| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 4 months, 20 days |
| ||||||
Quote: You're embarrassed for me because I don't believe in mind control by electromagnetic frequencies emitted through a television set?!? Wow, I gave you an out when I asked "what does it mean to you to manipulate the nervous system? Hopefully you don't think it means mind control." But you doubled down on stupid. I get that electromagnetic waves can influence the nervous system, such as causing "eyelid ptosis" as claimed in the patent. But it certainly can't control my actions or emotions. ![]() Quote: Maybe to see if electromagnetic frequencies can impact the nervous system in any way? There is such a thing as fundamental research. Quote: Again, be specific about what "misinformation, lies, or ignoranace" I brought in. All you do is: Quote: No, you didn't. You asked me to google it, which I did before I even made my post. I found nothing, and neither did you apparently. Quote: Your argument, once again, was "When you tax nearly half of someone or something’s income, you are creating a huge disincentive toward production and prosperity." I used the Laffer curve to show that people remain productive even when they are being taxed at high rates. You're welcome to provide a counter argument, but the best you ever do is: Quote: Once again, please give specifics to prove your point. Quit
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 11/02/13 Posts: 781 Last seen: 7 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
What the fuck are "electromagnetic frequencies"? Frequency is a
measure of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) such as in: EMR 5.25x1012-5.05x1012Hz is perceived as yellow light by the human brain. And sometimes "frequency" is used colloquially like "the remote sends or a frequency" but this is very wrong and not technical language. Also notice that the 1Hz to .25Hz is far from yellow light. These place us at ultra low radio waves That we generate only using gigantic superstructure, of which only a few exist. transmitters. Fucking US education system -------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
|
Yea I'm no scientist so don't look to me for explanation. That's why I posted the link, it details every last bit of the process. Hendricus G. Loos breaks it down for you if you need anything cleared up.
Stop and Frisk was declared unconstitutional because it discriminated against minorities? What about the fourth amendment? -------------------- "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
Quote: Here's a snippet of me back on page 16 falcon, go back and check my edit time. I did cite it. Just cause you didn't see it, doesn't mean I didn't do it. Also you said you googled it and didn't find anything. Did you try what I said to do above? No? Here lets try together! Step one: open a new tab in your browser. Step two: Type in "www.google.com" Step Three: Type in "Poverty in the U.S. 1800's" Step Four: Click on THE VERY FIRST LINK. Step Five: Delete your account and check into the mental institution. This is why nobody likes debating with you. There is no constructive debate because you get hung up on such little stupid shit. And even when we are specific about your misinformation, and we give examples, like when you say the patent is for tubes only and I correct you; you still proceed to tell me that I haven't listed anything (you just didn't quote it). I source information, you tell me that I need to cite it or I'm making things up. These are the reasons I'm embarrassed for you and why I'd appreciate it if you stopped responding. As for the rest of your arguments, I can only lead you to water man, I can't make you drink. You are free to think however you'd like.
Edited by amp244 (09/29/16 10:50 PM)
| |||||||
|
Trigger Lover Registered: 05/05/03 Posts: 19,797 Loc: Control Grid Last seen: 4 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
It's beyond just run-of-the-mill intellectual stubbornness. These people are under a very sophisticated form of mind control.
And yeah, all you can do is lead them to water...
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
|
Its called indoctrination. That U.S. educational system that crumist is referring to.
-------------------- "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
|
Edit.. Sorry wrong thread.
-------------------- "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith Edited by amp244 (09/29/16 11:52 PM)
| |||||||
|
aka Patchraper Registered: 10/22/09 Posts: 1,244 Last seen: 6 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: That reminds me I make and sell tinfoil hats . Pm me I'll give you a great deal . -------------------- My 3 year old cyan patchhttp://www.shroomery.org/forums/ http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 30 days |
| ||||||
Quote: yes, you're not indoctrinating yourself into your non-evidenced beliefs.... Quote: no. it's called being able to put together solutions into facets of the economy, something that mediocre minds couldn't hope to achieve, so they want to make things simpler, something that would only work if they wanted to eliminate chunks of the population to help make it work. you're the brainwashed one. and not able to comprehend why an intellect is needed to deal with real world issues, instead of fables.
| |||||||
|
Chilldog Extraordinaire Registered: 11/11/09 Posts: 33,362 Loc: 'Merica Last seen: 57 minutes, 49 seconds |
| ||||||
|
Right wing socioeconomic policy is intellectual laziness. I made a thread about it
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 30 days |
| ||||||
|
if only they'd aim to work with others, they could get something out of their socioeconomic philosophy. i'm sure people would be willing to work on somethings with them all, if only they didn't necessarily want to make everything run based on their own wants, while ignoring reality.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 11/02/13 Posts: 781 Last seen: 7 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Why didn't you just post the link if that is what you wanted to share?
I'm struggling to see what your argument is though. Being poor back then must have sucked massive monkey balls. And there were still "free-loaders" as I'd imagine youd call them today. Plenty of drunks, and oh yeah, back then women had very very few options for making money. But yes, back then society was more equitable in some senses and processes jumpstarted by the Industrial Revolution have really changed shit since then. Fun fact: if you google search the quoted phrase "Poverty in the U.S. 1800's", the only link is this page. -------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
|
I cited a non internet source. A book, although I could have provided a link to an online edition, sorry.
I googled "poverty in the U.S. 1800's" and it lead me to the link pasted at the bottom of the post under (1). It was the very first link that google presented, as I said before. I'm not going to address that again. I'm really sorry you guys are having so much trouble. My point is that America didn’t accumulate such great wealth through taxes or public donations to the common good, it was accumulated as a result of the profit incentive allowing free men to follow their own interests and become rich. The fact that today 64% of homes are owned by their occupants(2) is proof that the prosperity wasn’t only realized by the elite. We built a healthy and prosperous nation under capitalism, without a federal government implementing all types of policies, an income tax, and mandates. My point is that you can never tax into prosperity. A centrally powerful federal government taxing the shit out of people’s produce is not only a threat to the economy, it’s a move toward despotism. You can never GROW an economy and lift up all classes of people through taxation. You can only prop up one by destroying another. Wealth does not cause poverty, wealth cures it. The potential for achieving lasting prosperity in the poor communities through distribution of current production pales in comparison to the only way it has ever been achieved; through increasing production, through the creation of wealth. Our system, and every aspect of it, should be geared toward incentivizing the creation/attraction of wealth, being a watch-dog, and insuring the freedom of every person. A system designed to give people a whole rack of shit for “free” is a system that is destined to fail, because it is a system of plunder that deters investment and production, and thus, deters the creation of wealth. If such weren’t the case, as people like falcon argue, we wouldn’t be sitting here having these debates about jobs leaving, and increasing numbers of poor without work. My point is that before we had big government we had economic prosperity. People who say, ‘oh it was only good for the elite! It was so terrible for everyone else!’ should note that the population grew in North America by over 600% in the 1800’s(3). The U.S. on its own saw a far more drastic explosion of population(4). According to the science of economics, the population grows along with the demand for labor in advanced economies with the division of labor. Immigrants were coming in, but the main contributor was an increase in birth rates(4). When people can afford it, they have children; when they can’t, they don’t. Before the institution of the welfare state, poor people raised less children, because they were incapable of financially supporting them. Children were a burden and made the lives of the poor unduly hard. The population grew in relation to production and shared economic prosperity. Child mortality rates were very high among the poor so the population explosion shows economic prosperity on all levels. My point is that we are sinking fast with all of our gov’t influence and welfare programs. I could probably quote every single person on this forum as saying that the U.S. is a nation of ignorant citizens. That is another example of how the government tries to force shit and fucks it up. Education is a disaster and it is despite (or because of) government action. The population is growing, but there is no shared economic prosperity. Why is this? Why are people having children if they are living in poverty? Because of the economic calamity that is the ‘welfare state’. I’m not against the institution of welfare, I’m against welfare on such an extreme, ruinous scale. The results are clear, way too many hands and way too little labor. I would like to know if any of the baby boomers who may be on this site remember having a hard time finding a job when they were younger. They were the result of economic prosperity, not economic plunder. The new generation is not so fortunate. They are working against an elite class of intelligentsia that advance propaganda promoting the destruction of the country and the wealth of its citizens. I recently posted a link of a debate between Al Gore and Ross Perot on NAFTA in 1993(5). NAFTA turned out to be a horrible deal and virtually everything Al Gore was saying turned out to be a downright lie designed to sell a terrible deal to the American public for the benefit of the elite. The politicians (on both sides) lie and lie and lie, and people continue to believe their testimony. The policies of this country are a blatant power-grab on the working class. Putting faith in the stock of such a belief isn’t a paranoid exploit. It’s consistent with human history. My point is that Capitalism is a self-organizing, naturally occurring circumstance. It is hardly an –ism, such as socialism or communism, which describe political and economic ideologies that must be implemented and forced. Capitalism arises out of the natural course of human conduct. It is what happens when you leave people free to engage in whatever kind of economic transactions they agree to. It must be checked by gov’t, but gov’t should not undertake that which it need not. The gov’t is the watchdog, to ensure everyone plays by the rules. After that, the economic outcomes that arise serve as the impetuses behind future investments. People in America were afforded the right to keep what they earned through their productivity. They had the right to pass this wealth on to their kin, and the government used to protect their property rights. People worked because it made their lives better. These were the truly prosperous times. The history of United States of America serves as my proof that capitalism works. The current welfare state of the United States serves as proof that an elite, ruling class will always strive to obtain absolute influence over the people through economic and political means. (1) http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho (3) http://www.thuto.org/ubh/ub/h202 (4) http://www.nber.org/papers/h0056 (5) www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XEziSYR Edited by amp244 (10/01/16 12:28 AM)
| |||||||
|
Vulture of Culture Registered: 02/11/12 Posts: 605 |
| ||||||
Quote: This dude needs a lesson in economics. The debt in this country goes far beyond Obama and the decisions he has made in his presidency. Our national economic trends can be effected by decisions made by our presidents, but such trends are also significantly effected by other countries and decisions made by previous presidents. You, and many other Americans, chose to blame the current president because your primitive mind can't grasp the notions involved in the complex reality of international economics. Instead people such as yourself point and blame the most obviously choice, the current US president. PLEASE, I urge you to do some research, no, do a lot of research, before you go on making grossly generalized statements. Personally I have a hard time grasping economics and politics due to a lack of interest. Therefore I recognize my own ignorance on the matter and chose to withhold any misinformed judgments I may have, thus refraining from making myself look like an ass. To me this election has served well as a marker for the current state of the progress of society. From what I can tell, mass ignorance is at an all time high and the cognitive evolution of humanity isn't progressing as I had hoped. But that just my opinion. ![]() Lets all take a step back and do a fuck load more research before we vote in this election. Probably shouldn't have even involve myself in this political thread, I will say no more.
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
|
Also, I'd appreciate that any responses to my above post be likewise cited and written in essay format. Please respond to the entire post, or at the very least, the entire paragraph. Do not pull a Falcon and quote a single line as if there was no other context to be taken. The sentence was not posted by itself, it was included within a paragraph for a reason. I would appreciate if it was addressed as such.
-------------------- "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith Edited by amp244 (09/30/16 09:30 PM)
| |||||||
|
Trigger Lover Registered: 05/05/03 Posts: 19,797 Loc: Control Grid Last seen: 4 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You got that right. But it ain't for the reasons you think it is. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Universally Loathed and Reviled Registered: 03/11/15 Posts: 20,813 Loc: Foreign Lands |
| ||||||
Quote: Since people live today under a regime of taxes and have since the early 20th century (in terms of income tax), i'm not sure i understand how pre-1850s economics relate to 21st century home ownership. Quote: what you are describing is the basis of belief in supply side economics (reaganomics, voodoo economics). Guess what, Americans have been steadily increasing in productivity while wages have stagnated for 40 years. Maybe a few more tax breaks for the "job creators" will magically work this time... Quote: yes, there has been prosperity for some segment of the population under vitually any economic system Quote: yeah, nafta sucked a dick, and with more and more automation in the works, human labor is losing value quick. What will unfettered capitalism do to stop or slow this process? Quote: who decides what is needed? Quote: who should decide what the rules are? how should the rules be enforced? Quote: I couldn't agree more with the underlined. The economic elite do propagate class warfare through trickle-down nonsense to maintain influence. Quote:
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
Quote: It shows that despite all this control the elite exercise and have apparently been exercising the entire time (according to others) private property still exists to the degree that creates a U.S. where 64% of houses are owned by their occupants. 64% of the population aren't considered "elites" are they? How do you all propose that this wealth entered the working class if everything is so terribly inequitable? It didn't come from taxes. It came from economic freedom and the profit incentive. Quote: I absolutely advocate supply side economics. Anyone with a cursory interest in economics will note that I am obviously of the Austrian school of thought. But its important to note that nothing will work if the govt doesn't do its job as watch-dog. Don't blame supply side economics when the gov't is sold to the highest bidder and anti-trust laws are ignored. Don't blame the Austrian school when the SEC and other regulators are a JOKE. Its not capitalisms fault. Its not freedoms fault. If your car doesn't have any axels on it, with all the other parts in perfect working order, you can start the motor and put it in gear, but it still wont go anywhere. The car will not work. It would be foolish to then conclude that the motor needs to be replaced because the car isn't moving, but that's exactly how people think in regards to capitalism. Society is the car, capitalism is the motor. Things aren't functioning properly so the conclusion is that capitalism does not work and needs to be replaced. They don't realize that big gov't has a boot on the wheels. Quote: That's the point. The economy must be run for everybody, not just one segment. Trying to help one by hurting another brings everyone down in the long run. You make the rules equitable for everyone. You either strive for equality of treatment, or equality of income, you can't have both. The only way I can see that is "fair" to everyone is to treat everyone the same. There will be winners and there will be losers; the reason you see so many losers is because of a defunct government, not because of supply-side economics. We have neither equality of treatment, nor equality of income. Quote: Anyone advocating unfettered capitalism, bereft of government is a fool. That is not my contention. Terrible trade deals like NAFTA are another reason why people are under the illusion that capitalism is inherently bad for the "little guy". There is more to an automobile than just the engine. The engine needs an ECU, it needs a regulator. Capitalism is supposed to be "fettered". As far as the 'evil' automation, capitalism will do nothing to stop it, and that's the beauty of capitalism. The economic landscape is constantly changing, just look at history. Capitalism allocates the resources and flow of human labor away from where they are no longer needed and into the nascent industries that have sprung up replacing them. Who knows what industries will be spawned in the coming years? Do you think anyone knew what an IT job was 60 years ago? Tech companies have spawned an entirely new generation of industries as well. 3D printing companies, Digital forensics companies (Hillary knows about them), software engineers, computer resource management systems for virtually every business imaginable. These jobs didn't exist UNTIL automation and technological advancements made the mass production of computers possible. The argument that technology will replace human labor has been run down 1000 times, only to later resurface and rear its unsubstantiated head. It will probably never die, and doubtlessly never be proven. Quote:Quote: Nobody. Again, that's the beauty of capitalism. That's why its hardly an -ism. That's why I wrote the top portion of the very quote above. If the gov't didn't make it illegal for others to deliver the letter mail it would be undertaken by private organizations. Without Obamacare, Insurance companies would still provide services. Those unable to afford insurance would still be taken care of and the taxpayer would still foot the bill. The market can do better naturally and spontaneously, what these almighty legislators purport to be able to do arbitrarily. The government should be there to provide only what the free market will not provide on its own because there is no one person or group of people willing to bear the costs themselves on behalf of society. Governments should build roads, prisons, psych wards, parks, armies etc. Quote:A governing body should decide the rules, whether through democratic processes or those of a republic. The rules should be enforced as they have always been enforced, through law; the threat of force.Quote: Quote:Quote: Name one establishment talking head that pushes supply-side, capital investment based theory. One guy from the Austrian school that goes onto all of the major news networks and gets talking time. All of the Austrian guys like Ron Paul are deliberately censored and not given a voice. All of these elites are Keynesians. They don't like capitalism because capitalism does more than just produce wealth. The most important aspect of capitalism, and why it is even an -ism in the first place, is because it is based on the individuals right to life, liberty, and property. Capitalism is based on freedom. It empowers EVERYBODY. Mass democide has never occurred in a capitalist country because economic freedom in and of itself serves as a check on tyranny. Germany, The Soviet Union, Mao's China, Congo, etc. They were all autocratic societies with centrally planned economies. The proof is in the history books. Edited by amp244 (10/01/16 12:36 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 4 months, 20 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I didn't find anything in that article that showed "Poverty wasn’t a major problem in the U.S. like it is today until the mid 19th century". In fact, your article said "In 1878 the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor made the country's first effort to measure unemployment". So I don't know how you could prove your point. But when I searched for ""Poverty in the U.S. 1700's", the first link had an interesting century by century look at poverty showing that poverty was a major problem in the 1700s. Quote: I actually agree that is "little stupid shit", but it's you that chose to focus on this point and ignore the more important points I brought up, such as: - Why do you think government revenue goes down when the tax rate reaches a certain level? Is that when people become disincentivized to work? - Can you provide evidence to show production and prosperity are hurt as a result of taxation? - Since you've accused me of taking things out of context, can you back it up with evidence? Quote: Absolutely false - you just made that up. I didn't say "you weren't listening". If you can quote anything even close to that, then I'll stop arguing with you. But it appears you're being dishonest. Quote: Burden of proof is always on the person making a claim. That's a fundamental rule of logical discussion. Quote: No one claimed you can tax into prosperity. The claims were that: Raising taxes reduces deficits Taxes pay for roads, schools, Government... Taxes redistribute money to help create a middle class There's no evidence that lower taxes helps the economy Raising taxes raises revenue Taxes don't disincentive workers Quote: Why then are countries with the highest median wealth the ones that provide the most for their people? Quote: Exactly. Quote: Do you really think there's a correlation between wealth and birth rates? The poorest countries in the world are the ones with the highest birth rates. Quote: Empirical evidence shows the country started sinking after Reagan cut taxes on the rich. Our debt/GDP went way up, our income inequality went way up, our wages became stagnant. That's reality. Quote: This is the third time I'll ask you for an example of where you think I took your post out of context by not quoting everything. I look for the bullshit and focus on that. If I don't quote something, you can assume I agree with it. But I don't change the context of what I do quote (show an example if I'm wrong). -------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 4 months, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
Very good post ballsalsa!
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Thread for tha liberals. | 1,017 | 13 | 11/04/04 06:48 PM by Worf | ||
![]() |
TRUMP 2024 ( |
284,991 | 24,030 | 01/27/24 06:43 PM by Bigbadwooof | ||
![]() |
Was Bush Wired During the Debate? | 1,088 | 14 | 10/08/04 05:46 PM by Gijith | ||
![]() |
US debates bid to kill Hussein and avoid trial | 633 | 1 | 08/01/03 02:02 PM by wingnutx | ||
![]() |
HILLARY'S CHUTZPAH | 409 | 0 | 11/02/03 05:27 PM by luvdemshrooms | ||
![]() |
Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here ( |
5,006 | 98 | 10/04/04 08:15 PM by Divided_Sky | ||
![]() |
CBS: Saddam challenges Bush to debate ( |
2,995 | 38 | 02/25/03 12:45 PM by MushyMay | ||
![]() |
Hitler V Saddam ( |
4,258 | 28 | 07/03/04 09:20 AM by Ed1 |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 22,427 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



