Libya is finished, what country will be next?

[dowie]

Except it isn't because they don't exist, a “central bank” is by definition not a privately owned institution, but a governmental mandate. It’s the entity responsible for overseeing monetary policy, interest rates and currency supply for a nation.

Interestingly Federal Reserve banks are actually privately owned, being run by lizard people is optional tho....

 

[Randomface74]

It always amuses me when people come out with nonsense like this XD

Why would a central bank (I.E Bank of England) borrow from the Rothschilds when they haven't been a major financial power in roughly a century? I don't deny that the lenders to governments/banks get rich from it but it's amusing that people seem so desperate to paint an old Jewish family as the villains of it all XD

It's about power. Some want power over the country, so need money to do it; and some want power over the world, so need the countries to be indebted.
Good luck arguing that you're still control of your country when you owe its output to someone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt#List

 

[RaohNS]

An article from 6 years ago, talking about a 'study' that was merely based on user experience and not on a careful scrutiny of Wikipedia's references. Fail.

Fail because it disagrees with your notions. Interesting.

They prohibit it because Wikipedia is not a formal publication, and most articles can be edited by non-experts. This does not mean it's useless as an everyday source of general information.

Therefore its veracity can be questioned or altered at any given moment.

When did you find the time to check all of Wikipedia's references?

When did you?

Assad is still in power because Western forces have made no attempt to remove him. If the West wanted him gone, they'd invade like they did in Iraq, and he'd be out within weeks.

To be replaced by the UK and USs terrorist friends.

Which is irrelevant to the point being made...

Not really when he was saying to provide evidence Wiki is unreliable and I posted a piece highlighting literally that research conducted shows 6/10 articles are erroneous.

Who was talking about the BBC?

You were questioning someone's sources remember, Dory.

Yawn

Past your bed time again FB?

 

[Sankari]

You're welcome.

Technically speaking an "attempt" was made

When did this happen?

 

[Sankari]

Fail because it disagrees with your notions. Interesting.

No, fail because the 'study' referred to is completely inadequate and does not prove what the DM claims. You would know this if you'd checked.

Therefore its veracity can be questioned or altered at any given moment.

Which is why it's not acceptable as a reference for university work, as I pointed out.

When did you?

I wasn't the one who made a sweeping claim about the quality of Wikipedia's external links.

To be replaced by the UK and USs terrorist friends.

The what?

 

[MookJong]

I like the way Evangelion has clearly put some time and effort into doing his own research and refuting a popular line. You would think people would appreciate this, but no, doesn't prop up their world view, so he gets shouted down.

Maybe you should disprove his arguments point by point instead of going round in circles about Wikipedia. Is the topic not Libya?

 

[Sankari]

I like the way Evangelion has clearly put some time and effort into doing his own research and refuting a popular line. You would think people would appreciate this, but no, doesn't prop up their world view, so he gets shouted down.

Maybe you should disprove his arguments point by point instead of going round in circles about Wikipedia. Is the topic not Libya?

Welcome to the internet!

 

[MookJong]

Welcome to the internet!

I'm bored of seeing it....everywhere. I'm sure things were not as bad on the internet years ago. The age of listening to people who might know more than you seems to be over. The rejection of nuance in favour of outrage is the new "knowledge" and will ultimately be our downfall...

 

[Sankari]

Here's another fun fact about Gaddafi's Libya: 40% of the population lived below the poverty line.

Cassandra Nelson, a member of a Mercy Corps team that completed a two-week assessment in Libya in March, said: "We were extremely surprised to find the living standards of so many people was incredibly low. A large part of the population is living without clean running water, working sewage systems and is struggling to meet basic daily needs."

According to the United Nations, 40 per cent of Libya's population of 6.4 million live below the poverty line, with no benefit from Libya's oil reserves, which are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world.

Nouran Alarapi, 16, who has been delivering food parcels to Benghazi's poor, said Libyans had not realised the extent of the poverty.

"We found people who don't eat for two days. We never knew such extreme poverty existed because people did not talk to each other as much," she said.

 

[RaohNS]

No, fail because the 'study' referred to is completely inadequate and does not prove what the DM claims. You would know this if you'd checked.

Typing Wikipedia errors shows multiple hits and examples.

Which is why it's not acceptable as a reference for university work, as I pointed out.

Precisely why Wikipedia should be used only to find a reference maybe

wasn't the one who made a sweeping claim about the quality of Wikipedia's external links.

No but hoisting Wikipedia up as a reliable source when it isn't an academic standard.

The what?

You read correct.

I like the way Evangelion has clearly put some time and effort into doing his own research and refuting a popular line. You would think people would appreciate this, but no, doesn't prop up their world view, so he gets shouted down.[/qupte]

Yes, but: Evan, in one of the Trump threads was it not you who posted a comment about the odds of voter fraud being about 1/6,000,000,000?

 

[Squark]

The Yanks themselves could do with a bit of liberating.

 

[Sankari]

I notice that the people bashing my Libyan debunking have gone quiet all of a sudden.

No but hoisting Wikipedia up as a reliable source when it isn't an academic standard.

Wikipedia is a reliable everyday source for general information despite not meeting an academic standard.

Yes, but: Evan, in one of the Trump threads was it not you who posted a comment about the odds of voter fraud being about 1/6,000,000,000?

Did I? Link to the post, please. Was this my own claim, or was I quoting an article? Also, relevance?

 

[RaohNS]

I notice that the people bashing my Libyan debunking have gone quiet all of a sudden.[/quoting]

Debunking debunkings

Wikipedia is a reliable everyday source for general information despite not meeting an academic standard.

We will have to agree to disagree

Did I? Link to the post, please. Was this my own claim, or was I quoting an article? Also, relevance?

I was asking if it was you? I know somebody did, and they posted in response to something I had said about voter fraud (in quite the same style as you). I will try to find on phone so is a pita. The relevance would be sources and statements can be disprove blater by reality.

 

[RaohNS]

from trump thread:

Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

Between 2000 and 2010 there were 649 million votes cast in general elections and 13 cases of in-person voter impersonation convictions

And yet, there are multiple videos showing voter fraud. Prosecutions are growing. People are now suing states to fulfill their legal obligation and clean up voter roles (as they are extremely open to abuse). Is it Wisconsin or Michigan which has more people on the roll than there are actual eligible people to vote.

The point being again the "facts" get debunked very regularly.

 

[ubersonic]

When did this happen?

August 2013, surprised you didn't know it was major news at the time.


MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783


Barack Obama's plans for air strikes against Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday night after the British parliament unexpectedly rejected a motion designed to pave the way to authorising the UK's participation in military action.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/obama-strike-syria-britain-vote

 

[D.P.]

Wikipedia isn't allowed to be used by students in some universities because the professors wants the student to go through the process of reading and summarizing peer-reviewed academic journals and conference proceedings. It has nothing to do with the reliability of Wikipedia itslef, which is actually very reliable.

You can use Wikipedia as a citation in a peer-reviewed publication though. I have seen it frequently, and as a review of hundred of scientific papers I will never reject a citation form Wikipedia. The biggest issue is the content might change, so as a reference for an important detail it may not be valid in X years time etc. For giving an overview of some information/background/mathematical theory etc then it is valid enough...
And that is pretty irrelevant because Wikipedia provides the citations and warns you when they are missing or something is contentious.

Within a forum debate it is perfectly valid to use Wikipedia as a reference, and the inquisitive can follow the links to the source references.

Those who really don;t trust Wikipedia tend to be tin-foil hat weary conspiracy theorists who don't like the real life events and insist on some imaginary alternative universe. Flat-earthers and creationists no doubt hate it.

 

[Tefal]

Evidence please. When did you find the time to check all of Wikipedia's references?

Sigh... I'm sorry Mr robot when I say that I mean in my personal experience using will not that I had to ducted some massive scale analysis.

But it is true though try reading through a lot of the references (which I often do) and many just link to dead pages on news sites or home page redirects.

The book ones are easy to see as theyre an isbn and the paywalled ones cover most journals or papers.

I'm sure I could Google "wikipedia broke references" and copy paste in an article that gives a % that neither you nor I or anyone would actually read but what's the point?

 

[Tefal]

It's about power. Some want power over the country, so need money to do it; and some want power over the world, so need the countries to be indebted.
Good luck arguing that you're still control of your country when you owe its output to someone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt#List

Here you go @Evangelion that ones only got 3 references and number 3 is broke.

"Unavailable due to legal reasons"

 

[arknor]

the UK is next, seems it already started

 

[Sankari]

August 2013, surprised you didn't know it was major news at the time.

MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Oh, so what you really mean is that it was never actually proposed in the first place, and even general military action was rejected immediately without ever being attempted. Which is the exact opposite of what you originally claimed. OK.

Also...

Barack Obama's plans for air strikes against Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday night after the British parliament unexpectedly rejected a motion designed to pave the way to authorising the UK's participation in military action.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/obama-strike-syria-britain-vote

...air strikes ≠ regime change.