1) This alone shows how fucking ignorant you are. Congress can override a veto
Only by a 2/3rds majority. Which isn't nearly as easy as a simple majority.
2) He could do that, be the results would be really, really, fucking bad. If the pull out isn't done in a way that leaves an established power, even more people will die under the following religious extremist the fill the power vacuum.
The sooner we do it, the less damage there will be in the long run.
3) Yes, letting corporations run with even less regulation, that would be fucking genius. Everythign else about the party is just smoke and mirrors. Look at their record.
That's not what he said, and that's speculation/fear-mongering as to what a Liberty Caucus would do.
This is what I was going to suggest. But before anyone actually tries this, I recommend watching a few thermite videos on youtube so you know what you're dealing with before you try it. That shit throws mad sparks and produces molten metal that whatever it is sitting on will have to deal with.
No it doesn't. A consumption tax invariably places a much larger tax burden on the lower classes because they spend a much larger portion of their income on consumables. I'm not saying an income tax makes much sense. But a consumption tax is incredibly jilted in favor of the rich.
Am I the only one that caught on to the fact that "beaming energy" has enormous potential use as a weapon?
I realize that's not the intention, and honestly, I think it's pretty neat, but it's somewhat alarming that the potential abuses do not seem to have been considered.
I totally agree with your sentiments. The percentage of American citizens that are millionaires is something like 0.3%, yet the percentage of elected representatives that are millionaires is about 40%. I think there should be a law that - given how important wealth is in our society - mandates that the income percentages of representatives match those of its populace. Then we might actually have enough people in there who care about the middle class and the poor to do something for them.
And Goddamn Democrats incapable of showing anything resembling leadership. Hook up that vagisil IV drip because they're just a bunch of vaginas.
I do not think that is the issue. Rather, that republican and democrat is to the wealthy what good cop and bad cop are to the police. That is, they're both working for the same side; the republicans as advocates, the democrats as purposely ineffectual opposition. That way the masses are kept placid by the illusion that we have a representative democracy and that it's not all controlled by one faction. When, if you ignore what they all say, and pay attention only to what is done or not done, we have a plutarchy. In theory we could just vote them all out. In theory, the next generation of pics could just develop wings and fly.
then bitcoins will be worthless, since there is no ultimate source of bitcoin value
Untrue. The ultimate source of bitcoin value is the decentralized nature wherein your assets in BTC cannot be frozen by external entities, yet is electronically transmittable to anyone, immediately, without fees. Far though it may fall, this means that the value cannot be zero as there is value inherent in this ability. Requiring that you be able to pay your taxes in it is a red herring. If BTC is accepted as currency by any entity at all, then it has value. Governments and taxes don't enter into determining whether or not it has value, merely how much.
My entire point is that you need to just stop right there. Why would everyone start to accept bitcoin? It's complicated, and it offers zero advantage over federal reserve notes to 99.99% of people.
Because it is not controlled by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is neither federal, nor a reserve, but a form of fractional reserve banking system built on usury. It it is a bit more complicated. But it has to be because it is a distributed system. Just as torrents are more complicated. But do you deny that the bittorrent protocol isn't wonderfully elegant? The more people want to get a file, the faster it goes. The inverse is, a centralized server where, the more people want a file the slower it goes. Its the same for bitcoin. Decentralization makes the system better able to handle load, more robust and puts control in literally, everyone's hands instead of those of just a few. Just look at what happened when a tiny few people controlled the fed. 2% of the U.S. Population now owns 80% of the wealth. It's a pyramid scheme.
The only drawback I see with bitcoin is, people who are currently entrenched end up the most wealthy, or those who use current currency to buy into it end up the most wealthy. Still a pyramid scheme, just different masters. There has to be a way to inject value into the system and convert it into the fiat currency that is bitcoin. Perhaps I do not understand the project enough yet to know, but the scary part is, I'm afraid to even run the client for fear of being arrested by working on a currency system that is not owned and controlled by the Secret Service, FBI, and The Fed. The law is on their side, and they're frighteningly powerful besides.
Do you have any idea just how much your life would suck right now had it not been for the banking system bailout?
No, and neither do you. How it would have shaken out is pure speculation for everyone. Now that my money is in a credit union rather than a bank, I am immune to bank failure. How? A credit union isn't a bank! They're not part of the fractional reserve system of usury, but a local system that is available only to people in my area. We are all stakeholders and all derive interest from our savings and others' savings. In other words, it's a distributed system with a central authority for convenience, not profit.
I'm talking about your life. Just read up on previous liquidity crises where the federal government did not step in, and look at what happened to the common man like you and me.
I would rather have a temporary liquidity crisis than a permanent pyramid scheme. The liquidity crisis can be solved by a distributed currency system where the benefactors of interest collectors are the people who put the value in, instead of the bankers. Banks are bad for humanity. Credit unions and distributed systems are good. If you don't believe me, stop using the internet, because you don't believe distributed systems are good for humanity.
It is dangerous to be a part of. It is a crime, as listed under 18 U.S.C. 486
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Still, I don't think bitcoin will become much of a thorn in the rump of any government-issued currencies
That depends solely on its adoption and acceptance. If everyone accepts bitcoin, it becomes a currency implicitly and intrinsically. One that has no central authority that can be controlled.
In that scenario, it literally wrests control of currency away from the government and banks. Neither the government nor the banks like that very much. Conspiracy theorists will tell you that Kennedy was assassinated for the executive order that would have ended The Fed. In other words, wresting control of US currency away from the banks got Kennedy killed. You can actually disbelieve that if you like, and it won't matter. I'm skeptical of it myself. But again, it doesn't actually matter.
This article is not sensational. It is true. The last guy who tried to move in on the government/banks' business of currency control was sent to prison for life for doing it. It is U.S. law that nobody else gets to make currency. It is a criminal act. That is a fact. The interesting question is, why? The first order answer is, well you can't have everybody making their own, it's too much of a PITA to exchange, so everybody does need to agree on one. But why did we pick one that is controlled by the US government? Well it was our central authority, obviously, our government should control our currency. The real problem is, it doesn't. The Fed does.
I think the only types of people who will bother learning how to use bitcoin would be, in decreasing order of value to society: privacy nuts, criminals, or economists.
You mean people who believe in democracy, as in of the people, for the people, and by the people? As the recent bank bailout just taught us, the current system is "Of the people, for the wealthy top 2% and by the wealthy top 2%" as secured by vastly greater sums of money (which is used to exert political power). There is no conspiracy, just corruption of government by power. In this instance, that power is wealth. And that wealth is in the form of USD. Bitcoin, if it gained global acceptance would effectively supplant that power, wresting all power from those that are wealthy in USD and give it to those that are wealthy in Bitcoin, which is a distributed currency, with no central authority. Which is the soul of democracy.
Try thinking outside the box next time, it's way more fun, even if it's a bit loony and gets you sent to Gitmo.
They don't care about your rights (this is, perhaps worse than wanting to trample them), they just want as much of your money as possible, and if they can get the government to take it from you and give it to them, they will. No questions asked.
It's definitely catching on and getting more and more popular.
It's not caught on yet for home TVs, but it's absolutely here to stay in the cinema. Half the movies out right now are available in 3D.
And this is the first real innovation in cinema tech in a long time and you're giving the studios shit for it?
The tech they used in the 50s was a cheap hack and didn't work very well. The current tech of two synchronized images viewed through differently polarized lenses? Outstanding results, and I for one applaud them for it. It makes going to the movies worth it again for a change.
It's not some gimmicky hack, it's literally that video content has finally caught up to audio. In stereo at last. We have two ears and two eyes, and only recently have the studios taken advantage of the fact that humans have two video channels as well as two audio. Don't knock it!
Unlike the Gordian-knot, not every complex problem has a simple solution. Especially in business where you can't just throw the shit out and call a Mulligan.
Slashdot Mirror
Only by a 2/3rds majority. Which isn't nearly as easy as a simple majority.
The sooner we do it, the less damage there will be in the long run.
That's not what he said, and that's speculation/fear-mongering as to what a Liberty Caucus would do.
Iceland threw off their bankers, threw some in jail, and are finally free.
Oh, but conspiring with the media mafia and bought congressmen to censor the internet for profit. That's playing fair?
I hope they go bankrupt before 2012.
Somalian pirates, uppity citizens, same thing.
Until a new law is passed that "clarifies" this one by allowing it to apply to U.S. sites.
In the past they've been been guilty of spending more on advertising than research.
Then you just say it was a gift exchange.
If businesses can use shady practices that adhere to the letter of the law while flaunting the spirit of it, so can citizens.
This was a response to a particular threat. The threat of citizens being free and wresting control back from the plutarchy.
The purpose of the TSA is to condition the citizens to a police state.
Very simple fix along those lines that I've wanted to see for years:
Deliberately broad.
This is what I was going to suggest. But before anyone actually tries this, I recommend watching a few thermite videos on youtube so you know what you're dealing with before you try it. That shit throws mad sparks and produces molten metal that whatever it is sitting on will have to deal with.
No it doesn't. A consumption tax invariably places a much larger tax burden on the lower classes because they spend a much larger portion of their income on consumables. I'm not saying an income tax makes much sense. But a consumption tax is incredibly jilted in favor of the rich.
Am I the only one that caught on to the fact that "beaming energy" has enormous potential use as a weapon?
I realize that's not the intention, and honestly, I think it's pretty neat, but it's somewhat alarming that the potential abuses do not seem to have been considered.
I totally agree with your sentiments. The percentage of American citizens that are millionaires is something like 0.3%, yet the percentage of elected representatives that are millionaires is about 40%. I think there should be a law that - given how important wealth is in our society - mandates that the income percentages of representatives match those of its populace. Then we might actually have enough people in there who care about the middle class and the poor to do something for them.
I do not think that is the issue. Rather, that republican and democrat is to the wealthy what good cop and bad cop are to the police. That is, they're both working for the same side; the republicans as advocates, the democrats as purposely ineffectual opposition. That way the masses are kept placid by the illusion that we have a representative democracy and that it's not all controlled by one faction. When, if you ignore what they all say, and pay attention only to what is done or not done, we have a plutarchy. In theory we could just vote them all out. In theory, the next generation of pics could just develop wings and fly.
For some reason this has me thinking of the one ring...
Untrue. The ultimate source of bitcoin value is the decentralized nature wherein your assets in BTC cannot be frozen by external entities, yet is electronically transmittable to anyone, immediately, without fees. Far though it may fall, this means that the value cannot be zero as there is value inherent in this ability. Requiring that you be able to pay your taxes in it is a red herring. If BTC is accepted as currency by any entity at all, then it has value. Governments and taxes don't enter into determining whether or not it has value, merely how much.
Because it is not controlled by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is neither federal, nor a reserve, but a form of fractional reserve banking system built on usury. It it is a bit more complicated. But it has to be because it is a distributed system. Just as torrents are more complicated. But do you deny that the bittorrent protocol isn't wonderfully elegant? The more people want to get a file, the faster it goes. The inverse is, a centralized server where, the more people want a file the slower it goes. Its the same for bitcoin. Decentralization makes the system better able to handle load, more robust and puts control in literally, everyone's hands instead of those of just a few. Just look at what happened when a tiny few people controlled the fed. 2% of the U.S. Population now owns 80% of the wealth. It's a pyramid scheme.
The only drawback I see with bitcoin is, people who are currently entrenched end up the most wealthy, or those who use current currency to buy into it end up the most wealthy. Still a pyramid scheme, just different masters. There has to be a way to inject value into the system and convert it into the fiat currency that is bitcoin. Perhaps I do not understand the project enough yet to know, but the scary part is, I'm afraid to even run the client for fear of being arrested by working on a currency system that is not owned and controlled by the Secret Service, FBI, and The Fed. The law is on their side, and they're frighteningly powerful besides.
No, and neither do you. How it would have shaken out is pure speculation for everyone. Now that my money is in a credit union rather than a bank, I am immune to bank failure. How? A credit union isn't a bank! They're not part of the fractional reserve system of usury, but a local system that is available only to people in my area. We are all stakeholders and all derive interest from our savings and others' savings. In other words, it's a distributed system with a central authority for convenience, not profit.
I would rather have a temporary liquidity crisis than a permanent pyramid scheme. The liquidity crisis can be solved by a distributed currency system where the benefactors of interest collectors are the people who put the value in, instead of the bankers. Banks are bad for humanity. Credit unions and distributed systems are good. If you don't believe me, stop using the internet, because you don't believe distributed systems are good for humanity.
No it isn't sensationalist.
The last guy who tried something like this found himself in jail.
It is dangerous to be a part of. It is a crime, as listed under 18 U.S.C. 486
That depends solely on its adoption and acceptance. If everyone accepts bitcoin, it becomes a currency implicitly and intrinsically. One that has no central authority that can be controlled.
In that scenario, it literally wrests control of currency away from the government and banks. Neither the government nor the banks like that very much. Conspiracy theorists will tell you that Kennedy was assassinated for the executive order that would have ended The Fed. In other words, wresting control of US currency away from the banks got Kennedy killed. You can actually disbelieve that if you like, and it won't matter. I'm skeptical of it myself. But again, it doesn't actually matter.
This article is not sensational. It is true. The last guy who tried to move in on the government/banks' business of currency control was sent to prison for life for doing it. It is U.S. law that nobody else gets to make currency. It is a criminal act. That is a fact. The interesting question is, why? The first order answer is, well you can't have everybody making their own, it's too much of a PITA to exchange, so everybody does need to agree on one. But why did we pick one that is controlled by the US government? Well it was our central authority, obviously, our government should control our currency. The real problem is, it doesn't. The Fed does.
You mean people who believe in democracy, as in of the people, for the people, and by the people? As the recent bank bailout just taught us, the current system is "Of the people, for the wealthy top 2% and by the wealthy top 2%" as secured by vastly greater sums of money (which is used to exert political power). There is no conspiracy, just corruption of government by power. In this instance, that power is wealth. And that wealth is in the form of USD. Bitcoin, if it gained global acceptance would effectively supplant that power, wresting all power from those that are wealthy in USD and give it to those that are wealthy in Bitcoin, which is a distributed currency, with no central authority. Which is the soul of democracy.
Try thinking outside the box next time, it's way more fun, even if it's a bit loony and gets you sent to Gitmo.
I'm pretty sure that scientists were responsible for all of that, not the Romans in general.
Much like vaccines, AC power, light bulbs, and basically everything else that makes our lives better.
Yes, because working is more important than asserting your rights as a human being.
Wait, no it fucking isn't.
It only feels that way because without a job you're fucked. Which is precisely how the corporate plutarchs like it.
Of course they didn't because we didn't teach them a lesson.
People kept buying Howard Stringer's customer-rights-disregarding products.
Why would he change company policy when there were no negative consequences the first time?
They don't care about your rights (this is, perhaps worse than wanting to trample them), they just want as much of your money as possible, and if they can get the government to take it from you and give it to them, they will. No questions asked.
Uhhh...no.
It's definitely catching on and getting more and more popular.
It's not caught on yet for home TVs, but it's absolutely here to stay in the cinema. Half the movies out right now are available in 3D.
And this is the first real innovation in cinema tech in a long time and you're giving the studios shit for it?
The tech they used in the 50s was a cheap hack and didn't work very well. The current tech of two synchronized images viewed through differently polarized lenses? Outstanding results, and I for one applaud them for it. It makes going to the movies worth it again for a change.
It's not some gimmicky hack, it's literally that video content has finally caught up to audio. In stereo at last. We have two ears and two eyes, and only recently have the studios taken advantage of the fact that humans have two video channels as well as two audio. Don't knock it!
Here's something interesting:
WiFi is not proprietary. So, now I know they are willing to lie to me.
It makes all "facts" from them suspect.
Unlike the Gordian-knot, not every complex problem has a simple solution. Especially in business where you can't just throw the shit out and call a Mulligan.