Quote from: bookie988 on December 27, 2013, 03:24:12 PM

Quote from: kireinaha on December 21, 2013, 10:48:02 PM

Quote from: bookie988 on December 19, 2013, 04:20:32 AM

If you can't see the underlying implications of this statement as on the front page of the bitcoin foundations [website](https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/why) you might be an engineer. If you really think about it and then do not see anything wrong with it, you might have voted for W.

My brain hurts trying to read the prose of your writing. As someone mentioned earlier, "Bullshit!" has been off the air for years... you think Penn & Teller are going to come back on the air for a Bitcoin "special" or something? Huh

And they're both libertarians; they might actually believe in the idea of Bitcoin for all we know.

And your above sentence makes no logical sense. If a person reads the Bitcoin foundation's statement and doesn't come to the same conclusion as you... that somehow indicates they voted for "W" (...former president George Bush?). What a childish and naive world view.

childish? that is argumentem ad hominem.
naive? bitcoins will liberate us...

bitcoins break was largely because it very conveniently facilitated drug dealing.

lmfao. Usually people use the "ad hominem" defense when a debater fails to address a point and attacks his opponent's character instead. You started this thread by claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with your view must have voted for a former US president who hasn't run for office in almost ten years. I pointed out that it's an absurd point to make, especially given that Bush ran on a conservative platform, and conservatives generally favor smaller government (ie. less government intervention).