|
Post by jaedrik on Jun 5, 2016 12:37:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 28, 2016 11:42:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 7, 2016 14:39:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 6, 2016 20:18:41 GMT -5
Your consensus does not change my mind. How about some evidence to the contrary instead? I'd believe that. After critical examination, of course. That is not where the burden of proof lies. This is the same reason no one takes your libertarian views seriously. You post no actual scientific (or even just logical) reasoning for your views despite the obvious deviations from the general consensus. You can't come on here and proclaim the existence of invisible aliens in our toilets and tell us to prove you wrong. That's not how burden of proof works. Until you can present an un-biased source that supports your claims, you can't expect us to prove you wrong. "Your source is biased, therefore cannot speak the truth, or contain scientific evidence, or logical reasoning, or otherwise provide anything of value to this discourse." "You are ignorant of all these sciences, have done no research on alternate possibilities, you have no opinions of your own, and you're disagreeing with authority. You are wrong." This is ironic. "You can't question the scientific orthodoxy, and I will ignore those that you've presented who do, because you're not a part of the scientific orthodoxy. Which you have to become a part of to question." This is a strange dogma. Oh, and Judy Wood was part of the scientific orthodoxy. Still got her Ph.D. Alas, they seem to kick out dissenting voices and destroy reputations with alarming regularity. No, I don't think they want to expose its existence more. Not to mention the fact that, despite so much evidence to the contrary, the scientific orthodoxy does not change its base assumptions about, for example, the nuclear convection model of the sun. You're asking people to give up their funding, too, or for people in the know to throw all the useful idiot scientists in the establishment on their heads. Your comments are another version of Mousey's objections. Further, you mistake my argument. My argument is that they (the Bush administration and the USA's intelligence agencies) benefit the more mystery and division there is in the opposition, and that using this mysterious weapon fits their tactics well. The necessary second part of that is these benefits and counterintelligence tactics make the gamble lesser than if they helped destroy the towers through some other means. But, I'm not. I'm claiming to be right about the methods because, surprise, all the evidence points to it. That is the base, and you are reversing the order of my reasoning. THEN nothing else as yet presented adequately explains the manifest phenomena of the event. Seriously, just because you don't believe that's how the towers should have fell doesn't suddenly disprove that they fell at all. Can you show us how the towers were supposed to fall? Is there another example we can look at to compare? Oh wait, there's two examples right there given that both fell in the same way that day. Saying that it's impossible is clearly wrong given that it happened twice. You also don't seem to understand that the idea of cold energy is impossible. Heat is energy. Cold is just a low amount of heat. Cold energy is an oxymo ron. You'd have better luck calling it some bullshit dark matter weapon. You've made the same error as Pachiderm by reversing my reasoning. This is an improper methodology, as you point out, but I assure you that I do not hold it. Those same two examples agree with what I'm saying. Why, because the scientific orthodoxy says mythical dark matter exists? What a curious devotion to the dogma of the scientific establishment. Electric Universe theory explains this in a far more elegant and simplistic manner, and solves all sorts of paradoxes and problems that general relativity, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics inevitably encounter because, surprise, they are mutually contradictory in some cases and do not agree with observed phenomena. Even the Casimir effect, acknowledged by establishment science, seems to violate these laws of thermodynamics. Seems to? Or, rather, is there some model out there that explains these things better? There is. And, hey, Einstein, ever heard of magnets? How the Foxtrot do they work? What's a field, hmm? The cult of Quantum and GR are far behind Maxwell, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Faraday, Tesla, and so on, not to mention their modern standard bearers. Question authority.
|
|
|
Music
Apr 6, 2016 16:18:29 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Apr 6, 2016 16:18:29 GMT -5
Welp, RIP GiIvaSunner. It was a good run.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 6, 2016 15:46:50 GMT -5
Have you ever seen a map of Rome? All roads do not lead to Rome. My fault for mixing analogies in the first place, but I don't see the point of you taking it literally. People literally don't have three hours to spare? Or are you implying that it'd be worthless to watch? What about the other page I linked? jesus christ jaedrik i swear you couldnt read a cereal box without misconstruing half of it. i handwaved the scifi shit because it wasnt even important to what i was trying to get across. My point is WHY would they use this secret technology if it so "obviously" reveals itself as a contribution? Why even destroy the building if you could push your agenda otherwise without it actually collapsing? Hell, why not actually sneak thermite or whatever into the bulding and then play it off as part of the terrorists plan all along? What i find difficult to fathom is the idea that whoever supposedly orchestrated this managed to fail to make it 100% believable. There are all these extraeneous possibilities meant to supplement the plane crashing into it, but its possible to do that in ways that could actually be blamed on terrorists anyway. What all this "points towards" is that whoever supposedly was behind 9/11 was actually trying to make a convoluted puzzle that leads back to them. Theres no reason for it unless they just want to tease you. No, I think the Bush administration would have a much more difficult time covering up their involvement if they didn't have the unbelievability of a future weapon backing the towers' destruction. Otherwise, I think the questions would've been done by a more unified opposition. The administration and the intelligence agencies obstructed of investigation, very likely conducted counterintelligence operations in any scenario, were vastly inconsistent in their reporting and accounts... Divide and conquer, discourage the opposition with COINTELPRO / PSYOPS which is easier the more divided they are. I really think people would be more willing to believe they helped terrorists coat the tower in spray-thermite-nukes or whatever, and the story would've been pushed by the opposition much faster (or have them all killed, not a pretty sight. It's nearly always better to divide and conquer). Divide and conquer, and now we have many more factions than we otherwise would have. There's the controlled opposition who pushes the thermite narrative, there's the faithful authoritarians who, in believing their government wouldn't do such a thing, rightly question the inconclusive thermite narrative. There's those who, so confused by everything, ignore everything and move on with their lives. I don't think there'd be as much confusion and division among the disinterested masses if it was as obvious as a conventional weapon would've made it. And, again, none of this discredits the fact that none of the other destruction methods comport with the evidence. Regardless of how improbable this all seems, and I think a deal of your doubt comes from sheer refusal to see the scenario's rightful plausibility, it must be true, or some other possibility must be true which is equally as ludicrous sounding.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 6, 2016 12:08:01 GMT -5
boy the illuminati really fu ckeded up when they used their secret technology to destroy a building instead of just doing it normally using technology that already exists to me the evidence all points towards people reading too much scifi. like why would they bother? even if i ignore the issues with the so called evidence people give for the building collapsing oddly, what would be the point? the building wouldn't have even needed to collapse to have significance as a terrorist attack. but youre telling me that they not only orchestrated the collapse but also used their secret laser technology that makes the building collapse in a way that doesnt align with the law of physics itself? the biggest hole for me in all of this, aside from the extravagant correlations, is that if the secret ruling society was actually that fuc king stupid then there's no way they could've taken over the world unless satan himself was in charge. Sci-fi? No doubt there's many black budget projects from the military, and no doubt they have advanced weaponry. Saying they have something like this is not absurd. Would you not rather use a foreign technology that was assured to confuse and disrupt opposition, along with COINTELPRO and other PSYOPS, rather than the bloody obvious thermite or nuclear weaponry? Besides, like I said, none of those conventional weapons could've had the effects observed at Ground Zero. We don't have to question how dumb they are, we know what is. Besides, you're denying it right now, so obviously there's not much problem with using this new technology? And... Is there such a thing as settled science? Geocentrism was a settled science back in the day. It's no absurd suggestion that a military with a huge-ass budget would have weapons that seem to 'defy' the laws of physics. Maybe even General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't the most accurate models? Or are the priests of 'mainstream science' too sacrosanct to question? Defying the laws of physics? If it defied the laws of physics then it wouldn't have happened. Yet it did. If all the evidence points to a near impossibility, then, well, what are we to conclude? I don't even have to say there's a secret ruling society, though. Say Russia and China and whoever else has this sort of weaponry too? Say they have MAD with this new weaponry? I don't make the claims you seem to think necessary to my position. Back on the Panama Papers: www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-05/shots-fired-wikileaks-accuses-panama-papers-leaker-being-soros-funded-soft-power-tax
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 6, 2016 10:11:42 GMT -5
The evidence all points to a cold direct energy weapon. When all signs point towards Rome, is it not obvious where the roads lead? So? I'm honestly not too concerned with the method because, regardless, it was a false flag. I'm a little surprised that everyone just went "what a story, Jaedrik." I didn't think you guys were that... Oh, I don't know the word. Close minded? Dismissive of alternate views? Undiscerning? Your consensus does not change my mind. How about some evidence to the contrary instead? I'd believe that. After critical examination, of course.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 5, 2016 17:21:39 GMT -5
How about you lay out for me what you think happened with 9/11? Reason: false flag / complicit behavior, ultimately to justify war in the middle east. Method of tower destruction: a 'cold directed energy weapon system' used to dustify the structures with minimal debris. Minimal seismic impact, contrary to all controlled demolition of this magnitude, and complete survival of the bathtub. Dissimilar metals melted together. Cool ground zero while objects glow as if hot / melted, random combustion. Seemingly randomly burnt cars in curious ways and places. Unburnt paper. Many other material-specific effects. Inexplicable holes in glass of nearby buildings. Excess of tritium found, but none of the necessary ionizing radiation from a nuclear explosion. Thermite is iron oxide and aluminum cladding powder, easily explained naturally. Jet fuel literally cannot explain these things, nor could spray-painted nano-nuclear mini-thermite, or any combination of these things.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 5, 2016 12:34:30 GMT -5
You're not really proving yourself right here, you're just proving Aphoristic wrong. Something that really isn't that hard to do because... Occam'r razor is, at most, a suggestion and not a hard rule. That's fine, as long as doubt is cast. But, it seems you thought that I was using Occam's razor as a proof? Did you read the f ucking interview? No, of course you are just going with that cherry picked line... He's not saying anything unusual. The bold line right there explains the rest of your post. I'll go further and say that nobody likes people looking deeper to see if they screwed something up. Why? Because they probably did mess up something minor. That's not abnormal. So of course they are going to be less than helpful in the investigation. Honestly, you're trying to twist the words of a guy who in the first couple questions explains that he believes the report is a success at explaining the events of 9/11. Also, Foxtroting scroll down. There are sources such as "911truth.org" "ae911truth.org" "patriotsquestion911.com" "911research.wtc7.net" and you're telling me these are good sources for information? They're conspiracy sites. They lack any real credibility. Edit: And yeah, Occam's razor isn't anything more than a suggestion, but jaedrik is actually trying to say it's on his side here. No, it isn't. It's never on the side of the conspiracies. I did read the interview. I'll maintain the way that washingtonsblog characterizes and summarizes it is honest and accurate. Keep in mind the point they are refuting: "I. The 9/11 Commission and Congressional Investigation Into 9/11 All Disproved Any Conspiracy." Again, anyone interested to judge for yourself, please read: www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/8-reasons-911-not-inside-job.html and web.archive.org/web/20070108233707/http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html and, the other half of the 'set up to fail' quote: historynewsnetwork.org/article/11972Not to mention the tons of links unmentioned by either of us. I'd like to forward you that it is not only these people, but countless other officials who feel, much more strongly than they, something is off about the 9/11 commission. So, the whole darn thing is wrong by association with "truther" websites? This is what I mean by casting my doubt: question authority. Your broad labeling and outright dismissal bespeaks a closed mind--though not necessarily a bad thing. I hope that you'd broach the topic further, and with more honesty and less emotionalism.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 5, 2016 11:12:16 GMT -5
So you're legitimately saying 9/11 was an inside job? K Legit as heck, because the arguments are s o l i d as heck. Occam's razor is on "my side." Step to me. And, I have to apologize for my rhetoric. I'm not sure how I feel, but I think it's something like frustration. I should've taken longer to compose the message to Apho and toned it down.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 5, 2016 10:26:32 GMT -5
More evidence that Hillary is literally Satan: wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/14333"With fingers crossed, the old rabbit's foot out of the box in the attic, I will be sacrificing a chicken in the backyard to Moloch . . ." And, yes, I'm kidding. Though, what the hell, sacrificing to Moloch? Honestly I don't like arguing guns through the second amendment lens. Too many interpretations and hypotheticals. And honestly if you're using the second amendment either for or against gun ownership you're doing something wrong. Right, and nobody really should. It is wise to question the wisdom of the elders. However, if you go back and read the ratifying conventions, which is where it is understood the consent of the people derive from, you'll see there's nearly one, universal, and obvious way they took it to mean. There's no real question about that stuff. I think all this hooplah about interpretation and hypotheticals are just people who want to pay lip service to the constitution but who don't, or don't want to, believe that it really means what it means. I'd rather be honest and say that it's not a sacred document. Muh constitution is not an argument to the strength of its amendments.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 5, 2016 10:17:16 GMT -5
Why not consider the much more plausible idea that terrorists benefit from performing more terrorist attacks. Or, the equally plausible idea that terrorists have cooperated with western intelligence agencies and operations because, while their goals may not align, they both see the same methods as conducive to achieving their own? just so you know I'm going full loonie 8^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^] At least you admit it. Look up what Occam's razor is. It points out the biggest flaw with conspiracies. Did you even bother to look into the sources on that 9/11 article? Every link leads back to the same site or some 9/11 truthing site. Seriously though, Occam's razor destroys the 9/11 conspiracy. What happened on 9/11? Either thousands of secret government agents whom have kept quiet for 15 years have orchestrated this attack, or some religious extremists decided to attack the country they see as degrading the world's morality. Oh, please, don't patronize me with Occam's razor. And certainly don't use it to broadly brand all conspiracies as loonie. We've admitted before that thousands of people have worked on things like the Manhattan Project, or MKULTRA, or numerous false flags. There are numerous admitted conspiracies. No, I dare say the argument that 9/11 was not an inside job has FAR more assumptions, as the sarcasm in the article points out, than the idea that it was an inside job. You didn't put any effort in, did you? Yes, I did look at the sources. Literally click the first link. Hey, guess what the second link on the previous page was? The first link on that page. "9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue." Ok, where does Radio Canada get its information? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Solomon interviewing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_H._Hamilton about his book, Without Precedent. Ha ha, Do you have any good reason to doubt its authenticity? Is CBC some "9/11 truthing site"? Check the next link: historynewsnetwork.org/article/11972Okay, um... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_News_NetworkGee, who would've thought that George Mason University was full conspiritard? Haha, I kid, let's look at the particular people involved: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Maier ok hmm, a little fishy. I mean, how could someone who "achieved prominence over a fifty-year career of critically acclaimed scholarly histories and journal articles" be a reliable source? Next one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Troy Oh boy, no better. A Harvard historian. How about we just look up the guy who wrote the article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_May_(historian) Oh no! Another Harvard historian! Your branding is looking pretty silly right about now. Next link: www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?ref=opinion "The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”" Next: Oh, sorry, this one is 404'd. I'll get an archive page: web.archive.org/web/20120621201359/http://www.salon.com/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies "9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”" Well, isn't that nice? I hate salon as much as any good libertarian should, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss all of their articles on the basis that, haha, they're a "truther site," whatever that's supposed to mean. Let's jump back for a second. You said "Either thousands of secret government agents whom have kept quiet for 15 years have orchestrated this attack..." Well, maybe if you actually Foxtroting read the article, you'd see that, in fact, many government officials have not kept quiet: "IV. No One Could Keep Such a Big Conspiracy Secret … Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans" Now, I don't feel like going through all the links, so why don't you cherry pick a few for me? Or how about you go and click through the links with a bit more honesty and rigor, k? ;]
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 4, 2016 20:35:07 GMT -5
There is a conspiracy surrounding Brussels and other terrorist attacks. It is an insidious, evil conspiracy set in motion by malicious puppet masters whose public statements are mostly lies designed to hide their true motivations. And I know who the conspirators are behind the Brussels attacks. Are you ready? I am going to tell you: ISIS. Again: www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/58-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html#more-52306https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4bn4op/here_is_what_actual_analysis_of_brussels_bombing/ And, well, you might not be wrong. ISIS is a US-backed proxy army, after all. Realpolitik at its finest. Thanks, Erdogan. Edit: in other news, I'm turning Russian: Edit 2: Financial collapse soon. 8^] Edit 3: just so you know I'm going full loonie 8^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^] www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/8-reasons-911-not-inside-job.html
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 4, 2016 15:44:32 GMT -5
If there's no discernible motivation for a possible action besides misdirection or a conceited sense of puzzle-making... Another possibility: mutual dirt. Get oneself involved in high realpolitik, there's tons of opportunity for blackmail. Someone suggests getting together to perform satanic rituals and fake child sacrifices so, again, they have dirt on eachother. You reveal one of my secrets? I can take you down with me. It's tradition. Anyways. The Panama Papers: A Panama law firm ( Mossack Fonseca ) specializing in offshore accounts and shell firms was hacked. The hacker leaked stuff to a German newspaper a year ago. However, there's signs of manipulation. The group that's managing the leak's publication is www.icij.org/index.htmlWho is funded by www.publicintegrity.org/about/our-work/supportersNow, among that number are many western 'elites,' like Soros, Rockefellers, Kellogg. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish, but we'll see who gets their buns fried for this. I've also heard that Wikileaks had to leak the leak, and that the actual leak has a lot more on everyone? The icij run publication is slowly revealing, on the other hand. I've also heard that it's ousted some Brit politicians, and this is why I think it fits well with the realpolitik: those small fish. No surprise if the big 'uns who're running the publication, as described, are willing to sacrifice a few of their minor allies in order to give it a sense of plausible deniability. Edit, some more buns frying: Putin? Assad? I haven't seen the docs myself, obv. Iceland's PM, some minor Israeli: attorney Dov Weisglass, former bureau chief of the late prime minister Ariel Sharon; and Israeli businessman Idan Offer. Edit 2: Tons breaking. What I suspect is that... a lot more will be implicated in time. We'll see who's focused on and who's ignored. And, I can't find the actual raw documents anywhere? :[
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 4, 2016 13:24:15 GMT -5
... you cannot compete with the government on funding a war, financially or militarily. I'd beg to differ. An overview of military history shows that defensive guerrilla tactics match up well against standing armies.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Apr 1, 2016 19:08:14 GMT -5
Still looks like a saddened beagle to me.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 22, 2016 16:01:42 GMT -5
Do you have any proof beyond whomever uploading it saying that is what he said and that is when he said it? Why wouldn't everyone be talking about it by now if it's true? And that conspiracy post is sad. Now some idiot just had all his retarded beliefs validated. There's no saving him anymore. Nope. I just trusted the liveleak captions. :D Well, the premise is simple: "they control" the "mainstream media." at least, they influence it to an extent where minor stuff like this is passed over. And, it's not so hard to believe IMO. Notice his wording isn't "Brussels will be attacked" it's "why wouldn't Brussels and Europe be attacked?" Slight plausible deniability, and what about the rest of the speech? I dunno. I see US and Israeli interests overlapping with Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc., they're less likely to want media to want popular opinion to turn on the ally. you know the concept of claiming that a terrorist attack is a conspiracy by the elite (not saying it is) isnt even remotely unbelievable, EVEN attaching symbols to it isnt too crazy either since that can drive home the association that theyd be trying to get across. but these guys wonder why people think theyre crazy when they talk about messages being hidden in the simpsons or the matrix. I mean is the illuminati headed by the fu cking riddler or something? Its not like people take over the world just to jack off to chaos. Imagine how much more convincing these guys could be if they learned how to seperate meaningful connections from those which would serve no earthly purpose were they true. Best wishes to those hurt by the tragedy. Not much i can say that you probably havent heard elsewhere at this point. I fully agree on the symbolism stuff. IMO, the smartest thing any secret group could do, and did ( straight from the horse's mouth :D ), is to not give themselves a name. If there are secret societies, I think it'd be wise of them to add some misdirection and lay stuff like this around so that the people who aren't discerning enough (or those that go too deep down the rabbit hole, something like that) will look more like loonies. Well that's the thing. There are real conspiracies, but they're no where near as abundant as the typical conspiracy theorist claims. I'd like to stress this commonality. Everyone thinks there are conspiracies of some sort or another. But, IMO, the conflicts of interest feel too much for super grand conspiracies like Illuminati NWO stuff to actually work out. That, and the old "evil always turns in against evil" mantra. Still, I like to entertain this sort of stuff, it's always interesting to see patterns of evidence, even if they're fake patterns or coincidences. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle. And, connecting this point with the one I made in response to Mousey's, it'd be wise to try and misdirect people to grander conspiracies in scale so they don't look as closely at the smaller, actual conspiracies. Edit: some more realpolitiks: www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixonOI ABC reported the Erdogan's speech, check it Apho :D abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/kurdish-militants-hit-europe-turkeys-erdogan-37743106Edit 2: some examples of admitted conspiracies: www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/58-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 22, 2016 9:43:30 GMT -5
Brussels was hit. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3503928/Two-explosions-heard-Brussels-Airport.htmlnews.yahoo.com/whole-europe-hit-hollande-113424766.html;_ylt=AwrXgyJcN_FW7R8A0.zQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--Instantly the rhetoric that the god of the west, democracy, needs defending. This is a tragedy, but to say they hate us and kill us for our political system (though the west is more oligarchic that democratic or republic now, according to Harvard, PEW, Princeton, etc.) is, in my estimation, far from the truth. Also, Erdogan, Turkey's president, knew that Brussels was going to be... www.liveleak.com/view?i=b49_1458643580Bonus: vague prediction turns out right reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4awbxk/whats_happening_on_march_22/
|
|
|
Music
Mar 21, 2016 13:09:11 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Mar 21, 2016 13:09:11 GMT -5
cheeki breeki
"I only upload official high quality video game soundtrack rips" - GiIvaSunner 2016 Half this channel's jokes are the Flintstones theme tho.
Funk, also Daft Punk sampled this classic :D
Jazz down that Star Fox music: and low-fi on purpose:
A cowabunga:
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 12, 2016 22:04:11 GMT -5
wacky anarcho-capitalist answers If property rights arise from the natural law, and are not a positive right from legal institutions, then unconsenting taxation is literally theft.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 12, 2016 14:56:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 11, 2016 13:32:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 8, 2016 3:55:05 GMT -5
Probably biased websitejaedrik link to Non-Farm Payroll number? BoLS site looked a bit time consuming, and I wants to see what all you non-farmer payrollers are numbering and you made me google pogchamp /facepalm Oop, excuse me, I didn't listen closely enough to my source. www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/non-farm-payrollsA lot of the numbers are slightly positive or middling (look between last and previous). But, the ones my (initial) source focused on, being a 'perpetual bear,' were average hourly earnings and average hours worked in a week. -0.10% and 34.40 hours. When those are put together, the total drop in weekly earnings is .7%, which is the largest drop ever, for that very specific category. Thanks for making me re-check the stuff, it helps keep me honest. :D
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 7, 2016 15:03:15 GMT -5
HEY BY THE WAY Did you guys see the recent Non-Farm Payroll number? PogChamp Largest decrease in wages since the statistic existed. WutFace
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 6, 2016 0:19:29 GMT -5
dude this is what im talking about he just turns one word into five for no reason Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish. I can't JUST say "pacifist," because I'm not opposed to violence or the use of force. The non-aggression principle is a specific moral principle, espoused by Aquinas through Rothbard (my heroes), which implies stuff that can't be summed up in one word. Defending one's rights from those who forfeit theirs by aggressing is not aggression in and of itself. In this sense, rights are negative and not positive.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 6, 2016 0:09:31 GMT -5
Nina just made me Dreamy Creamed Beef.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 5, 2016 22:17:04 GMT -5
Also jaedrik the fact that you live so close to me scares me. lol! Don't worry, I subscribe to the non-aggression principle <3
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 5, 2016 20:47:11 GMT -5
Even killings with knifes are killings. I'd rather go by violent crime / killing stats per capita than specifically gun violence per capita. But, the general sentiment that "this is a complicated issue" I agree with. There's tons of demographic and ideological stuff that goes into statistical violence, and it's very difficult to methodologically isolate any one factor. I think this is a generally good study with decent methodology and variable isolation, though: www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdfAs for my personal bias, I live near-ish Chicago, where the air is 10% lead. I'd like to have a weapon, many weapons, many powerful weapons, just in case some of that lead floats over here in the event of a Golden Horde migration in the event of catastrophic societal collapse. Filthy thieves not gettin' their hands on my farm-fresh chicken eggs. Another way I like to think of it--easy legal firearms makes the job for police tougher, yes, (and in my fantasy of fantasies it reduces the viability of a police state,) but it also makes the job for criminals tougher since they have to deal with an armed populace to aggress against.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 5, 2016 12:04:59 GMT -5
Detroit Threat Management Center. Commander Dale Brown came to Detroit and saw, according to him, that the police department / officers, across the board, cared more about getting money from prosecutions than they did actually protecting the public from violence. A perverse incentive structure. This guy then created a system that teaches people how to handle and end confrontations without resorting to violence. Turns out, he made it profitable, and lots of businesses, land owners, and groups of people, now hire his psyops dudes to protect their stuff. He's directly responsible for a decrease in crime in Detroit. The free market, per se, at work, ladies and gents. :D ( where I got me information: )
|
|