no, they should not be legalized because (according to my morals) it is wrong.
Quote from: Piotr on May 09, 2013, 11:18:17 AM
Quote from: Wizardmook on May 09, 2013, 08:57:14 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 09, 2013, 07:42:37 AM
Logic and facts are the only things which have place in a serious debate, unfortunately you are not providing any.
Then you have not been using logic. If you are a UK resident then it is widely accepted that BNP is a far right organisation widely affiliated with other such organisations. UKIP is not openly right wing party as you suggest which is in poor taste. The representatives of UKIP have been found to have extremely distasteful xenophobic, homophobic views. The fact that you're polish and voting for UKIP is even funnier as if you look at their members a lot wanted nothing at all to do with Eastern Europe. Taking any parties policy as gospel is foolish as you also have to look at the driving force behind it as well. 😘
I am using logic: truth is determined by objective facts...
What you are doing is spreading false propaganda* on my forum and frankly I wont have that, this is your last warning.
* defined as spreading false information based on emotional view of the world not on logic and facts.
I am uncomfortable with this. I value logic and "truth [as] determined by objective facts" as valuable ASPECTS of thought. But limiting our discussion, even our forum, to this singular philosophy fails to account for what it is that makes us human. Piotr, what of value, and beauty, and belief? These exist largely OUTSIDE the realm of logic. I would go so far as to say humans exist largely outside of the realm of logic. Your law coincides fairly well with my own Christian, American, artistic, educational, domestic, CULTURAL, views and therefore I can honestly say I have lived by them. But Piotr, with all respect, I fear that logic (as the ultimate law) will swallow you whole and leave you empty if that is the entirety of your philosophy.
Opinion is not propaganda. Neither is disagreeing with your sense of logic. As much as it appeals to us rational minded individuals, we ARE emotional and subjectivity pervades all we do and say. It behooves any of us debators here who wish to learn from this experience to show tolerance and even acceptance of those views that contrast with our own.
Quote from: Langku on May 09, 2013, 07:31:44 PM
But Piotr, with all respect, I fear that logic (as the ultimate law) will swallow you whole and leave you empty if that is the entirety of your philosophy.
It isn't entirety of my philosophy, logic is nothing without the Golden Rule*. Logic is only a tool to tell us how to apply golden rule, how to protect it too. It is also a common ground which can be used to judge two sides with opposite opinions, the best common ground I know of, sometimes the only one. It is the ultimate tool to tell us what is true and what is false. Logic is impartial.
Tonight I went out with a couple of friends to see my first Star Trek ever. I've fallen in love with Spock, but I'm not him, no worries ;)
* do not do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to them is the Golden Rule.
:) I'm comfortable with that. Thanks.
(am I the only one sitting here like "who cares?")._.
I'm not irritated, I'm just stating that I have been reading this post for a while and I have lost interest in it
Drugs lower a persons self control and make them do things they wouldn't normally do. I personaly think they should increase the crack down (pun intended) on drugs.
Though this is probably a bias view, because someone I care about takes drugs and I wish and encourage them to get there GED, go to collage, and strive for a better life
I hardy think the legalization of drugs would worsen things. When it comes down to it, people who want to take drugs are going to do it. They don't care if its illegal or not. The people who don't take drugs have made the choice not to take them, and not because they are illegal.
I myself wouldn't start taking them if they were legal. If I wanted to do them, I'd be doing them right now. I've never heard a single person say "Man, I'd love to smoke some weed, if only it were legal."
I believe that those who do/don't want to do drugs have made their decision based on what they think is right or wrong, not on legalities.
Now, personally, I hardly care whether or not drugs get legalized, as it will have no impact on my life. People will do what they want, not what is legal or illegal. I don't have any links or statistics, these are just my thoughts on the topic, based on what I've observed about the lovely world around me.
Quote from: IceScythe on May 09, 2013, 07:30:37 PM
._. staying out of this one with my conservative republican self, but if you must know, I shall vote no, they should not be legalized because (according to my morals) it is wrong.
By those standards, should processed foods, alcohol, and tobacco be illegal?
Drugs that arent dangerous should be lagalized at the very least.. Cmon, alchohol is legal over marijuana and mushrooms? Who comes up with these standards? Oh ya... The alchoholic america that first created these laws way back when. Check up on the consumption of alchohol years ago, it was enormous. Its ridiculous how unrealistic the laws are. Sigh
Quote from: KangaRod on May 10, 2013, 07:01:22 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 09, 2013, 07:13:44 PM
Lol typical leftish propaganda, they will try to tell you that you are in fact an elephant. Why are you an elephant? Because they say so, and billions of others. Can you name one policy of BNP which is right on any bloody scale, will ya?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party
Scroll down - see where it says Political Position - Far Right.
I can guarantee there is not a single political scientist that will tell you national socialism (or fascism) is on the left side of the spectrum.
It's understood that fascists are on the right. The BNP are fascists (they may disagree). The BNP are on the right.
"Scroll down, past the part about economic platform to the part about social and cultural platform. See the part about restricting healthcare, increasing the presence of the nuclear family, the xenophobic tendencies, and all the other crap that the Tories (your "right" party of choice) talk about?" - Soviets did increase their nuclear capabilities, are they right wing too? Restricting healthcare to non-nationals is wealth redistribution -> left. Xenophobic tendencies on the right? Right, lol ;) Tories are not right anymore, they have too many left wing policies to call them right.
Can you name one single policy, please?
By your logic, if a significant number of people calls you a moron, you are a moron regardless of the actual facts. May I kindly remind you, that at some point of time significant number of people thought that Earth is flat? Fortunately, facts and logic proved them wrong.
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on May 10, 2013, 10:04:56 AM
Quote from: IceScythe on May 09, 2013, 07:30:37 PM
._. staying out of this one with my conservative republican self, but if you must know, I shall vote no, they should not be legalized because (according to my morals) it is wrong.
By those standards, should processed foods, alcohol, and tobacco be illegal?
processed foods sustain life even if they have a high fat content, but in my own opinion tobacco probably should be illegal and alcohol is ok as long as you're not drunk.
Quote from: IceScythe on May 10, 2013, 12:04:34 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on May 10, 2013, 10:04:56 AM
Quote from: IceScythe on May 09, 2013, 07:30:37 PM
._. staying out of this one with my conservative republican self, but if you must know, I shall vote no, they should not be legalized because (according to my morals) it is wrong.
By those standards, should processed foods, alcohol, and tobacco be illegal?
processed foods sustain life even if they have a high fat content, but in my own opinion tobacco probably should be illegal and alcohol is ok as long as you're not drunk.
It would mean soft drugs are ok as long as you are not high...:D
A lot of people drink alcohol only because they want to get drunk... If they would not like to get drunk they would pick coke or juice to drink...;)
Lots of ifs and buts. Why not simply 'everything is ok as long as they are not forcing it down my throat, but theirs'?
anything that would cause you to be drunk and/or lose your self control=nope
self harm= nope
that's about it for me.
Quote from: IceScythe on May 10, 2013, 12:15:31 PM
anything that would cause you to be drunk and/or lose your self control=nope
self harm= nope
that's about it for me.
Man I can be drunk on my lady's hump, her lovely lady hump. Should that be banned?
Self harm? How about enforcing Halal or Kosher food?
I withdraw, my own standards should not be forced on others, it is a choice each person must make for themselves, but I know how I will live, and that is enough for me.
Would you want someone who was already a paranoid scytzofrinik, or that had some other serious mental disease to get ahold of mind altering drugs? Would you want someone who had a violent history to get ahold of mind altering drugs?
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 10, 2013, 12:31:21 PM
Would you want someone who was already a paranoid scytzofrinik, or that had some other serious mental disease to get ahold of mind altering drugs? Would you want someone who had a violent history to get ahold of mind altering drugs?
are you asking me? I'm going to vote no
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 10, 2013, 12:31:21 PM
Would you want someone who was already a paranoid scytzofrinik, or that had some other serious mental disease to get ahold of mind altering drugs? Would you want someone who had a violent history to get ahold of mind altering drugs?
They already can. If someone wants something, they're going to get it, whether its legal or not.
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 10, 2013, 12:31:21 PM
Would you want someone who was already a paranoid scytzofrinik, or that had some other serious mental disease to get ahold of mind altering drugs? Would you want someone who had a violent history to get ahold of mind altering drugs?
If these people want drugs, they'll get them. It doesn't matter whether its legal or not. I can guarantee there's a person with a violent history taking drugs right now, and it had nothing to do with legality.
If people want something, they'll find a way to get it, and they do. The law does not stop this.
Quote from: IceScythe on May 10, 2013, 12:26:34 PM
I withdraw, my own standards should not be forced on others, it is a choice each person must make for themselves, but I know how I will live, and that is enough for me.
I really appreciate that :)
Quote from: Keyeto on May 10, 2013, 12:39:38 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 10, 2013, 12:31:21 PM
Would you want someone who was already a paranoid scytzofrinik, or that had some other serious mental disease to get ahold of mind altering drugs? Would you want someone who had a violent history to get ahold of mind altering drugs?
If these people want drugs, they'll get them. It doesn't matter whether its legal or not. I can guarantee there's a person with a violent history taking drugs right now, and it had nothing to do with legality.
If people want something, they'll find a way to get it, and they do. The law does not stop this.
By this logic, should we allow stealing? Stealing is illegal but I bet you arm and leg that someone is stealing from someone as we speak.
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 10, 2013, 12:31:21 PM
Would you want someone who was already a paranoid scytzofrinik, or that had some other serious mental disease to get ahold of mind altering drugs? Would you want someone who had a violent history to get ahold of mind altering drugs?
Sounds like the "ticking time bomb" scenario. That scenario has been used to do awful things historically. The truth of the matter is, for every person that would use drugs incorrectly and cause harm, there is a very real number of people who are murdered by drug cartels, scores of people who's income is related to them being illegal and a large number of innocent people who are proxies for the unintended consequences of that drug war.
Quote from: Piotr on May 10, 2013, 01:02:26 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on May 10, 2013, 12:39:38 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 10, 2013, 12:31:21 PM
Would you want someone who was already a paranoid scytzofrinik, or that had some other serious mental disease to get ahold of mind altering drugs? Would you want someone who had a violent history to get ahold of mind altering drugs?
If these people want drugs, they'll get them. It doesn't matter whether its legal or not. I can guarantee there's a person with a violent history taking drugs right now, and it had nothing to do with legality.
If people want something, they'll find a way to get it, and they do. The law does not stop this.
By this logic, should we allow stealing? Stealing is illegal but I bet you arm and leg that someone is stealing from someone as we speak.
No, but I believe the two cases are quite different.
In taking drugs, you are doing something to yourself, to alter your state of mind, because it makes you happy, whatever your reason may be. The only person directly influenced by the action of taking drugs is yourself.
In stealing from someone, you are directly harming someone in taking their possessions, which isn't right. In the case of stealing, there is a victim. In the case of my buddy smoking weed or taking shrooms, there's no victim. Sure, he might act funny around us, but I don't feel victimized by his sudden change in behavior.
For the record, I don't condone drug use, I just don't believe that making drugs illegal has stopped those who want to do them from doing them. I believe it all comes down to morality. If you think drugs or stealing is fine, you'll do it, regardless of how the law feels about it.
Quote from: Keyeto on May 10, 2013, 01:14:25 PM
For the record, I don't condone drug use, I just don't believe that making drugs illegal has stopped those who want to do them from doing them. I believe it all comes down to morality.
Fair enough. A little bit like 'I disagree with what you say, but I will die fighting for your right to say it' as long as you don't lie ;)
This isnt about what Keyeto said, but more to address what i've heard from people. I think the use of drugs coming down to a "morals" is very dangerous. There are lives at stake, and to suggest its up to individuals to have a mere "preference" for the facts regarding legalization of drugs.
We've got a very morally relative society, where people's "opinions" carry as much weight as others - simply because they HAVE an opinion. It isn't researched, contextualized or full of truth statements. It is just their opinion on the matter.
Certain people feeling that it is not their place to tell the Taliban that their practice of female genital mutilation is "wrong" because that is merely your opinion of the matter. Who are you to tell the Taliban they should not do that for religions moral reasons is? It quite clearly wrong.
There is quite a bit more on the line then someone's "feeling" about the legality of drugs.
It's not a question of feeling, rather a question of fairly simple logic applied to golden rule. Your example has a victim, BTW.
If they become legal, they will be more readily available to them
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 10, 2013, 03:21:04 PM
If they become legal, they will be more readily available to them
I'd take the number of violent, paranoid skitzophrenics having access to drugs legally then the amount of lives ruined over keeping them illegal.
Quote from: Dudecore on May 10, 2013, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 10, 2013, 03:21:04 PM
If they become legal, they will be more readily available to them
I'd take the number of violent, paranoid skitzophrenics having access to drugs legally then the amount of lives ruined over keeping them illegal.
Lesser of two evils principle. Also present in iMtG Law as 'breaking the law in prevention of lawbreaking is no good' ;) I mean, the answer to BB's issue.
Quote from: Piotr on May 09, 2013, 07:43:29 PM
Tonight I went out with a couple of friends to see my first Star Trek ever. I've fallen in love with Spock, but I'm not him, no worries ;)
Ok, I've just seen my second Star Trek. 37 years in the darkness, FFFFF UUUUUUUU Star Wars. I'm a Trekkie now :P
Quote from: Piotr on May 10, 2013, 06:57:12 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 09, 2013, 07:43:29 PM
Tonight I went out with a couple of friends to see my first Star Trek ever. I've fallen in love with Spock, but I'm not him, no worries ;)
Ok, I've just seen my second Star Trek. 37 years in the darkness, FFFFF UUUUUUUU Star Wars. I'm a Trekkie now :P
That's a bold statement! I've been watching Star Trek: Next Generation on Netflix. Great stuff.
Quote from: Dudecore on May 10, 2013, 01:54:25 PM
This isnt about what Keyeto said, but more to address what i've heard from people. I think the use of drugs coming down to a "morals" is very dangerous. There are lives at stake, and to suggest its up to individuals to have a mere "preference" for the facts regarding legalization of drugs.
We've got a very morally relative society, where people's "opinions" carry as much weight as others - simply because they HAVE an opinion. It isn't researched, contextualized or full of truth statements. It is just their opinion on the matter.
Certain people feeling that it is not their place to tell the Taliban that their practice of female genital mutilation is "wrong" because that is merely your opinion of the matter. Who are you to tell the Taliban they should not do that for religions moral reasons is? It quite clearly wrong.
There is quite a bit more on the line then someone's "feeling" about the legality of drugs.
I really like the way you summed this up. My friend calls our current state of cultural and interpersonal "respect" cultural relativism and I would call it cultural narcissism. In my opinion people have a moral duty to place a value judgement on ideas and opinions (not people, mind you, IDEAS). This helps us develop respect for the value of other individuals and cultures while maintaining a thoughtful and inquisitive world view. When an idea isn't held up to any standards at all it lacks value. When we fail to question AND consider other's ideals it's a pretty good sign we've failed to question our own and I believe that those two failures account for most of the evils in this world.
First I'd like to say that I love debate posts and if I offend please tell me. Also if I say something that is incorrect please feel free to correct me. As long as your not rude it's no big deal. Also I'm drunk so mods I apologize if you have to edit my drunken profanity. And auto correct is awesome btw. Anyways onto these wonderful debates.
So first off I'm lost. I was lazy and read the first page and the last page(don't hate). That being said I'm just going to say random .poo.. I saw someone mention Obama so lets start there. First off I disliked bush as much as Obama so you can't say I'm being biased or any of that wonderful stuff. Secondly Obama is probably one of the worst presidents we have ever had. Yes I know bush was too, no yelling. One of the first things he does is his bull.poo. obamacare. I was literally paying $19.22 a check for my family and I to be on some of the best insurance in the state(working at Boeing has it's perks). But once the effects of the bill hit the pockets of insurance companies my price rose. I now pay $67 a paycheck for the same insurance and my copays have increased. Yeah I know still cheap right? But what about people that are paying more than that? That's an increase of 3.5x the prior amount. Are you serious? Why do we even .loving. pay for medical insurance? It makes no sense. Oh you want to continue to live? Guess that be twelve grand. What!? What is wrong with this country? America we have screwed up bad. Point fingers at all the politicians but we the people are to blame. We could've prevented so much of this but no we had to have a black president just to show people that we are past racism. I'm not being racist in the least either. But so many uneducated Americans saw a black president and voted. Sure our options sucked, hell we .love.ed up giving bush the reigns. But remember they have a lot less power than the House of Reps and Congress. We messed up there too. They allowed the ObamaCare bill to pass. Have you read it? I don't remember the section but it states that the new health care plan doesn't apply to congress or the house so on and so forth! I know that's unconstitutional for a fact! Why did this pass? Because sadly as kanga stated we are complacent and scared of our government. I'm glad I'm a citizen of America but I'm damn embarrassed of how other countries perceive us. And the worst part is that half the perceptions are correct. America is stupid. Well your right. We have some extremely intelligent people here but the general population is dumb. Why? Because that's how they grew up. Do what your told don't question authority. Well idk about you but when authority is screwing me over so they have it better I question. I question why we live the way we do why we allow our children to grow up dumb. I'm just rambling now but before I leave. Y'all need to check out the Venus project. Sorry for the rant. And good night.
Only needed drunken profanity edits :) not bad for a long, intoxicated rant! -Gorzo
Quote from: NightWolf on May 13, 2013, 03:43:59 AM
I was literally paying $19.22 a check for my family and I to be on some of the best insurance in the state(working at Boeing has it's perks). But once the effects of the bill hit the pockets of insurance companies my price rose. I now pay $67 a paycheck for the same insurance and my copays have increased.
You were paying 19.22 for yor family, but you are paying 67 for your family and two other families who don't pay. Wealth redistribution.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 15, 2013, 07:28:44 AM
Do you support health care at all?
Keep in mind health insurance is a form of health care, by redistributing risk (and therefore wealth) across all people. Do you support insurance of any kind?
Of course I do, I don't believe I have any right to interfere between the dealings between you and insurance company, unless one of the sides is being done something which they don't want to be done to them, for example if you are *forced* to pay for insurance. I'm absolutely fine with socialism if it is voluntary. I live by iMtG Law.
the Obama care bill was actually inspired by Romney care. And if Romney was elected he would have gotten rid of obama care...only to replace it with Romney care...
why the heck would he have even done that? there virtually the same thing. I don't like the idea of government run healthcare in general, but that just seems childish. And you know, Romney won the popular vote, but Obama won the election...WHAT?! I feel like my vote doesn't even matter and that's why i didn't vote in the last election
Quote from: Birdbrain1 on May 15, 2013, 09:57:35 AMI feel like my vote doesn't even matter
This feeling have some serious mathematical backup. And apart from that, your vote doesn't matter indeed, what matters is what are your choices.
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 10:07:52 AM
Quote from: Birdbrain1 on May 15, 2013, 09:57:35 AMI feel like my vote doesn't even matter
This feeling have some serious mathematical backup. And apart from that, your vote doesn't matter indeed, what matters is what are you choices.
Please, please no matter your political standing or beliefs, do not advocate not voting. While its true to an extent you aren't going to get everything you believe in via a person you put into power, don't tell someone voting doesn't matter. Never decide to just not vote because it "doesn't matter" it does, if not mathematically then fundamentally, how do you as a person expect change if you don't even take small steps like voting seriously? I'm simply dumbfounded.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 11:34:10 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 10:07:52 AM
Quote from: Birdbrain1 on May 15, 2013, 09:57:35 AMI feel like my vote doesn't even matter
This feeling have some serious mathematical backup. And apart from that, your vote doesn't matter indeed, what matters is what are you choices.
Please, please no matter your political standing or beliefs, do not advocate not voting. While its true to an extent you aren't going to get everything you believe in via a person you put into power, don't tell someone voting doesn't matter. Never decide to just not vote because it "doesn't matter" it does, if not mathematically then fundamentally, how do you as a person expect change if you don't even take small steps like voting seriously? I'm simply dumbfounded.
Lol, you refuse to obey your government, for example. You did once, as far as I remember the history ;) Voting won't change anything. Voting is a lie.
Also, democracy as a system of running anything at all must be one of the dumbest if not the dumbest method. I think it was Lenin or one of the others who noted, that for socialism to win all you need to do is to implement democracy and wait. I wouldn't call a lie on this one, because that's what happened // is happening, republic was replaced with democracy and now with every year there's more and more welfare state in the US. True or false? ;)
If you want to have an educated debate about how bad vs. good democracy is we can go for it, but I'm happy to agree to disagree.
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 11:34:10 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 10:07:52 AM
Quote from: Birdbrain1 on May 15, 2013, 09:57:35 AMI feel like my vote doesn't even matter
This feeling have some serious mathematical backup. And apart from that, your vote doesn't matter indeed, what matters is what are you choices.
Please, please no matter your political standing or beliefs, do not advocate not voting. While its true to an extent you aren't going to get everything you believe in via a person you put into power, don't tell someone voting doesn't matter. Never decide to just not vote because it "doesn't matter" it does, if not mathematically then fundamentally, how do you as a person expect change if you don't even take small steps like voting seriously? I'm simply dumbfounded.
Lol, you refuse to obey your government, for example. You did once, as far as I remember the history ;) Voting won't change anything. Voting is a lie.
Also, democracy as a system of running anything at all must be one of the dumbest if not the dumbest method. I think it was Lenin or one of the others who noted, that for socialism to win all you need to do is to implement democracy and wait. I wouldn't call a lie on this one, because that's what happened // is happening, republic was replaced with democracy and now with every year there's more and more welfare state in the US. True or false? ;)
If you want to have an educated debate about how bad vs. good democracy is we can go for it, but I'm happy to agree to disagree.
I don't want this to be a battle of opinions, I don't care what you believe is happening to the U.S, nore do my opinions matter. Telling someone not to vote is a heinous act. Yes the electoral collage has stepped in on more than one occasion, but that doesn't mean don't vote. I have opinions on the Uk, but I've only got them through the Internet and other media sources. I don't live there, just like you don't live here Piotr. There is literally no arguing with you though, as in your mind you are always right. Regardless, please, if you have opinions and want to be heard, begin with voting, and I don't mean just on the president, vote locally and for representatives too.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 12:15:28 PM
If you want to have an educated debate about how bad vs. good democracy is we can go for it, but I'm happy to agree to disagree.
I don't want this to be a battle of opinions
[/quote]
Splendid! Mathematically, it is more probable that you will die in a car crash on the way to the poll station, than that your vote will change anything. True or false?
If true, I believe asking people to go voting is a wicked act.
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 02:03:53 PM
Splendid! Mathematically, it is more probable that you will die in a car crash on the way to the poll station, than that your vote will change anything. True or false?
What. Neither statistic is going to be accurate, as at any point in time there can be more traffic or less, it's objective, just as voting is objective as well, it depends on how many people vote. So strictly speaking one vote could tip the scales, just like one drunk driver could end your life that much quicker. Your arguement is so ridiculous, some people walk to the polls like i did. Don't be afraid to drive and don't be afraid to vote.
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 02:03:53 PM
Splendid! Mathematically, it is more probable that you will die in a car crash on the way to the poll station, than that your vote will change anything. True or false?
What. Neither statistic is going to be accurate, as at any point in time there can be more traffic or less, it's objective, just as voting is objective as well, it depends on how many people vote. So strictly speaking one vote could tip the scales, just like one drunk driver could end your life that much quicker. Your arguement is so ridiculous, some people walk to the polls like i did. Don't be afraid to drive and don't be afraid to vote.
My reasoning is not ridiculous at all, it is simply logical. Do you know that in the year after 9.11 approximately 1000 people died because they were afraid to fly, decided to drive, and died in car crash? This is based on pretty convincing statistics and logic.
I bet you yearly Patronage that more people died on the way to poll stations than there were major votes in the history of US decided by one vote.
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 02:37:15 PM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 02:03:53 PM
Splendid! Mathematically, it is more probable that you will die in a car crash on the way to the poll station, than that your vote will change anything. True or false?
What. Neither statistic is going to be accurate, as at any point in time there can be more traffic or less, it's objective, just as voting is objective as well, it depends on how many people vote. So strictly speaking one vote could tip the scales, just like one drunk driver could end your life that much quicker. Your arguement is so ridiculous, some people walk to the polls like i did. Don't be afraid to drive and don't be afraid to vote.
My reasoning is not ridiculous at all, it is simply logical. Do you know that in the year after 9.11 approximately 1000 people died because they were afraid to fly, decided to drive, and died in car crash? This is based on pretty convincing statistics and logic.
I bet you yearly Patronage that more people died on the way to poll stations than there were major votes in the history of US decided by one vote.
You win your patronage. I think I read its 800 million to 1 itll be decided on 1 vote. I'm not saying it comes down to one vote, but every vote matters, if 65,000 people didnt vote because "their vote doesnt matter" it would affect the polls drastically. don't tell someone not to vote just because they aren't going to be the deciding vote.
65k votes is maybe worth something, but 1 is worthless. To that one man you are proposing to take risk which is orders of magnitude bigger that his potential gain. That one man is real, not statistics.
Out of 120 million some estimated votes, I wonder how many people died going to the poll booth. Send me the statistics piotr. Why did you twist this into "statistically you're likely to die doing anything" when all I was trying to promote was voting. There's no point to it.
Quote from: KangaRod on May 15, 2013, 07:27:59 PM
So Piotr, just so we're clear you are ok with wealth redistribution when a company is in charge of the money (that's the way insurance works) but not when a government that is responsible to their people through a democratic process is?
No my friend. We are not ok with any wealth redistribution whatsoever, as wealth redistribution assumes use of force. What I have said, and quite clearly too, is that I'm ok with voluntary insurance. Can you see the difference?
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 07:18:36 PM
Out of 120 million some estimated votes, I wonder how many people died going to the poll booth. Send me the statistics piotr. Why did you twist this into "statistically you're likely to die doing anything" when all I was trying to promote was voting. There's no point to it.
You are trying to promote voting but you didn't provide any reason I could relate to. My statistics are simply to provide you with a different point of view, and possibly a common ground.
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 07:36:32 PM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 07:18:36 PM
Out of 120 million some estimated votes, I wonder how many people died going to the poll booth. Send me the statistics piotr. Why did you twist this into "statistically you're likely to die doing anything" when all I was trying to promote was voting. There's no point to it.
You are trying to promote voting but you didn't provide any reason I could relate to. My statistics are simply to provide you with a different point of view, and possibly a common ground.
Voting isn't generally life and death matters, it's serious, but not as serious as car crashes. You literally turned the arguement into "don't vote because you're more likely to die then have it matter". That's not common ground, that's insanity and fear mongering.
Someone doesn't remember Puff Daddy's "VOTE or DIE!" Campaign....
Oh the horror
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 08:12:52 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 15, 2013, 07:36:32 PM
Quote from: Vyse on May 15, 2013, 07:18:36 PM
Out of 120 million some estimated votes, I wonder how many people died going to the poll booth. Send me the statistics piotr. Why did you twist this into "statistically you're likely to die doing anything" when all I was trying to promote was voting. There's no point to it.
You are trying to promote voting but you didn't provide any reason I could relate to. My statistics are simply to provide you with a different point of view, and possibly a common ground.
Voting isn't generally life and death matters, it's serious, but not as serious as car crashes. You literally turned the arguement into "don't vote because you're more likely to die then have it matter". That's not common ground, that's insanity and fear mongering.
I think it's silly to not vote, for any reason. People do not realise what a blessing it is to be able to vote. Having a say in your .politics., however small, is a right not everyone in the world has. Indeed, many countries do not have this. The power of the vote is something I think gets obscured by people who don't understand what it is like to not be able to have a say in the body that governs you. The colonies split from Britain because they were not getting a say in their governance. If you don't vote as an American, I think that you don't comprehend fully how many people fought and died so that you could have and maintain your right to freedom of speech.
While Ireland (where I hail from) was under British control, we too had no representation. We could do very little to influence the Crown in our governance. This led to years of war- many of the older folks will remember the riots and bombings in the 80s and 90s. Now that Ireland is its own Republic, I know at least for me the right to vote is something I cherish. It shows how far we have come and is a down to earth display of one of the basic principles of democracy, if small.
I feel unless you dedicate your lives and income to a movement - you will have no influence upon a vote.
Prop 8 in California failed
A prop to keep state parks open and FREE for CA citizens failed
Somehow pot is legal in a few states but not California still
The city of la is holding another vote to make dispensaries illegal - even though the citizens have voted 3 times to keep them and its going to happen again, just a waste of money and time by people in political power.
Cannabis stops cancer growth and is still considered an equal to heroin or pcp. We the people were told we would not have mmj bothered by the DEA or DoJ when Obama entered. We have more mmj related arrest under Obama than bush
What does that say?
Your vote is squat if those in power do not want it enacted (the bill proposed)
You mad bro, according to your logic paying for iMtG is wealth redistribution. It isn't, it is simply buying a service or product.
Wow. I opened up a huge can of wurms there. Anyway, I guess I just don't like being just another face in the crowd. Never have, probably never will. In high school I was voted most unique, and I want to keep it that way
Voting does seem pretty pointless to me. I suppose a collection of people as a whole can make a difference. Though I really think society as a whole would be better off living in caves like Neanderthals. You could hunt and gather anything you need, and crime would be reduced because people would be kept busy trying to stay alive
Quote from: KangaRod on May 16, 2013, 07:27:34 AMAt the end of the day, when you've signed a contract, and hell even made a payment or two what do you have to show for it (on insurance)? Nothing, zilch, nadda...
You purchased peace of mind.
Insurance is like betting. You win the bet when something bad happens to you.
Evidence for my point? Crime is lower in rural areas. And small communities
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 16, 2013, 08:11:23 AM
Evidence for my point? Crime is lower in rural areas. And small communities
Correlation is not causation.
Quote from: Piotr on May 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 16, 2013, 08:11:23 AM
Evidence for my point? Crime is lower in rural areas. And small communities
Correlation is not causation.
smaller communities are closer. That closeness creates more empathy. More empathy means less crime
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 16, 2013, 08:27:44 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 16, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
Quote from: Birdbrain on May 16, 2013, 08:11:23 AM
Evidence for my point? Crime is lower in rural areas. And small communities
Correlation is not causation.
smaller communities are closer. That closeness creates more empathy. More empathy means less crime
That's more like it ;)
Capitalist. If I understand, socialist is not much of helping people, it's even a bit free for all.
Quote from: Taysby on June 04, 2013, 11:55:36 PM
He hasn't been on this app since.
Looking at KR's post history, I call a lie on this one ;)
Quote from: Piotr on June 05, 2013, 05:55:59 AM
Quote from: Taysby on June 04, 2013, 11:55:36 PM
He hasn't been on this app since.
Looking at KR's post history, I call a lie on this one ;)
Looks like he missed the lie by 7 minutes lol