Jump to content

Protecting Second Life From Hate Groups Hiding & Organizing Here


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 88 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 979
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^^^This^^^ is what scares me.  The belief that people are no longer allowed to have their own opinions, their own thoughts and have to fall in line with one narrative, one ideology.   Newsflash,

When did have a political opinion become "hate speech"?

What exactly do you expect them to do?  As with most things that are against the ToS, they will act appropriately when and if it is brought to their attention.  They have given us, the residents, the

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

hqdefault.jpg

Ivanka is really a Democrat.  lol  But, actually I think that is true.   Maybe she will be one of these new "centrists".  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I don't know, I only heard it from Trump's mouth.  I've already stated I do not follow social media and never have.  I only visit FB once in a great while and 90% of my FB friends are family.  I also have not owned a TV for six years now because I do not watch it.  I like the shopping shows but can see the shopping shows on the internet.  I sound like a Karen here but actually I am a designer in real life and shopping shows show designs.  

 

I don't know.  The press is saying years of extremists is a very real possibility.  I hope not but have no crystal ball.  Meanwhile, I want to be vaccinated.  

I don't follow social media myself.. That was just what was going on in the campaign back in his first run and stayed and became kind of a joke after awhile.. you only had to be walking down the street at the time to hear people joking about it..

 

As far as the press is concerned, they might as well be social media..

Look, they get paid by clicks.. That's why Trump was such a cash cow for them.. Now they have to find a new ways to keep everyone glued..

If we gathered everyone up in the country and divided them up into 3 groups.. Registered democrats, registered republicans and other.. The other is larger than the first two combined..

The first two work their butts off to try and convince the OTHERS to vote their side every election..

Even in the registered democrats and republicans, they all are not hard core or just vote with their wallets or for their own reasons like most others do..hehehe

The media loves when the people are divided and scared because it's good for business, and so does the government, because it keeps the attention off them where they don't want it..

 

Myself, I didn't vote for either of the bastages.. Because i don't trust either of them.. same goes for them VP's as well..

Now if Biden would have picked Tulsi, then he would have probably got my vote, but he went for the one that even the democrats didn't want..Tulsi is a woman of color as well and much more towards the middle.. She put Kamala in her place in the debates and called her out.. Kamala just did that whole smiling thing and tried to play it off.. But it wasn't long after that she was out of the race..

I like Tulsi and I'd feel much better with Tulsi in there instead.. Just saying, I don't like too many politicians, but I do like her. hehehe

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Lindsay Graham said on that program:

"Pakistan is a place I really worry about. Eighty-five countries a woman can't open up a bank account without her husband's signature. She can't inherit property. If you're a young girl in Pakistan life is pretty tough. So we're trying to make life better for women throughout the world,"

That´s why. OK; now you can argue: "Who the hell even knows where Pakistan is? And why the hell should i pay a few cents (of the 15 Millions which actually were spent - Out of 2.3 (!!) Trillions which were spent on domestic aid).

And I´d argue something which would probably help you to understand my position.

That´s all legit and part of the political process. And if we do disagree, we find a compromise and we both accept the outcome.

But all of our blanter does not justify storming the capitol.

Apparently too many people do not want a democratic republic anymore. And the radicalisation spurs hate and hate spurs crime and results in riots, rage and death. See, my concern is not that you have an opion. It´s your bloody right to have one. But coming up with an  issue which was resolved by a political compromise and characterising that as if it would cause the downfall of the American Empire...that´s not just absurd, but dangerous.

 

By now you've learned I've not mentioned the capital, not once. Reasons? As you probably don't know, in part connections a certain party(s) blm/ANTIFA so far was an arrangement and the investigation is on going. Pakistan was fraction of an example of the blatant ignorance of our foreign policy that all of it adds up for generations to come and the misuse of Americans hard work. We cannot be held responsible paying for other's worldly issues to the degree that we have. Whether it's your personal debt or the national debt, they share the same levels of responsibility. Can you afford the liabilities of $30 + trillion? Neither can the country.

Edited by Audiobuff007
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Audiobuff007 said:

$30 + trillion? Neither can the country.

Time to raise interest rates(?).  Sounds like it me.  Or at least soon.  If anyone wants to re-finance, they should do it now.  Interest rates have been far too low.  

Key Takeaways. In December 2020, the Federal Reserve maintained its target for the federal funds rate at a range of 0% to 0.25%.

 

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just share what I said in a different discussion somewhere else (specifically about impeachment itself), much easier than typing it all up again. It was a much less heated debate than this one, but, some of the same sentiments about impeachment were there too, including a lot of confusion. It's pretty long. 

 

I think a lot of people are somewhat confused on the effectiveness of an impeachment, along with the why how and when of it all. Hell even some of our politicians deciding on the matter don't seem to fully understand it. Sort of like that chapter they skimmed over, but didn't read, because they just knew it wouldn't be on the test and then bam, there she is. Many seem to be under the impression that an impeachment after leaving office is pointless, or, even worse yet, extra money being spent. It isn't actually extra money being spent, it won't cost more to bring forth an impeachment after he leaves office than it would for the very same people involved in such a process to do whatever job(s) they'd have been tasked with on those days anyway. That is to say, such things are already budgeted in, they're al getting paid regardless. So, the "wasted tax payer dollars" would be "wasted"(not really, and not my term) impeachment or no impeachment, on those days. This isn't a "we pay you by the hour" sort of deal here. This is a horse of a different color entirely, and the salaries and budget necessary are already present and paid for. 

As for why to continue after he leaves office, many seem to believe it would be a fruitless endeavor, or that people will lose interest in the mere idea. But that is a political choice not a constitutional directive, we need to follow the latter. This has never actually happened in the US before, we're setting precedents here, although we really shouldn't be, there shouldn't be a need for it. The constitution doesn't actually state WHEN an impeachment needs to take place, just tells us the why and how of it all. The reason it's not specifically spelled out (aside from, who the hell would predict such a catastrophe) is because someone can commit misconduct late in their terms, at which time setting a select time period for legal accountability would be an almost impossibility, given how our justice system functions (slow, and typically rather precise in nature, so lengthy). 

To not continue with impeachment, despite him being out of office would allow him to be immune from the one process that our constitution does have in place to specifically address an abuse of power to this magnitude. It allows us, the nation as an entity, to bar them from serving in ANY other federal office (not just president) or from receiving any federal pensions, benefits, and I do believe a few other things, while still enforcing accountability (which he threatens). So, yes, even AFTER he leaves office, going forward with an impeachment is extremely important. It would make even less sense to allow someone to step down, or in some way be removed (voted out) from the situation, simply to avoid a remedial mechanism built into the very constitution we are all bound by (especially him). To violate the constitution, the ruling law of our land, while holding a position such as his, is considered an abuse of power, regardless of the individual crime(s). 

Some also seem to be under the impression that once out of office he becomes a private citizen, and therefore not impeachable, but, he does not. He becomes a former president, which holds a different position than a private citizen. It also comes with, we'll simply call them benefits, not afforded to the rest of us. An impeachment would strip those away, as it should, as our constitution calls for this. He also has more to be accountable for, and an impeachment would ensure that accountability remains as intact as we can legally force (which, in all truth, is still limited, but better than nothing). Even out of office, he's a pretty big threat to this nation, with or without impeachment, regardless of how individual people feel about him or his actions the last four years, and to think otherwise, would be foolish.  Even some of his most staunch (former and current) supporters feel this same way, especially now. It's not unreasonable to want the least amount of damage possible here and to put at least some preventative measures in place, just in case. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they'd postponed the impeachment trial, as I mentioned earlier (I think in this thread). The evidence implicating members of congress in the coup attempt is still circumstantial and as Liz Cheney said, ""[m]uch more will become clear in coming days and weeks" and it would be good to get more of that on the record before trying Trump. There's plenty of evidence he was promoting the 6th for over a month, and had access to all the intel about how the neo-Nazi groups were organizing a coup in his name, but there's not quite the smoking gun I expect we'll have in a couple months of DOJ and IC investigation, once they're again independent of Trump.

But I understand the incentive to "strike while the iron is hot" and we can only hope it doesn't get hotter in the week ahead.

I'm not confident that it's possible for the Senate to take the simple majority vote barring Trump from future office without first convicting him (with a 2/3 vote); last night Katie Couric on Bill Maher was the first I'd heard of it. The ban on future office should be an easy win with support from a bunch of Republicans, but the conviction... I'm skeptical. Reportedly many Republicans are afraid of physical violence against their families if they vote to convict -- a fear that seems completely justified.

The founders had good reason to fear the Red Coats but had courage to forge a republic; I have much less confidence in the Republicans' courage to save that republic from the Red Hats.

Edited by Qie Niangao
their -> they're
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

I'm not confident that it's possible for the Senate to take the simple majority vote barring Trump from future office without first convicting him (with a 2/3 vote);

Apparently it's in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

"Fortunately, there’s another means to that end. It’s the 14th Amendment, which allows Congress to impose such a ban by a simple majority vote. Section 3 of that amendment was intended to keep former Confederate officials and soldiers from serving in the federal government, explains Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale Law School."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/14/opinion/14th-amendment-offers-an-easier-way-than-impeachment-ban-trump-future-office/

I'll let you study that and tell us what you think...definitely not my thing (these finer points of the law).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Honestly, I don't care how he leaves.. He's old news now and I doubt he'll ever be back..

Also Trump didn't start that Obama stuff.. He was parroting what was going on even before Obama was elected.. What was that version of the republicans called again? 

It was the Tea Party. They used to dress up in revolutionary war attire. They were always trying to replace Republican incumbents with more radical candidates much like what AOC's justice democrats are trying to do on their side.  I always thought of Trump as the tea party candidate and not part of the Republican party. Biden and Kamala are firmly entrenched in the Democrat party and are much more moderate than they pretended not to be. 

Edited by Bree Giffen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 1:57 PM, Talon Brown said:

The irony of your statements is off the *****ing chart.  Go read 1984 again.  This time remember it wasn't intended as an instruction manual.

Nobody reads 1984 except a handful of intellectuals. There isn't a Twitter version available yet. That's why.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

Nobody reads 1984 except a handful of intellectuals. There isn't a Twitter version available yet. That's why.

Its free, entirely free, for everyone on Audible.

https://www.audible.com/pd/1984-Audiobook/B002V19RO6

Reading 1984 cures citing 1984 in internet arguments.

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is the correct book to cite, and is also equally free on Audible.

https://www.audible.com/pd/Brave-New-World-Audiobook/B002V1BVK4

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Its free, entirely free, for everyone on Audible.

I have no doubts. But what's missing is a version written with 280 characters especially for the Twitter generation. (irony off)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

Nobody reads 1984 except a handful of intellectuals.

   We had to read it in school. Not for any particular reason other than our teaching picking it for us to do a book report on it. It's hardly a book exclusive to intellectuals though, if 13-year old Swedes can manage I would hope just about anyone else can, too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Orwar said:

We had to read it in school.

We had to watch 1984 as movie. An old black/white version. Actually I found the story confusing and I didn't understand why the couple got killed at the end. Many of my classmates either. We were simply too young I guess.  The book I read the first time when I was on college. Ah, I think it was this movie. Found it on youtube. It's in German. 1984 black/white version

Edited by Doc Carling
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

Key Takeaways. In December 2020, the Federal Reserve maintained its target for the federal funds rate at a range of 0% to 0.25%.

Seeeeesh.  Come to America and get free money.  This figure above is ominous.   I see it recently dropped from it's pre-coronavirus low of about 1.75% to free.  Of course, that's the banks interest rate...but The Feds won't make much money at free percent interest rate.  What an eye opener.  Free money.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JanuarySwan said:

Seeeeesh.  Come to America and get free money.  This figure above is ominous.   I see it recently dropped from it's pre-coronavirus low of about 1.75% to free.  Of course, that's the banks interest rate...but The Feds won't make much money at free percent interest rate.  What an eye opener.  Free money.   

is the other way round

when the Fed (central bank) rate is above zero percent it means that the Fed is giving away free money.  For the Fed to make money the interest rate drops below zero (negative interest rate).  Central banks that have/had negative interest rates include Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland and also the EU central bank

what zero and negative interest rates mean is that there is a surplus of money circulating in the economy and that the owners of that surplus, if they want a return (thru the proxy of their own bank) are not going to get that from the central bank (government). If they do want a return then they will have to invest their surplus cash money in income/revenue generating enterprises

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

is the other way round

when the Fed (central bank) rate is above zero percent it means that the Fed is giving away free money.  For the Fed to make money the interest rate drops below zero (negative interest rate).  Central banks that have/had negative interest rates include Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland and also the EU central bank

what zero and negative interest rates mean is that there is a surplus of money circulating in the economy and that the owners of that surplus, if they want a return (thru the proxy of their own bank) are not going to get that from the central bank (government). If they do want a return then they will have to invest their surplus cash money in income/revenue generating enterprises

 

I have never heard of that.  I will have to read up on it.

But in America, we have never had negative interest rates nor have I ever seen interest rates so low as they have been since The Great Recession and banking debacle and now 0% and 0.25% is one word - shocking.  

The Federal Reserve has never brought its benchmark rate into negative territory and, according to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, the central bank is not considering going to negative interest rates now. Experts agree.Jun 10, 2020

Edited by JanuarySwan
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Its free, entirely free, for everyone on Audible.

https://www.audible.com/pd/1984-Audiobook/B002V19RO6

Reading 1984 cures citing 1984 in internet arguments.

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is the correct book to cite, and is also equally free on Audible.

https://www.audible.com/pd/Brave-New-World-Audiobook/B002V1BVK4

 

Does it have Closed Captioning? If not, then it isn't for everyone. 

oopsie

I only mention it because I have hearing loss and wish I could use audio "books".

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

is the other way round

when the Fed (central bank) rate is above zero percent it means that the Fed is giving away free money.  For the Fed to make money the interest rate drops below zero (negative interest rate).  Central banks that have/had negative interest rates include Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland and also the EU central bank

what zero and negative interest rates mean is that there is a surplus of money circulating in the economy and that the owners of that surplus, if they want a return (thru the proxy of their own bank) are not going to get that from the central bank (government). If they do want a return then they will have to invest their surplus cash money in income/revenue generating enterprises

 

I don't know about that Molly after reading just a brief bit.  Yeah, it sounds like fun and all as the article says but...

“Negative interest rates sound like fun, but it’s nothing to wish for,” McBride said.

 

“It hasn’t even proven to be effective,” he added. “Parts of Europe have had negative interest rates for seven years and it hasn’t done anything — their economies were reeling then, they’re reeling now.”

And even if the federal funds rate, which is what banks charge one another for short-term borrowing, fell below zero, that is not the rate that consumers pay.

The prime rate, which is the rate that banks extend to their most creditworthy customers, is typically 3 percentage points higher than the federal funds rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JanuarySwan said:

I have never heard of that.  I will have to read up on it.

But in America, we have never had negative interest rates nor have I ever seen interest rates so low as they have been since The Great Recession and banking debacle.  

The Federal Reserve has never brought its benchmark rate into negative territory and, according to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, the central bank is not considering going to negative interest rates now. Experts agree.Jun 10, 2020

is a pretty interesting topic I find, so yes read up on it

governments from a public policy pov don't like zero or negative interest rates, as from a public policy pov is counter to the idea that the citizens should be thrifty, industrious, self-sufficient and save their money. So that when hard times come the citizens can fall back on their savings and not need government assistance because they have savings

over time (since the Great Depression in 1928) the 'industrious' and 'self-sufficient' bit fell away. The citizens (encouraged by their elected representatives thru legislation and government structural changes) clamored for risk-free 'investment' of their savings. Central bank bonds (thru the proxy of their own bank) that paid them interest (free money) while at the same time came with a government guarantee that they would not ever lose their 'capital investment'

none of the above is an investment in the normal meaning of the word. Is government-backed financial welfare paid for by the taxpayers

negative interest rates is counter to the public policy idea, as people often stop saving money when they have to pay the bank to hold their money for them. Not only stop saving, but also start spending. And then they borrow more (because zero or cheap interest) and then spend that as well. When hard times come, they have no savings and go down to the welfare office

the issue is that is not, and never will be, good public policy for the government to guarantee private financial investment. Good public policy is that we will help when you fall (down at the welfare office). What is never good public policy is to guarantee you a return on your money when you have not been industrious.

sticking our money (risk free) in the bank and expecting a return is not being industrious. When we do this we are expecting somebody else to not only be industrious for us, we also want somebody else to be responsible for the risk, which is not being self-sufficient

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

is a pretty interesting topic I find, so yes read up on it

governments from a public policy pov don't like zero or negative interest rates, as from a public policy pov is counter to the idea that the citizens should be thrifty, industrious, self-sufficient and save their money. So that when hard times come the citizens can fall back on their savings and not need government assistance because they have savings

over time (since the Great Depression in 1928) the 'industrious' and 'self-sufficient' bit fell away. The citizens (encouraged by their elected representatives thru legislation and government structural changes) clamored for risk-free 'investment' of their savings. Central bank bonds (thru the proxy of their own bank) that paid them interest (free money) while at the same time came with a government guarantee that they would not ever lose their 'capital investment'

none of the above is an investment in the normal meaning of the word. Is government-backed financial welfare paid for by the taxpayers

negative interest rates is counter to the public policy idea, as people often stop saving money when they have to pay the bank to hold their money for them. Not only stop saving, but also start spending. And then they borrow more (because zero or cheap interest) and then spend that as well. When hard times come, they have no savings and go down to the welfare office

the issue is that is not, and never will be, good public policy for the government to guarantee private financial investment. Good public policy is that we will help when you fall (down at the welfare office). What is never good public policy is to guarantee you a return on your money when you have not been industrious.

sticking our money (risk free) in the bank and expecting a return is not being industrious. When we do this we are expecting somebody else to not only be industrious for us, we also want somebody else to be responsible for the risk, which is not being self-sufficient

 

We were posting at the same time, I answered above.  We are talking about two different things.  I am taking about loan interest rates, you are talking about savings account interest.

I don't like this idea of negative interest rates.  Having cash in savings accounts is good but all banks could collapse due to the coronavirus.  Having no cash in a bank means it has no assets.  That doesn't sound like a good plan, it's more like a band-aid for socialist countries.

“Negative interest rates sound like fun, but it’s nothing to wish for,” McBride said.

“It hasn’t even proven to be effective,” he added. “Parts of Europe have had negative interest rates for seven years and it hasn’t done anything — their economies were reeling then, they’re reeling now.”

And even if the federal funds rate, which is what banks charge one another for short-term borrowing, fell below zero, that is not the rate that consumers pay.

The prime rate, which is the rate that banks extend to their most creditworthy customers, is typically 3 percentage points higher than the federal funds rate.

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JanuarySwan said:

I am taking about loan interest rates, you are talking about savings account interest.

I don't like this idea of negative interest rates.  Having cash in savings accounts is good but all banks could collapse due to the coronavirus.  Having no cash in a bank means it has no assets.  That doesn't sound like a good plan, it's more like a band-aid for socialist countries

savings account interest payments are only able to be paid when the money is lent by the bank to a borrower as a loan. Is a symbiotic relationship. They are not two different things. 

the countries that have/had negative interest rates are not socialist. They are libertarian in practice. They operate as truly free markets. More available money than borrowers then interests rates fall (go negative even). More borrowers than available money then interest rates rise (go positive)

when central banks like the Fed issue bonds with positive interest rates (pump free money into the market) even when there is already a excess of available money for borrowing, then this distorts the market and is not a free market in the true meaning of the word

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mollymews said:

the countries that have/had negative interest rates are not socialist. They are libertarian in practice. They operate as truly free markets.

They are probably a mixed economy.  Most economies are mixed in today's modern world; many simply will not admit, however.  

As far as the fed funds rate at zero interest, it is somewhat set through 2022, however, the article I read said the money will be tight and only go to it's most prime borrowers, most likely so I don't understand the rest of your post as far as more money/less money.  Banks with negative interest most likely will not be able to weather the coronavirus economic fallout.  America banks the article said will be barely hanging in there.

However, there is no way to solve all this on a message board.  If banks collapse, that's what's going to happen.

Edited by JanuarySwan
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Audiobuff007 said:

By now you've learned I've not mentioned the capital, not once. Reasons? As you probably don't know, in part connections a certain party(s) blm/ANTIFA so far was an arrangement and the investigation is on going. Pakistan was fraction of an example of the blatant ignorance of our foreign policy that all of it adds up for generations to come and the misuse of Americans hard work. We cannot be held responsible paying for other's worldly issues to the degree that we have. Whether it's your personal debt or the national debt, they share the same levels of responsibility. Can you afford the liabilities of $30 + trillion? Neither can the country.

There is not any evidence for that hilarious "Antifa" nonsense so far. Heard of one investigation on one guy who was seemingly tied to something like that (something, because the real "Antifa" organisation is pretty much insignificant judged by the numbers, activists and activities in the US), but it obviously turned out that he is much more something like a lone wolf anarchist who sympathises with whatever brings down the "establishment" - in his opinion. If there WERE significant far left militant organisations in the US I´d be more concerned, remembering the Hitler-Stalin pact and the role of the communist party in Germany 1918-1933. But there are none existing, also Antifa isn´t even far left by definition.

Pakistan: The US spent about 11.7 billion dollars on military aid and 6.1 billion dollars on economical aid for Pakistan fom 2002 - 2018. That mostly was done in the context of fighting the Taliban and AQ and whatever muslim radicals. Such aid is necessary to gain and establish influence in countries like Pakistan (which also is a nuclear power) in order to help developing such border countries into stable platforms which support our efforts to - at least - contain muslim radicalism. The few millions you complain on are peanuts in that context, but almost any conservative in the US knows what they are good for.

That´s geoploitics. You  can, of course, claim that building a wall along the border is sufficient for defense. Unfortunately it isn´t. Airplanes crashing into sykscrapers do not mind border walls.

Edited by Vivienne Schell
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

 Reportedly many Republicans are afraid of physical violence against their families if they vote to convict -- a fear that seems completely justified.

Some probably are. But the most are not. My guess is that there are about a core of 25 percent true believers among republican representatives who never will change their mind. The rest of the bunch fears the voting power of the poisoned by conspiracy theories people more than their weapons. Also, the leadership positions of the republican party have been overrun by the radicals and they control the organisation.

Might change once the dust has settled and the courts will pick up the pieces. I am with you on the impeachment issue.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 88 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...