This isn't news. He couldn't grasp "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me."

Just like Obama pronounced corpsman "corpse-man" and then did it again months later because NOBODY around him corrected him. That's a whole new level of weird than Bush's intellectual limitations.

And Democrats and Republicans nominated them. And (near) majorities of American voters elected them.

Disgusting.

Gatorade has sugars. Sugars don't "cause obesity," stupid lazy people too stupid and lazy to stop consuming more sugar/calories than they use cause obesity.

Some gatorade is all well and good. Literally all serious athletes drink mostly water. All those Redbull and Gatorade commercials are for suckers.

And don't drink the tap water, or give it to your kids. Fluoride reduces intelligence in developing children.

All of this should be common knowledge.

No disrespect to Bobby Bueche intended. He means well. Presumably he filters that shit. Good man. Unfortunately, the script just didn't leave room for educating all you sheeple!

The moderators have made it clear that they believe that some people are just genuinely idiotic and/or psychotic.

Whenever you make more broad claims about how women are supposedly pressured to make bad decisions significantly more than men, I'm going to point out the obvious double standard of many parts of our society idealizing promiscuous men and judging promiscuous women harshly.

You've got nothing.

"right" and "liberal" and "conservative" become meaningless once you accept every misuse and alternation of these terms that's been claimed in recent years.

The notion that Democracy is liberal, even when the people are a mob led by tyrants, is silly. Similarly, the notion that socialism is liberal because it claims to be a state of equality is ridiculous. Unless you accept the raping of the word "liberal" to mean "authoritarian," as many do today.

But once we start to accept the way these words have been butchered and radically altered, there's no sense in discussing language, because it literally has no meaning. When a word has been hijacked by those who espouse views literally the opposite of its original meaning, there's no sense discussing groups and views with these terms. Literally everything and nothing is true of them. They hold no meaning in and of themselves.

Gun control is a means of making a population docile and helpless. It is supported by tyrants. Authoritarians. Would-be tyrants. Fascists. Call such things "conservative" if you choose to define the word that way (many self-identified conservatives champion individual rights and small government, in which case your definition is massively at odds with theirs). Call them "liberal" (Thomas Jefferson was liberal and he certainly didn't support this tyranny, yet the word has been hijacked by people Jefferson would literally shoot in the face for decades in Amerika.).

These words no longer have meaning outside of the context they're used in. Because, in common-use by the sheeple and their slave-masters today, they're used to signify radically different things than they were just decades ago, let alone farther into the past.

He's quoting Hitler directly.

Everyone else who hates freedom is as authoritarian as Hitler. This comparison is very direct. Godwin's law does not apply. The topic isn't being stretched SO far as to include a Hitler/Nazi reference. The topic IS authoritarians, like Hitler, seeking to confiscate all firearms.

I just responded about bitcoin because Xeno suggested it would be a safe haven for globalists (international banking elite seeking to enslave the world).

I pointed out that globalists don't like it because it gives people an option outside of their fiat currencies. Options outside of fiat money means an escape from constant theft via inflation. (Not only do they gain money via printed cash given directly to them, but they buy up real assets when inflation results in rock bottom prices)

I pointed out that globalists don't need to use it as a safe haven because they are the manipulators of currency and they can move to currencies they're not about to devalue dramatically or buy gold or hard assets or literally anything else they want.

If you're done embarrassing yourself with false claims of credentials (you are a driver, so 1/6 isn't bad, statistically, as far as your knowledge of statistics is concerned), feel free to actually talk about the topic of this thread. You gave us nothing with that last post. Swing and a miss!

Perhaps you should invest some of that cash in securing the hardware you've invested in. You know that, statistically, far more value of the dollar is lost through inflation alone than bitcoins are stolen, right? And bank holdings (along with other assets the government tracks) are at risk when our debt bills come due, right? What alternative are you suggesting?

I wasn't mocking your cash. All work is respectable, even yours. I was mocking your frequent MASSIVELY exaggerated claims of expertise on various subjects, all of which you know next to nothing about.

The Euro was never meant to be a strong European currency. It was meant to make European nations' parliaments irrelevant in taking control of European industry. It has been a smashing success.

Einstein is very knowledgeable about this stuff. He's a programmer, hacker, and cyber crime expert.

It's just a coincidence that his anecdotal terror stories coincide with fear-mongerers trying to squash competition to massively inflating private-bank-regulated currencies.

Nevermind that bit coin values have risen dramatically of late. Nevermind that he doesn't know what GPU means. He's been told to be afraid, and he is.

Xeno,

The rich don't need bitcoins to avoid taxes. They've bought the governments that tax their livestock.

They hate bitcoin (and other free market currencies) because it allows other people than them to beat the scam international banking system of constant taxation via inflation and other government mechanisms (such as the topic of this thread).

Few people today have the land to grow all of their own food. Some are even prosecuted for doing it! We've been made into dependent, incompetent fools for generations. Intentionally.

The Yell,

As far as the FDIC is concerned, such a "fee" isn't a loss to be insured against. Hell, they're just making sure your money is secure until it's time for government to take it all. You don't need it. You're a better, more dependent, more patriotic cow for the globalist banker elite to milk without it. God forbid you can take care of yourself. You'd be out of their control!

The FDIC is owned by the same international bankers who are stealing Cyprus' money. They're not going to regulate against their own interests. There's absolutely no chance they'd do anything about government robbery of Americans' accounts.

And yes, obviously we're in an inflationary period.

All you've got is a massive assumption. I don't need any form of logical argumentation to point it out.

Maybe women commonly engage in risky sex because they want to have it. Maybe they commonly engage in it despite risks because they're trashy human beings who desire attention and orgasms more than they are responsible people who care about the risks.

Why would women engage in unwanted sex? Most can find plenty of wanted sex. In my experience, they both seek it and quite enjoy it.

Your entire theory is baseless and, I suspect, rooted in some psychological disturbance you suffer from relating to the opposite sex.

Women need special help because of some generalized societal view forced upon them? What would you know about societal trends, creep?

Your entire position is predicated upon the notion that women are unable to be aware of their own socialization be reach any level of self-actualization. Nevermind that this position is based upon a massive overgeneralization--not all women are as trashy and raised to accept being disrespected as you attribute to the socialization of all women. You do understand that many women have completely different values than that, right? You do understand that many women even use men, right? It doesn't seem like you're aware that women come in any other type than those who put up with abuse and lies and give up sex in order to be with a man.

And you go on to explain your chauvinism with irrelevant references to statistical risks. Because statistical facts regarding STD transmission make any particular individual men and women incapable of responsibly deciding whether or not to have sex with someone? No, they don't.

You're just upset because I'm inspecting what your philosophy is based upon: Suppositions regarding culture which are massive overgeneralizations, and the supposition that women are uniquely incapable of being aware of themselves and their socialization and self-actualizing enough to be awake and aware and make good decisions.

Facts like pregnancy physically effecting women (whereas it doesn't effect men) and STD rates are just facts women must consider when deciding to sleep with a man, just as a man has to consider STDs, possible emotional commitment (of both partners), societal norms, etc. They're just facts that women have to be aware of. Just as there are facts men have to be aware of.

Just as awareness of one's own socialization and evaluation of what of that socialization entails (and consideration of other social values) are to be considered. Both men and women similarly evaluate the statistical health risks and the significance of having sex to interpersonal relationships/society/etc.

But women, you claim, aren't capable of being responsible for their own decisions like men are. They can't consider STD rates and pregnancy like men can! While all the facts are known to both, women are uniquely incapable of taking them under consideration and making good decisions like men can! While both men and women are socialized to view sex (and the opposite sex) in a wide variety of ways, it's women you claim who are uniquely incapable of being aware of their socialization (or altering their values) as men are!

You're clearly stating a sexist position that women aren't as capable of rational thought as men are. Rational thought allows for consideration of statistical risks and socialization. But women, you claim, aren't as capable of evaluating these things like men can. Your claim is that, because women suffer certain risks statistically more then men, women are uniquely incapable of making good decisions with an awareness of those increased risks.