I have seen a number of debates where somebody would insist on Einstein believing in whatever, including Jesus. It's easy, a cursory search of the web shows enough of that, here is an example
Quote:
Albert Einstein was not a Christian, but he believed in Jesus. The Albert Einstein theory of relativity, both general relativity and special relativity, gravity, constancy of the speed of light, gravitational bending of light and E=mc2 are all based on Intelligent Design Theory and according the Supreme Court Ruling, should be forbidden teaching in public schools.
I listened through the whole video (two years spent in Montreal let me understand this language well enough) and had shivers down my spine as this video triggered a recall of the very recent history as they were singing The Internationale.
France is in dire need of a libertarian movement, now that Melenchon is gathering so much of the radical left into one coalition and promising to spread this ideology 'Pour tout l'Europe' as he said in the video.
As far as I am concerned, this signals a huge threat to the liberty of the people in Europe. When Solzhenitsyn was sent out of the former USSR in 1974, his book was already translated into English and was published but it was significantly downplayed in Europe, as bashing Communists was basically taboo in countries like France, who basically were themselves nearly Communist in nature. Solzhenitsyn's work was presenting the final logical outcome of what Communist ideology leads towards.
Reporter Tom Vanden Brook and Editor Ray Locker found that Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog comments.
- I suppose there are criminal laws concerning identity theft and they should be applicable not only when money is stolen from a bank account, but also in these cases, where somebody pretends they are someone else to push agenda.
I can easily see how in the age of the Internet various agencies, government contractors try to disseminate fake and false information in order to confuse the issue. Who can tell on the Internet what is real and what is not? What opinion does anybody actually hold?
After all, quite a number of people believe for example that Albert Einstein was a religious person in terms of following some religion, yet there is plenty of his writing where he specifically states that he does not believe in a god.
Of-course it's easier to steal identity of people who are long gone, so they can't protect themselves and set the record straight, but even with the living it's a huge challenge.
The Internet can be attacked in many ways, and it is.
You are all missing an important point here: if this is true, then it's holding wages down, so it allows other and newer companies to come in into underpriced market and poach some of those people out of the likes of Google, it's not a problem.
Of-course the problem there is that the fake currency is preventing any savings and investment and thus it prevents new companies from starting and forces existing ones into moving somewhere else.
You want real growth of economy and your purchasing power (not in terms of fake currency, but in terms of what you can buy with your salary)? Then you really are looking at the wrong target.
- what the hell does this mean? The government's and the Fed's policy is destruction of the currency unless you didn't notice, so if a war has to start to keep it strong, then it has to be a war against the government and the Fed.
So somebody gives a shit about 2, 2 bit crooks in UK. Good for them.
How about SEC not doing their job even though they've been notified multiple times about a pump and dump operation that is ran by the very definition of a pumper and dumper?
Oh, I forgot, that's the same SEC that was notified about Madoff years before his pyramid blew up. Same SEC that was absolutely useless during the Internet and the housing bubbles and now during this bond and dollar bubble. Well, I suppose later they'll come out and say: nobody could have seen it coming.
they should be hired to run the government programs, such as health insurance, social security, etc. In fact Strategic Hazard Intervention Economics Logistics Directorate agency could be created with all of these guys, including Bernie Madoff as the program's director.
Yeah, those black people, why should they be able to use water that is found on their continent? Goldman Sachs should get all the rights to it, set up a few pumps and 'monetise' it the way the know how.
So all the/. comments are going to go: yeah, bullshit.
Well, guess what. While you are busy coming up with 'new technologies', your government officials are busy coming up with new compliance requirements concerning these new technologies.
What are the costs of keeping all of the emails backed up somewhere for example for all the companies that have this compliance requirement?
But seriously, how long do you think Obama will remain in office?
- there is your mistake. You think dictatorship requires that one person stays in power and does whatever he wants. What you fail to understand is that that is not true.
What you have now is a HYDRA type of government, and you don't need to 'cut' a head off, you vote one out, another one is lifted to light, etc.etc.
Starting back from the times of Theodore Roosevelt, it's been the same people in power with rare exceptions (Harding maybe).
That's all fine and dandy, except Ron Paul has started a movement that has really picked up over the last few years. As to "anybody who isn't a winner", nothing is certain yet, and Ron Paul is either in second or first place in terms of delegate count, it's just those 'bullies' can't actually count and a few things can't even be counted for now.
The last laugh, by the way, will be at those very people who are laughing right now, as they are becoming the prisoners in that system and they can't even understand it.
Personally I'm giving it up to another 5 years, but if things haven't dramatically changed by then, there's going to be little hope of finding somewhere safe and freedom loving to move
That's right, IRS wants to be able to prevent you from getting a passport and even to be able to stop you from getting out of the country. Imagine: you come to the airport or maybe you drive towards Mexican or Canadian border and you have to go through the border patrol. All of a sudden you find out that your passport has been revoked.
Apparently you could be stopped this way before if you owed more than $2500 in child support payments, but now IRS wants to extend that to anybody who owes an amount in taxes that is 50K or above.
QUOTE:
It all started last fall, when Senator Barbara Boxer introduced the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act" (or "MAP-21" as it's now called), to reauthorize funds for federal highway and transportation programs. While that doesn't sound like anything having to do with your taxes, the bill includes a little-noticed section that allows the State Department to "deny, revoke or limit" passport rights for any taxpayers with "serious delinquencies."
Here's how it would work. If someone owed more than $50,000 in back taxes, the IRS would be able to send their name over to the passport office for suspension, provided that the IRS already either filed a public lien or a assessed a levy for the outstanding balance. The bill does provide a few exceptions though. For example, if a person has set up a payment plan (that they're paying in a timely manner), is legitimately disputing the debt, or has an emergency situation or humanitarian reason and must travel internationally, they may be able to leave for a limited time despite their unpaid taxes.
Also just a little while back they increased the payment that one needed to make to get a renunciation of citizenship form. It used to cost exactly 0.
Now it costs 450USD to submit that form.
So think about it:
1. Right now the cost of that form is 450USD. 2. It's 50K in tax debt that would prevent you from getting a passport.
BUT... when did government ever STOP with something, once the nose of the camel made it under the tent?
The cost of that citizen revocation form can climb to an amount that in principle can easily be EQUAL TO YOUR SHARE OF NATIONAL DEBT.
That's right. You are born into this national debt (after all, your ancestors have voted themselves a little something known as 'social contract', which made YOU their slave).
So you are born into this 'social contract', and it's basically your share of national debt + WHATEVER ELSE. "Whatever else" can be any amount of taxes that the federal government may deem you be liable for, so they can say: we cannot allow you to leave the country, citizen, until you give us enough money to cover your portion of 'social contract', never mind the national debt.
You think in a totalitarian society you'll ever be able to make that kind of money?
Also: that citizen renunciation form - unless you are cool with filing your US taxes forever, even if you don't live in the USA, you'll want to get rid of that burden. Why is it a burden? Nobody wants to do business with you outside of USA, that's why. You won't be able even to have a bank account, nobody wants the hustle of dealing with your government.
But to prevent you from getting that form, the amount you may have to shell out for it may again rise over and over again, totally indefinitely, to
You find calculations on your news shows? I don't watch Fox, I am not in USA, then again, I don't watch CNN nor MSNBC nor whatever else you've got going there.
As an owner of a dividend paying stock, you are paying the corporate tax rate before you are paying your dividend, because the dividend is paid out of corporate after-tax profits.
Take the Buffer rule as an example of a lie. Obama pays less than his secretary, Buffet pays much more, in both absolute and relative terms.
Buffet is the biggest shareholder of BH, he pays himself 1% salary of his earnings, that's 40,000,000, on which 35% is paid by his corporation (that's his money, and actually it's 29% and not 35%, he is fighting IRS about that) and then he pays 15% on top, so his real rate is 44.75% (if BH pays 35% tax first).
Now, he only pays himself 1% of his real income, so 99% stays in the company, it's deferred from POV of taxation, he ain't touching that now. But if he wanted to take that money out, he'd pay the normal income taxes on it.
Of-course when asked recently about it, he said he is going to DONATE all his money after death, but that means his 'rule' wouldn't apply to him anyway, it's all propaganda (as shown by the 29% vs 35% corporate tax fight with the IRS).
Of-course that rule is more applicable to Obama, who is paying 20.5% income tax, not 15% on top of 35% (well, 29). Of-course Obama's salary is paid out of income taxes collected from productive people (or it's printed money, so it's collected from everybody who holds dollars and other USD denominated assets via inflation). In reality Obama isn't putting anything into economy except for his book sales. Also government employees do not pay income taxes, it's an accounting trick, gov't can't collect income taxes from itself, it can only shuffle money around that it steals from actual working people.
In any case this rule will decrease the amount of available investments, because the new 30% tax will simply prevent people from paying themselves the dividends, because it will increase the tax load on the investor from 44.75% to 54.5%, that's actually a 19.5% raise in dividend tax.
So people would rather leave their money in whatever bonds, not take it out as income, but where do people think INVESTMENT CAPITAL comes from? There will be less investment capital available for people to try and get it to start new companies, it's going to prevent quite a number of businesses and jobs from appearing!
If he was even 1% correct, then the establishment wouldn't have to do everything in their power to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination, and Ron Paul would win against Obama with his eyes closed.
Slashdot Mirror
It is what it is, profanity doesn't change the simple fact that you are not intelligent enough to understand what is being said.
I have seen a number of debates where somebody would insist on Einstein believing in whatever, including Jesus. It's easy, a cursory search of the web shows enough of that, here is an example
Quote:
Albert Einstein was not a Christian, but he believed in Jesus. The Albert Einstein theory of relativity, both general relativity and special relativity, gravity, constancy of the speed of light, gravitational bending of light and E=mc2 are all based on Intelligent Design Theory and according the Supreme Court Ruling, should be forbidden teaching in public schools.
There are more of various thought contortions around the web.
And this is somebody talking about a person who is long gone and can't be asked directly once again.
Yeah, they are far away from this
Watch this video.
I listened through the whole video (two years spent in Montreal let me understand this language well enough) and had shivers down my spine as this video triggered a recall of the very recent history as they were singing The Internationale.
France is in dire need of a libertarian movement, now that Melenchon is gathering so much of the radical left into one coalition and promising to spread this ideology 'Pour tout l'Europe' as he said in the video.
As far as I am concerned, this signals a huge threat to the liberty of the people in Europe. When Solzhenitsyn was sent out of the former USSR in 1974, his book was already translated into English and was published but it was significantly downplayed in Europe, as bashing Communists was basically taboo in countries like France, who basically were themselves nearly Communist in nature. Solzhenitsyn's work was presenting the final logical outcome of what Communist ideology leads towards.
you are not intelligent enough to understand even a third of what is being discussed, stay out.
Reporter Tom Vanden Brook and Editor Ray Locker found that Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog comments.
- I suppose there are criminal laws concerning identity theft and they should be applicable not only when money is stolen from a bank account, but also in these cases, where somebody pretends they are someone else to push agenda.
I can easily see how in the age of the Internet various agencies, government contractors try to disseminate fake and false information in order to confuse the issue. Who can tell on the Internet what is real and what is not? What opinion does anybody actually hold?
After all, quite a number of people believe for example that Albert Einstein was a religious person in terms of following some religion, yet there is plenty of his writing where he specifically states that he does not believe in a god.
Of-course it's easier to steal identity of people who are long gone, so they can't protect themselves and set the record straight, but even with the living it's a huge challenge.
The Internet can be attacked in many ways, and it is.
That's right, it's a dollar bubble. Every bond that is bought is another dollar.
You are all missing an important point here: if this is true, then it's holding wages down, so it allows other and newer companies to come in into underpriced market and poach some of those people out of the likes of Google, it's not a problem.
Of-course the problem there is that the fake currency is preventing any savings and investment and thus it prevents new companies from starting and forces existing ones into moving somewhere else.
You want real growth of economy and your purchasing power (not in terms of fake currency, but in terms of what you can buy with your salary)? Then you really are looking at the wrong target.
Fed is THAT way.
The US will wage wars to keep the dollar strong,
- what the hell does this mean? The government's and the Fed's policy is destruction of the currency unless you didn't notice, so if a war has to start to keep it strong, then it has to be a war against the government and the Fed.
So somebody gives a shit about 2, 2 bit crooks in UK. Good for them.
How about SEC not doing their job even though they've been notified multiple times about a pump and dump operation that is ran by the very definition of a pumper and dumper?
Oh, I forgot, that's the same SEC that was notified about Madoff years before his pyramid blew up. Same SEC that was absolutely useless during the Internet and the housing bubbles and now during this bond and dollar bubble. Well, I suppose later they'll come out and say: nobody could have seen it coming.
they should be hired to run the government programs, such as health insurance, social security, etc. In fact Strategic Hazard Intervention Economics Logistics Directorate agency could be created with all of these guys, including Bernie Madoff as the program's director.
Yeah, those black people, why should they be able to use water that is found on their continent? Goldman Sachs should get all the rights to it, set up a few pumps and 'monetise' it the way the know how.
If the 'cute kitten' passes a regulation that increases cost of doing business, then yes.
So all the /. comments are going to go: yeah, bullshit.
Well, guess what. While you are busy coming up with 'new technologies', your government officials are busy coming up with new compliance requirements concerning these new technologies.
What are the costs of keeping all of the emails backed up somewhere for example for all the companies that have this compliance requirement?
That's just a small example.
But seriously, how long do you think Obama will remain in office?
- there is your mistake. You think dictatorship requires that one person stays in power and does whatever he wants. What you fail to understand is that that is not true.
What you have now is a HYDRA type of government, and you don't need to 'cut' a head off, you vote one out, another one is lifted to light, etc.etc.
Starting back from the times of Theodore Roosevelt, it's been the same people in power with rare exceptions (Harding maybe).
That's all fine and dandy, except Ron Paul has started a movement that has really picked up over the last few years. As to "anybody who isn't a winner", nothing is certain yet, and Ron Paul is either in second or first place in terms of delegate count, it's just those 'bullies' can't actually count and a few things can't even be counted for now.
The last laugh, by the way, will be at those very people who are laughing right now, as they are becoming the prisoners in that system and they can't even understand it.
And I am not sure what sort of a Freudian slip that was, but I totally meant the word "hassle", not 'hustle' :)
Personally I'm giving it up to another 5 years, but if things haven't dramatically changed by then, there's going to be little hope of finding somewhere safe and freedom loving to move
- Yeah, good luck with that in 5 years.
In case you missed it, IRS wants the right to seize your passport.
That's right, IRS wants to be able to prevent you from getting a passport and even to be able to stop you from getting out of the country. Imagine: you come to the airport or maybe you drive towards Mexican or Canadian border and you have to go through the border patrol. All of a sudden you find out that your passport has been revoked.
Apparently you could be stopped this way before if you owed more than $2500 in child support payments, but now IRS wants to extend that to anybody who owes an amount in taxes that is 50K or above.
QUOTE:
It all started last fall, when Senator Barbara Boxer introduced the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act" (or "MAP-21" as it's now called), to reauthorize funds for federal highway and transportation programs. While that doesn't sound like anything having to do with your taxes, the bill includes a little-noticed section that allows the State Department to "deny, revoke or limit" passport rights for any taxpayers with "serious delinquencies."
Here's how it would work. If someone owed more than $50,000 in back taxes, the IRS would be able to send their name over to the passport office for suspension, provided that the IRS already either filed a public lien or a assessed a levy for the outstanding balance. The bill does provide a few exceptions though. For example, if a person has set up a payment plan (that they're paying in a timely manner), is legitimately disputing the debt, or has an emergency situation or humanitarian reason and must travel internationally, they may be able to leave for a limited time despite their unpaid taxes.
Oh, by the way, MAP-21 HAS PASSED. IRS now owns you, citizen.
--
Also just a little while back they increased the payment that one needed to make to get a renunciation of citizenship form. It used to cost exactly 0.
Now it costs 450USD to submit that form.
So think about it:
1. Right now the cost of that form is 450USD.
2. It's 50K in tax debt that would prevent you from getting a passport.
BUT... when did government ever STOP with something, once the nose of the camel made it under the tent?
The cost of that citizen revocation form can climb to an amount that in principle can easily be EQUAL TO YOUR SHARE OF NATIONAL DEBT.
That's right. You are born into this national debt (after all, your ancestors have voted themselves a little something known as 'social contract', which made YOU their slave).
So you are born into this 'social contract', and it's basically your share of national debt + WHATEVER ELSE. "Whatever else" can be any amount of taxes that the federal government may deem you be liable for, so they can say: we cannot allow you to leave the country, citizen, until you give us enough money to cover your portion of 'social contract', never mind the national debt.
You think in a totalitarian society you'll ever be able to make that kind of money?
Also: that citizen renunciation form - unless you are cool with filing your US taxes forever, even if you don't live in the USA, you'll want to get rid of that burden. Why is it a burden? Nobody wants to do business with you outside of USA, that's why. You won't be able even to have a bank account, nobody wants the hustle of dealing with your government.
But to prevent you from getting that form, the amount you may have to shell out for it may again rise over and over again, totally indefinitely, to
You do realize that there is a compromise between "ALL HAIL THE GOVERNMENT OVERLORD" and "FUCK THE FED", right?
- no, there is no compromise. Compromise only allows the Fed to fuck you at the end, there is no compromise and never can be.
Be mad at the people who run the economy for not providing honest work.
- you run the economy.
You make choices every day, what store are you voting for? What politician are you voting for? What job are you voting for?
What about your own business, what industry and line of business are you voting for?
The people who you believe 'run the economy' are only running it as you are voting for them one way or another.
You find calculations on your news shows? I don't watch Fox, I am not in USA, then again, I don't watch CNN nor MSNBC nor whatever else you've got going there.
As an owner of a dividend paying stock, you are paying the corporate tax rate before you are paying your dividend, because the dividend is paid out of corporate after-tax profits.
Take the Buffer rule as an example of a lie. Obama pays less than his secretary, Buffet pays much more, in both absolute and relative terms.
Buffet is the biggest shareholder of BH, he pays himself 1% salary of his earnings, that's 40,000,000, on which 35% is paid by his corporation (that's his money, and actually it's 29% and not 35%, he is fighting IRS about that) and then he pays 15% on top, so his real rate is 44.75% (if BH pays 35% tax first).
Now, he only pays himself 1% of his real income, so 99% stays in the company, it's deferred from POV of taxation, he ain't touching that now. But if he wanted to take that money out, he'd pay the normal income taxes on it.
Of-course when asked recently about it, he said he is going to DONATE all his money after death, but that means his 'rule' wouldn't apply to him anyway, it's all propaganda (as shown by the 29% vs 35% corporate tax fight with the IRS).
Of-course that rule is more applicable to Obama, who is paying 20.5% income tax, not 15% on top of 35% (well, 29). Of-course Obama's salary is paid out of income taxes collected from productive people (or it's printed money, so it's collected from everybody who holds dollars and other USD denominated assets via inflation). In reality Obama isn't putting anything into economy except for his book sales. Also government employees do not pay income taxes, it's an accounting trick, gov't can't collect income taxes from itself, it can only shuffle money around that it steals from actual working people.
In any case this rule will decrease the amount of available investments, because the new 30% tax will simply prevent people from paying themselves the dividends, because it will increase the tax load on the investor from 44.75% to 54.5%, that's actually a 19.5% raise in dividend tax.
So people would rather leave their money in whatever bonds, not take it out as income, but where do people think INVESTMENT CAPITAL comes from? There will be less investment capital available for people to try and get it to start new companies, it's going to prevent quite a number of businesses and jobs from appearing!
And that tripe is moderated 'insightful'?
If he was even 1% correct, then the establishment wouldn't have to do everything in their power to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination, and Ron Paul would win against Obama with his eyes closed.
So you think that 120 Yen for 1 dollar in 2006 and 80 Yen for 1 dollar today makes the dollar stronger? Hmmmmm, interesting.
An individual is most likely a human, a mob, on the other hand, is more akin to a brainless tsunami of destruction.