BUTERBALZ 3 points ago +3 / -0

I see many more titles for Djokovic competing against a vaxxed field. Some would say he will kill the competition.

BUTERBALZ 3 points ago +3 / -0

He's MIA as soon as Pfizer shows him the Saudi Khashoggi duffle bag shuffle if he doesn't leap off a building first.

I think this one's got a short shelf life gents.

BUTERBALZ 9 points ago +9 / -0

Don't know about you all but telling some chick while on a date that I'm working on a drug to enslave humanity to perpetual injections of a poisonous substance gets me sloppy head every time.

BUTERBALZ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just want to clarify that I do not know for a fact what I stated above is what took place. Simply my thoughts with what I know about the transactions that took place and market behavior given the tools at my disposal.

What I do know for sure is that the stock market is a beautifully complicated system when left to its natural order. It's a monster when played with. Stock market history is littered with manipulation evidenced by the massive amount of laws and regulations placed upon it through time. The massive majority of which are designed to protect the investor but left by the side of the road when government decides its own horrendous monitary policy and errors should be protected.

BUTERBALZ 4 points ago +4 / -0

No doubt we'll know when the market plunges. What isn't so obvious are the moves (and mistakes) made along the way to that plunge.

These bean counters track every penny and know exactly when to expect when time is up. As such they maneuver (sometimes illegally) in the shadows to cover their exit so that they mitigate losses. In return the Fed likely works with them the dampen the market blow as much as possible for as long as possible.

The mistakes are key for the little people to be keen on. If indeed this was a maneuver to that end then what we seen today was the ghost in the machine we should be paying attention to in order to cover our exits or at the very least to be at the ready to mitigate our own losses so when the plunge is obvious we can move as quickly as possible.

I for one moved to invert the market months ago and currently half pressed on a light trigger to exit at a moments notice. Once the bottom completely falls out we should all be at the ready to jump back in to catch the rebound whatever that may look like. Keep in mind, like their exit, they also don't announce their re-entry. Much in the same way we should be keen to the ghost in the machine on the re-entry to gain as much upside as possible. It should be possible to come out of this debacle better than what we came in at.

BUTERBALZ 17 points ago +17 / -0

That would have to be a massive margin call.

Looking over level 2 data and can't make sense of the trades. Prior day closing price vs this morning's opening 'ask' line up. What does NOT line up are the opening trades that caused the halt. In some cases you see a 25% delta between the 'ask' and the purchase price. Meaning, the opening trade executed successfully far, far below the 'ask'. Level 2 shows the trade time, trade price, market and lot size. So everything about the data appears to show a live trade but SEC is indicating data issue.

A live trade making it into the tape and market maker executing also lines up with the fact that all systems were go therefore automated systems caught the massive delta between closing price and opening trade. Since the delta was so large, automated halts triggered and trading stopped on those particular securities.

As a result you also see what appears to be multiple 'stop loss' orders also execute within the same second or next as the trade that caused the halt. Stop loss orders triggered and executed. So in essence, many investors were traded out of their positions without need. For those investors that were traded out unnecessarily, if not caught immediately and traded back in, may have lost on the upside depending if that position was up or down for the day.

Edit: Adding more info*

Another oddity. If you look at the the trade price that caused the halt you will also notice a few trades at a price higher than the offending trade but lower than the 'ask' that was in line with the previous close. So not only was their a "data issue" concerning the opening and offending trade, but more trades were also executed outside of what's to be expected given the 'ask' at the time.

I can think of two scenarios when this can happen.

  1. Buy Limit order, set up by an investor to trade at a market price below a predetermined price and execute at the next available oppurtunity. Example: current price is $75 and investor sets up a trigger to buy at the next available price when security reaches $65. The security price reaches trigger of $65, order is triggered and finds a seller at $66. The trade is executed and investor now owns the security at $66.

  2. Trades were executed outside of current channels without the knowledge of the market makers. Let's think this out. If market maker executes a trade in error at $65 when his book is clearly showing an 'ask' of $75, it wouldn't stand to reason that market maker would make several other error trades at $67, $68.50 and $71. Why? First because there isn't an 'ask' at those price points. Keep in mind the opening 'ask' was $75. So not only did the market maker error on the opening trade but continued to disregard or error on other phantom ask prices. Asks that didn't exist on the book. But where I'm leaning is that market maker had no clue the trades were happening and the trades that happened were intended to never have made it to the tape therefore never to have been made public. My guess is that this shit has been happening for a while but just now ran into a "technical issue". Technical issue for sure, they likely logged it into the wrong data stream.

BUTERBALZ 4 points ago +4 / -0

Kanye playing Damar.

BUTERBALZ 6 points ago +6 / -0

As much as these confirm what we know to be true, these appear to be bots.

While we expect the same style comments from those posting we would not typically see the same exact line almost perfectly to the word. "So many strokes".

I can't prove it but if you all would recall, we seen the same behavior from bots when the other side was performing the same tricks but only favoring the jabs or the importance of taking the jab.

BUTERBALZ 5 points ago +7 / -2

Clandestine has a goldfish memory. The guy is surprised every few months by the same shit.

BUTERBALZ 1 point ago +1 / -0

All good.

-Atheism is to Atheist as Christianity is to Christian.

BUTERBALZ 4 points ago +4 / -0

More than 2/3rds of Americans got the jab. If your right, the NFL will take a very long time to recover and will look very different for decades to come.

NFL will find it impossible to insure a jabbed player when the truth comes out. Insurance companys will demand only unvaccinated players can be covered.

BUTERBALZ 3 points ago +3 / -0

Na bitch. You got jabbed out of fear with the added bonus of virtue signaling. So rather than admit you were wrong to all those you advised and apologize you try to convince the world that in your failure you are still right.

I guess you can always say that you "loved" the world to death since your advice has and will lead to their death.

BUTERBALZ 87 points ago +87 / -0

If it turns out to be what everyone fears, not sure many players who were jabbed will want to risk it.

What we may see is a massive amount of players getting expert and independent physicals with an emphasis on their hearts. Which will likely lead to a massive amount of heart conditions discovered.

Players will demand their contracts be paid out as a result of an NFL mandated jab and injury sustained during the course of their job. NFL owner will refuse to pay since they would go broke. Players will sue the ever loving piss out of owners.


BUTERBALZ 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pinocchio waiting for his strings to be pulled.

BUTERBALZ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Merry Christmas to you and yours also. Children an absolute blessing for sure.

I, like you, do not view passionate conversation as adversarial in any way. I welcome anytime I can learn anything meaningful. I believe this conversation to be just that. Thanks.

The reason why I framed the two quotes above in that fashion is simply in an attempt to impress upon you the stark differences between the two world views and the fact that they are diametrically opposed. Let me clarify.

When speaking of such topics the conversation has to be completely sanitized of any emotion or feelings. Why? Because these are matters of our creation and existence and not of how one feels or "thinks". In other words, we aren't speaking of our favorite cheeseburger where we can both be right and both be wrong at the same time. I am not saying you entered the conversation with that in mind. I was attempting to get down to the root of the conversation and jump clear over any possible fluff. So when I said "we have to agree on terms" I was trying to convey exactly that in its clinical sense, in its definitional meaning.

So in that spirit let me say that Atheism, by definition, is unable to comment with regard to religion or matters of spirituality. Not because I don't think your words have value but instead because Atheism is defined by the NON belief or in more definitive words, knowledge of a "higher power". As a result Atheism is void of comment or opinion of spirituality. It simply has nothing to say about it. NOT that Atheism can't comment on spirituality but that IF Atheism comments on it, it doesn't bare meaning or weight. Again, I am not at all saying your words or this conversation has no value. In fact what I am saying is that if Atheism should have anything to say about spirituality it would be lopsided to the opposing side. Your world view, in a conversation about spirituality, only helps to sway YOU, the Atheist, towards the beleif of a higher power. Why? Since you are void of the belief of a higher power you only stand to add to your body of knowledge and not lend to anothers body of knowledge by virtue of the vacumm you posses on the topic. Not only is Atheism a vacumm but by every sense mute on the topic.

What I said above is NOT a jab or an insult it's a matter of Atheisms root meaning.

Now in regard to Christianity having sole claim on "good and bad" and that you wouldn't be able to see it and or identify it. NOT AT ALL. The fact that any human being whether Atheist or not is capable of good and bad IS a testament to the fact that a higher power exists. Why? Simply as a matter of the world view itself. Atheism, as a result of its non-belief, can not impose 'good' or 'bad' on anything. The Atheist world view in itself can not define good or bad because, well humanity simply exists and nothing else. So if it simply exists than an action or "state of being" is exactly that and nothing else. Atheism can not determine or deem anything bad or good for that matter. From an Atheist perspective, I hurting my neighbor in order to take his ration of food in order for my families survival is just that, survival and nothing else. I survive and neighbor does not. There is no "winner" or "loser", I simply evolve and my neighbor ceases to exist.

In order for "good" to exist or have meaning it would have to have its opposite, "bad". An inverse state. But you or I are unable to define it or create their meanings because we are capable of being "good" or "bad". As a result of our imperfection, we can also imperfectly define said states. As a result, the fact that those states exist ONLY lend themselves to the existence of a benevolent, flawless, all knowing and timeless higher power.

I am not arguing that you can not know or be capable of good or bad. I am arguing that without a benevolent higher power, that has defined those perameters, previous to your existence, those states have no meaning. They are simply actions.

The fact that you are able to identify those states is irrefutable evidence that a higher power exists. Once someone is able to arrive at that conclusion, and only then, can one be able to further chisel out their own belief. BELEIF. Once someone reaches that point there is no going back. THAT is what I was trying to convey. Once you know Him you can not remove the knowledge of him. Now it is only a choice whether someone wants to reject Him.

But understand my "framing" of a conversation has no effect on truth. Truth stands on its own regardless of my intent or framing.

Edit to cover your other point.

You took a really long winded, and frankly well done, way of agreeing that whatever this God thing is, it's indifferent to human suffering. He's taken a view of free will that days its super important unless evil takes it away, then it's no big deal. He'll make you whole in the afterlife somehow.

Not sure I conveyed that God is indifferent by any means. If God desired indifference than a clear path to salvation would not have been provided. But let's just entertain that premise for a second. Than what? Let's just say he was indifferent. For sport? For self gratification? If so, than why provide any evidence of His existence? And before settling on one of those conclusions, wouldn't one have to have at the very least equal the amount of evidence that He has provided for your salvation if not more? In other words, wouldn't the body of evidence AGAINST His intended salvation outcome be available or provided before one refutes His intent? Wouldn't a thief require more evidence to prove his innocence than "I was having lunch with grandma" in the face of fingerprint, video and witness accounts and evidence against him? So far as I can tell, much of what non believers provide is tantamount to the example of the thief. Yet, despite historical accounts of Jesus's life from believers, but more importantly, historical written accounts of NON believers who never met, heard of or seen Jesus wrote of the tremors and earthquake felt the moment of His crucifixion exactly as written by believers hundreds of miles away. Both of those authors had vastly different beliefs, yet wrote of the same event.

BUTERBALZ 1 point ago +1 / -0


Choose the One and only that is all good and love.

Problem solved.

BUTERBALZ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not attempting to dodge.

You are confining yourself and your arguments to a hierchy of "love". That is not love and the reason why I first have to help you define it properly.

Your arguments begin on a false premise. You are pre-supposing that God "chooses" to allow anything simply on the basis that 'choice' exists for choices sake. God is love and as such leaves choice to one that his creation makes and not one that God makes. God does not give "evil" vs "righteous" paths. God provides the path to salvation or none. "None" is one that includes all that is not good. One can label it what one chooses whether one calls it evil, bad or anything else makes no difference. The end result is the same, an eternal existence in the absence of God. That is to say an existence without good, love or light. Both within and enveloped IN the absence of God.

So when you base your argument on the value of a rapist vs the value of a victim you are coming into a conversation from a false premise to begin with since the very question you pose is speaking of a God I do not know.

The point is; you presume to falsely define God from an atheist perspective. You have no perspective that could be valid in my world view. Atheism has nothing to say about God. At-least nothing that can stand to be taken seriously. You are by definition mute on point.

If you want to argue benefits of good vs bad we certainly can but we must first agree on terms. I will warn arguing good vs bad is horribly unproductive since in your world view NEITHER is "good" or "bad". Those terms are simply choices one makes in the course of an existence.

If you want to argue good vs bad within my world view than we can but you MUST first entertain the existence of God. Fair warning however, if you decide that you want to have a conversation with that in mind you will find yourself questioning and intimately jettisoning your atheist world view. I of course welcome that conversation. You on the other hand may find that you will also have to jettison many of your fleshly desires. THAT, I submit, is a bitter pill many former athiests struggle with the most. That is to say, knowing God but refusing to discard those desires.

God values love and his creations whether it be the sinner or the victim. God does not make a choice, his creations choose.

Now to address your question with regard to rapist vs victim and their value in the eyes of God. The victim, should this victim continue to live a life of good will be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven. The rapist, should he/she not repent will exist in the absence of God for eternity. So you see, it's not what God values, since God gives his value to both rapist and victim, it is precisely what victim and rapist value. His creations ultimately have the free will to choose Him or not. It's never a choice for God. He has already accepted both of them, it's up to them to reject Him.

Matthew 7:23

‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

You see, God knows no evil. Since He is incapable of evil none could come from his creation. It's either good and love or not at all. Nothing.

view more: Next ›