Bill Gates warns of more pandemics !!!

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
Actually, Gates has donated over $50 billion of his wealth to charity.


I used to think the same thing, but now have grown wiser.

1st? I remember when Gates first started out, he was criticized for not wanting to give to charities. Then he understood tax exceptions and public image and started to give to charity.

I believe the super rich dont give squat. They set up their own charities so the money funnels back into their pockets.
A hefty chunk of his money goes to supporting cutting edge scientific research. The top scientist in my department gets Gates money.
Ya its an investment so he can make more money.

ALL these billionaires seem to give multi millions each to charity and people still suffer economically worldwide. They say 5%-33% MAX of charity money is actually given away. The rest is eaten by the charity.
 
Last edited:

Yakuda

Well-known member
I think its you that doesn't know what capitalism means. Capitalism means a profit driven economy. Its a tax/interest by the rich, for their Investment.
That's not what capitalism means and you've been told a thousand times profit is not the enemy but you either can't or any listen. I suspect I know which it is.
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
That's not what capitalism means and you've been told a thousand times profit is not the enemy but you either can't or any listen. I suspect I know which it is.
Yes it does.

capitalism

NOUN
  1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Is tax an enemy to you or a friend? Is Interest an enemy to you or friend?
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Yes it does.

capitalism

NOUN
  1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Is tax an enemy to you or a friend? Is Interest an enemy to you or friend?
Correct private ownership of the means of production. That's capitalism.

YOUR socialism isn't opposed to profit is it? You just want it to go somewhere else. Stop playing this foolish game of yours.
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
Correct private ownership of the means of production. That's capitalism.

YOUR socialism isn't opposed to profit is it? You just want it to go somewhere else. Stop playing this foolish game of yours.

Yes my socialism is opposed to profit. People mistaken earned income as profit. Profit is not earned by ones labor but due to investment.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Actually, Gates has donated over $50 billion of his wealth to charity.


A hefty chunk of his money goes to supporting cutting edge scientific research. The top scientist in my department gets Gates money.
Like that will keep Gates from splitting The Gates of Hell wide open.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
That's not incorrect and intellectually lazy.

Yes I would but if what you said about hin is true that makes him a thief as those arent characteristics of capitalists, unless you want to claim socialists and leftist never steal. It amazes how pure you think you are.
According to scripture The Gates of hell were named after BILL??



Most Catholics are familiar with this:

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
He does not give me money.
I can check for facts, and find that he donates to many causes that help people. Lots of money. $50 billion so far.
I do not pay attention to things he says, but he has the right to free speech.
And, as far as I can tell, his donations are not tied to acceptance of his opinions.
You forgot to mention he was very close pals with Jeffreak Epstein. (a popular dude at Hawvud diploma mill)

Birds of a feather pals.
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
You forgot to mention he was very close pals with Jeffreak Epstein. (a popular dude at Hawvud diploma mill)

Birds of a feather pals.
Apparently so were Clinton and Epstein.....The elites are all immoral.

Prince Andrew's ex-girlfriend says in a new documentary that Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton 'were like brothers'​

 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Apparently so were Clinton and Epstein.....The elites are all immoral.

Prince Andrew's ex-girlfriend says in a new documentary that Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton 'were like brothers'​

Bros.

Epstein had a big ranch in New mexico Bill, Hillary and Chelsea enjoyed their vacation there.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I think its you that doesn't know what capitalism means.
I'm aware that's what you think.
Capitalism means a profit driven economy.
It is one thing to acknowledge that the profit motive appears in a capitalist economy. But when you use the word "driven" it is suggestive of coercion. That is completely false. The comparison here is between capitalism and Socialism. The motivations in Socialism or are all coercive, while the motivations in capitalism are all voluntary. Therefore, "thou shalt not steal" does a far better job of crystallizing the actual differences between Socialism and capitalism than does profit motive. Socialism coercively steals the means of production from the people who accumulated the capital. Capitalism does not do that. So the fundamental difference is theft. Socialism institutionalizes theft and capitalism does not.
Its a tax/interest by the rich, for their Investment.
Perhaps you could rephrase this comment, and I might be tracking closely enough with your point to respond. In particular I'm not sure what "it" refers to exactly.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
You are misreading what I said.
Science changes its conclusions when warranted by new data. Conservatives seem to have a problem with that, denigrating it as flip-flopping.
So the scientific establishment, has to give approval for new data to be collected. Any individual scientist who collects data on their own, is frowned upon by the establishment.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Yes, her adoration of scientists is very obvious
Adoration? No.
Respect? Yes.

Science as a professional discipline has only been around for a few centuries, but its findings have significantly improved our lives. Those improvements include medical treatments, advances in communications, transportation, agriculture, construction, home appliances, etc.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Adoration? No.
Respect? Yes.

Science as a professional discipline has only been around for a few centuries, but its findings have significantly improved our lives. Those improvements include medical treatments, advances in communications, transportation, agriculture, construction, home appliances, etc.
I respect scientist who do not cater their results to accommodate the desires of the ruling class.
 

vibise

Well-known member
It's exactly the same. Peer reviewed articles are your dogma. You live by them and those disagree with your dogma incur your wrath. Climate change is the best example.

What amazes me most is people like you think the rest haven't been paying attention to you for years. We actually see how you behave. You get that right?
Peer review for published studies is not the end of the evaluation process. Findings in those papers are subject to evaluation by the broader scientific community (peer reviewers can sometimes miss problems), and published results can be tested for reproducibility. Some studies do not withstand this additional level of scrutiny and sink into oblivion.

Climate change is established science at this point. That climate is changing due largely to human activity is not in dispute by scientists.

We recognize that there are many people who are highly skeptical of science and scientists and are even anti-science. Surprisingly, those people have no problem relying on scientific advances in their daily lives. A great example of cognitive dissonance.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Yes. She says so and "peer reviewed" journals. She would reject police officers assessing the behavior of other police officers but she is fine with scientists reviewing the behavior of other scientists. So of course she thinks they are pure.
Who would have the technical expertise to evaluate a cutting edge study on, say, the coronavirus nucleocapsid? Or age estimations of endogenous retroviruses? Or pathological changes produced by a neurotropic virus? Well, such reviews would have to be done by experts in the field.

Nonscientists, however, could certainly judge individual scientists for things like mistreating lab animals, misusing grant funds, conflict of interest, etc.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Peer review for published studies is not the end of the evaluation process. Findings in those papers are subject to evaluation by the broader scientific community (peer reviewers can sometimes miss problems), and published results can be tested for reproducibility. Some studies do not withstand this additional level of scrutiny and sink into oblivion.

Climate change is established science at this point. That climate is changing due largely to human activity is not in dispute by scientists.

We recognize that there are many people who are highly skeptical of science and scientists and are even anti-science. Surprisingly, those people have no problem relying on scientific advances in their daily lives. A great example of cognitive dissonance.
Phony Tony is your pope. Look how you behave when someone dares to mock your climate dogma. You are funny
 

vibise

Well-known member
It's called being falsely accuse by despicable fiends.
And so you confess. His crime was being elected president. How on earth do you live with yourself?
Trump has not been prosecuted or formally accused in a criminal indictment, because the investigations are ongoing.
Some investigations are going on now in multiple places over multiple issues, so we will see what evidence turns up.

There are, however, plenty of false accusations that have been made. Remember those "lock her up" chants, and the 30 years of investigations into the Clintons that never turned up anything of consequence?
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Who would have the technical expertise to evaluate a cutting edge study on, say, the coronavirus nucleocapsid? Or age estimations of endogenous retroviruses? Or pathological changes produced by a neurotropic virus? Well, such reviews would have to be done by experts in the field.

Nonscientists, however, could certainly judge individual scientists for things like mistreating lab animals, misusing grant funds, conflict of interest, etc.
Scientists are your saints aren't they? St. Phony Tony lmbo
 
Top