Articles like this really grease the shafts of knwoeldge. http://crofrrpm.com [url=http://goftngljc.com]goftngljc[/url] [link=http://ihcvszkr.com]ihcvszkr[/link]
over three years ago
This is not just with regards to reioigln, can you make a conscious choice about anything that you believe? There is no evidence that any reioigln is true.I agree 100%. I'd also add that there is a LOT of evidence that shows many specific claims by a number of reioiglns are demonstrably false.You simple decide what you want to believe.Here is where we diverge. I think MOST people believe what they are first told. Not because they choose to, but because it's from a trusted source (typically their parents).Those who do end up with a reioigln different than the one they grew up with, typically seem to have experienced something in their life that changed their views. They did not just one day make a choice to believe something different.I know in my own experience, I never CHOSE to not believe in the stuff I was taught about reioigln as a kid; it just never seemed believable to me. I expected at some point that the grown ups would say it's just like Santa, nobody really believes this stuff When I became old enough to make my own decisions reioigln wise, I studied many of them and came to my own conclusions.I would make the point that what you studied was a choice; but more importantly what you found compelling enough to accept as true (i.e. believe) was not a choice. For example, if you read C.S. Lewis, you're typically not going to believe that if you're coming from a non christian background. And if you're coming from a non christian background, you're actually significantly less likely to even choose C.S. Lewis as one of your sources to read when studying reioigln.BTW – your question was in regard to reioigln. Not what we believe in terms of scientific proven fact.As I said above (top of this comment, underlined), my original question was about all beliefs we hold, not just religious ones. This posts was obviously inspired by the video which is talking about reioigln, but all of our beliefs are come in to in similar manners.We may just have to agree to disagree here Jeff, but that is our choice.I agree we may just have to agree to disagree. And I agree that is a choice. But it's a choice about a course of action, not a choice about what we believe.My take on the subject at hand essentially boils down to:We can CHOOSE what we say, what we do, and how we act But we can not CHOOSE our beliefs. Those just happen as a result of our experiences and knowledge
over three years ago
I don't even put tap water on my plants. I wludon't put bottled water on them either. Rain water or water from a well that I know has been tested for purity is all I will consider.
over three years ago
Good post. I study something more diiuflcft on totally different blogs everyday. It would always be stimulating to learn content material from other writers and observe slightly something from their store. I want to make use of some with the content material on my blog whether you don’t mind. Natually I provide you with a hyperlink in your net blog. Thanks for sharing.Hmm it looks like your site ate my first comment (it was extremely long) so I guess I'll just sum it up what I had written and say, I'm thoroughly enjoying your blog. I as well am an aspiring blog writer but I'm still new to everything. Do you have any suggestions for first-time blog writers? I'd certainly appreciate it.
over five years ago
The Lira Principle as described by Gonzalo on your show has been developed before in the book The Logic of Political Survival by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. Fantastic book - highly recommended to understand political success and governance failure.
five and a half years ago
Big Capital Owners Exposed
Hi Steve and Gonzalo,
Thanks for the podcast. A while back I figured out that the skills required to get elected were incompatible with the skills required to do anything once elected. That was back before I didn't see through the illusion of elections.
Let me draw an analogy. A citizen sees Coke and Pepsi, competition and a choice of cola. Capitalism at its finest, no?
What does Big Capital see? You know, the small groups who own the majority of the wealth (Ilargi recently claimed 1000 families own 1/2 the wealth in the world per UN research - I hope he sources it soon)?
Put yourself in the place of Big Capital. You own half the world's wealth. Do you invest in just Coke? Just Pepsi? Or BOTH? Hint - the obvious answer is all caps.
Big Capital (you!) invests in both and the citizen HAS NO CHOICE whether to enrich your interests. You count your increased wealth without a care in the world as to the "choice" the proles make between Coke or Pepsi.
Now, replace Coke and Pepsi with Republican and Democrat. Both are put into power by Big Capital. One has to be Big Capital or one has to make deals with Big Capital in order to get access to Big Capital's positive media press and the $30 million to run for Congress or the $500 million required to run for President.
Just like the citizens have a choice of Big Capital's Coke and Pepsi, they also have a choice between Big Capital's two political parties.
Guess who owns the Fed? Big Capital - excellent guess! ;-)
Guess who Bernanke represents?
My neighbor? NOT!
He is not dumb. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing, but he's also read up Sun Tzu (and you should, too!). Tzu said war is all about deception and the best warriors never have to fight since they win via deception.
You see the financial war crimes being waged on the citizens across the world, but you haven't been able to identify it as an actual premeditated war of aggression by Big Capital against everyone else.
You probably think the Fed's mandate is to keep unemployment low and prices stable. If so, you've been given the Sun Tzu treatment by the enemy.
Google "Federal Reserve Act Section 2A" and read the mandate for yourself. It doesn't say what you've been told it says.
You'll see that Big Capital's Federal Reserve, Big Capital's media, Big Capital's politicians all LIE about the Federal Reserve's black letter law mandate TO KEEP CREDIT AGGREGATES IN LINE WITH THE NATION'S PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY (essentially GDP). The results of keeping that LEGAL mandate are supposed to be low unemployment and stable prices (also a lie - inflation isn't described by "stable prices").
Making Tzu and Orwell proud, they have deceived the public into believing the results of their true mandate is the actual mandate SO THAT THEY COULD THEN BREAK THEIR BLACK LETTER LAW LEGAL MANDATE!
Here's the visual of the Federal Reserve CRIMINALLY AND PURPOSEFULLY taking credit parabolic to GDP - something a 5th grader educated in exponential math would instantly understand as unstable and destined to crash...
Capitalism doesn't have a moral component. It doesn't care if there are many or few players. The end game is the accumulation of more power by the powerful. If you want a solution don't appeal to capitalism. You treat it like a new religion. We already have moral and ethical frameworks providing a base for solving that problem.