Bullshit.
The borrower owned the original loaner money, who was made whole for the same by a benevolent somebody else who freed you from your debt.
I would say: "Thank You!"
The real problem is that people need to get in debt in order to get an education, with which they can earn money they need to pay their taxes with, which will be collected by the bankster criminals that own the 'Federal' 'Reserve' 'Bank' (three lies in quotes) which borrowed all banknotes and digital money in circulation to the government.
It's the Federal Government that should have printed the money that paid for the free education which then would have elevated the country.
You forgot to mention that they agreed to pay the loan back to the original borrower.
That original borrower got paid for the loan by some 'benevolent' organization, and now you're free.
Later this 'benevolent' institution got remorse but can't prove you owe them anything.
End of story.
Technicality... my ass.
There you go!
Transfer yourself to a corporation, let that corporation borrow the money for your study, and have fun.
Can't pay back? Your corporation goes bankrupt and you just transfer yourself to another one.
You're contradicting yourself.
First you say that the US is spending to prevent other countries from being invaded.
Then you imply that stopping spending on protecting other countries, will get the US invaded.
Did you apply for a loan using a gun?
If somebody can not show you the papers proving you owe them anything, especially if you didn't borrow anything from them, then why should you pay?
It has nothing to do with being 'legitimate' or not.
You can't read, can you?
The person borrowed the money from someone else than the one who tries to collect the money, but doesn't have the proof that he owns the debt. He could be screwing the borrower, so the borrower shouldn't pay, unless the collector can prove he owns the debt.
It's really quite simply like that.
As if the MSM is not 'exremely opinionated', or worse, flat out paid to either convey or leave out messages.
You mention cases being 'corrected' by the same media, no, not the same, other.
If Putin is reported snubbing a BBC reporter who asks him about the suffering of Syrian people by the Dutch media, a British subject posts the correction showing the whole video, where Putin actually talks for 20 minutes to the reporter.
If CNN shows the daughter of the embassador of Quwait to the UN lying about being a nurse 'witnessing' the Iraqy soldiers ripping out the babies from the incubators, it's *not CNN who 'corrected' itself. These were alternative media.
If CNN totally critiquelessly shows Colin Powell presenting his 'evidence' of WoMD, it wasn't CNN being the (first) one to correct the message. Instead they made a spectacle out of the criminal American destruction of Iraq.
And one could go on and on..., but I won't.
Sometimes, people who 'flat out' support the media also may have a political agenda, the agenda of the status quo, neo-conservatives, current rule.
I agree about the obvious reasons, but I would like to include as a valid reason that the media has betrayed them or misinformed them.
So many stories like Iraq having WoMD, Iraqi soldiers ripping the babies out of incubators, omission of things that are important to know in order to get a full picture of the situation, CNN faking news on video, BBC reporters allegedly being snubbed by Putin etc. etc.
I could point you to one site that is not 'main stream media', but would be able to inform you a whole lot more: globalresearch.ca for instance.
There you can become much better informed about the geopolitical backgrounds of the current socio-political situations and wars than from the main stream media outlets.
So yes, I do believe one can be better informed than people who not actually, but *only read newspapers and watch Fox, CNN, Al-Jazeera and what not.
I certainly wouldn't call the more-informed people 'lunatic'.
Even if Kaspersky doesn't want to do anything bad, I can't imagine that Russian intelligence doesn't have someone on the inside. Just as I can't imaging the CIA or NSA doesn't have someone inside MS and Google.
Hahaha, you're so naive...
Why would the CIA *and* NSA not have 'someone' inside Kaspersky?
Facebook received 12 million in start-up money from ACCEL corporation, which has direct ties to In-Q-Tel which is the venture capital arm of the CIA.
So although it's not a direct project of the CIA, I bet it's highly useful to them.
It was only unforeseen that the ancestor of Cambridge Analytica would suck up so much information from the facebook likes that Trump could win the elections (and Farrage the Brexit vote).
Slashdot Mirror
The Federal Reserve is owned by private banks, and isn't part of the government. Sorry.
There's nothing C++ does that assembly can't do... err...
What do you think?
In the financial business gains are privatized and losses are socialized.
Would you like to be the one that found out he's the exception, and now has to pay back his loan twice?
Of course, but to whom?
Bullshit.
The borrower owned the original loaner money, who was made whole for the same by a benevolent somebody else who freed you from your debt.
I would say: "Thank You!"
The real problem is that people need to get in debt in order to get an education, with which they can earn money they need to pay their taxes with, which will be collected by the bankster criminals that own the 'Federal' 'Reserve' 'Bank' (three lies in quotes) which borrowed all banknotes and digital money in circulation to the government.
It's the Federal Government that should have printed the money that paid for the free education which then would have elevated the country.
You forgot to mention that they agreed to pay the loan back to the original borrower.
That original borrower got paid for the loan by some 'benevolent' organization, and now you're free.
Later this 'benevolent' institution got remorse but can't prove you owe them anything.
End of story.
Technicality... my ass.
There you go!
Transfer yourself to a corporation, let that corporation borrow the money for your study, and have fun.
Can't pay back? Your corporation goes bankrupt and you just transfer yourself to another one.
You're contradicting yourself.
First you say that the US is spending to prevent other countries from being invaded.
Then you imply that stopping spending on protecting other countries, will get the US invaded.
Almost.
Your #1 point should be: Get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank.
(It's not 'Federal', it's not a Reserve, and it's not a Bank.)
Federal government is fucked for borrowing money.
They should print it themselves.
Did you apply for a loan using a gun?
If somebody can not show you the papers proving you owe them anything, especially if you didn't borrow anything from them, then why should you pay?
It has nothing to do with being 'legitimate' or not.
A debt is only resold if the new 'owner' can prove he owns it.
You can't read, can you?
The person borrowed the money from someone else than the one who tries to collect the money, but doesn't have the proof that he owns the debt. He could be screwing the borrower, so the borrower shouldn't pay, unless the collector can prove he owns the debt.
It's really quite simply like that.
the people at the IRS have no incentive to cheat you.
Or the president asked them to screw you over because of your political opinions.
They don't call it "legal paperwork" for nothing.
If it's not on paper, it's not legal.
Or you have to pay extra when you use a credit card.
This would be in violation of their contract with Visa, and they can be reported by the customer after which Visa will come down on them.
...but in smaller shops you often can't use them here.
That's because of the fees Visa (and Mastercard and American Express) charges them.
...I would have posted as an Anonymous Coward.
Not really, this looks more like an internal Russian affair. No ties with CIA/NSA are suggested.
As if the MSM is not 'exremely opinionated', or worse, flat out paid to either convey or leave out messages.
You mention cases being 'corrected' by the same media, no, not the same, other.
If Putin is reported snubbing a BBC reporter who asks him about the suffering of Syrian people by the Dutch media, a British subject posts the correction showing the whole video, where Putin actually talks for 20 minutes to the reporter.
If CNN shows the daughter of the embassador of Quwait to the UN lying about being a nurse 'witnessing' the Iraqy soldiers ripping out the babies from the incubators, it's *not CNN who 'corrected' itself. These were alternative media.
If CNN totally critiquelessly shows Colin Powell presenting his 'evidence' of WoMD, it wasn't CNN being the (first) one to correct the message. Instead they made a spectacle out of the criminal American destruction of Iraq.
And one could go on and on..., but I won't.
Sometimes, people who 'flat out' support the media also may have a political agenda, the agenda of the status quo, neo-conservatives, current rule.
I agree about the obvious reasons, but I would like to include as a valid reason that the media has betrayed them or misinformed them.
So many stories like Iraq having WoMD, Iraqi soldiers ripping the babies out of incubators, omission of things that are important to know in order to get a full picture of the situation, CNN faking news on video, BBC reporters allegedly being snubbed by Putin etc. etc.
I could point you to one site that is not 'main stream media', but would be able to inform you a whole lot more: globalresearch.ca for instance.
There you can become much better informed about the geopolitical backgrounds of the current socio-political situations and wars than from the main stream media outlets.
So yes, I do believe one can be better informed than people who not actually, but *only read newspapers and watch Fox, CNN, Al-Jazeera and what not.
I certainly wouldn't call the more-informed people 'lunatic'.
It's NATO that right now puts soldiers on the doorsteps of Russia, not the other way around...
Even if Kaspersky doesn't want to do anything bad, I can't imagine that Russian intelligence doesn't have someone on the inside. Just as I can't imaging the CIA or NSA doesn't have someone inside MS and Google.
Hahaha, you're so naive...
Why would the CIA *and* NSA not have 'someone' inside Kaspersky?
Facebook received 12 million in start-up money from ACCEL corporation, which has direct ties to In-Q-Tel which is the venture capital arm of the CIA.
So although it's not a direct project of the CIA, I bet it's highly useful to them.
It was only unforeseen that the ancestor of Cambridge Analytica would suck up so much information from the facebook likes that Trump could win the elections (and Farrage the Brexit vote).
fool