Digital ID's for everyone

Crikey

4068ac1elhodqr

Struth

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

LOL

A top page search result on the googlebot, does not it was read in total, nor has it seen it before, or have a preference over other links that the googlebot didn't want to slap up on at the very top of page 1. Not even sure what 'doctrinal concern' is, sounds like being concerned for a doctor? Guess those folks do some real long hours.

Have also placed a link to the Guardian above, which is toilet paper and biased source most of the time, just had a very relevant story to link to, so.

Sorry, is this supposed to be an explanation of why you used Saved Magazine as a source?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Anyhoe.... yes the actual topic is 'Digital ID's for everyone'
^ lookie lookie it's the actual title of the thread, wow what a shocker!

Yes, which is what we are discussing and you are trying to avoid discussing.
You just seem to want to spam links.

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry, is this supposed to be an explanation of why you used Saved Magazine as a source?

Still no idea who they are only that it was top link from googlebot search.

You seem obsessed with them none the less. Have as much interest as reading the awful Guardian newspaper, which was another link (in regards to BillyGates). e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...launch-by-2018

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, which is what we are discussing and you are trying to avoid discussing.

Which I am discussing, you are not. Only your own personal hidden interest with skygods, and what it all means in this holytimes regard.

Meanwhile we can only deal with cold facts here on earth:
Thus the single most relevant active program relates to www.id2020.org and their sub-programs in (their) push towards 'Digital ID's for everyone' (the topic).

And in the spirit of discussion, consider too, the 'positive aspects' of 'Digital IDs for everyone'. This link below (of which anither google search directed to), shows one good aspect of 'Digital ID's for everyone'.

I.e. This lad in Ireland has been giving authorities the run around for years, by giving false names, aliases, age, location, country of origin, prefrences and so on...

https://www.thesun.ie/news/5055250/asylum-seeker-gay-death-threats-fathered-children-court/
Maybe 'Digital ID's for everyone', could prevent a repeat of this chancer?
Also, coming from Africa he would've been one of the very first (of 1.1.bn <2030) to get id2020's (persistant, birth-to-death) DigitalID.

Anyway the lockdown sunshine beckons once again, good luck in your basements and banging of keyboards therein.

Digital ID's for everyone?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Anyway the lockdown sunshine beckons once again, good luck in your basements and banging of keyboards therein.

Another generalised insult against posters replying to your comments

Which I am discussing, you are not. Only your own personal hidden interest with skygods, and what it all means in this holytimes regard.

Not sure you replied before so I'll ask again

Do you believe certain books (like the bible) can predict or prophesise the future?

Is any of your interest in this subject affected or motivated by the following passage from the bible?

"16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Still no idea who they are only that it was top link from googlebot search.

But you were the one who linked to them.
They seem to be repeating your claims verbatim.

Do you disagree with them? What makes their claims different from yours?

Again, we have strong reason to believe that your conspiracy beliefs stem from your belief in biblical prophesy. That link seems to share that belief and you used it as a source.

So please clarify your beliefs here.

Also saying that you linked something as evidence without actually reading it or looking at it doesn't exactly help your case or credibility either.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Which I am discussing, you are not. Only your own personal hidden interest with skygods, and what it all means in this holytimes regard.

But as we've pointed out, your belief in biblical prophesy seems to be the basis of your beliefs.

If that's not the case, why not just say that you don't believe the bible predicted this stuff? That way we would drop the topic fairly sharpish.

If you do believe that is the case however... why not just state that?

Why are you dancing around the topic and being so evasive about it?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Meanwhile we can only deal with cold facts here on earth:
Thus the single most relevant active program relates to www.id2020.org and their sub-programs in (their) push towards 'Digital ID's for everyone' (the topic).

But as I pointed out in my last post you are not accurately representing those programs. You are misrepresenting things to fit your preconceived notions.
I provided you a direct example of where you are doing this, but as per usual, you ignored the point because you can't address it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Still no idea who they are only that it was top link from googlebot search. You seem obsessed with them none the less. Have as much interest as reading the awful Guardian newspaper, which was another link (in regards to BillyGates). e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...launch-by-2018

Which I am discussing, you are not. Only your own personal hidden interest with skygods, and what it all means in this holytimes regard.

Meanwhile we can only deal with cold facts here on earth:
Thus the single most relevant active program relates to www.id2020.org and their sub-programs in (their) push towards 'Digital ID's for everyone' (the topic).

And in the spirit of discussion, consider too, the 'positive aspects' of 'Digital IDs for everyone'. This link below (of which anither google search directed to), shows one good aspect of 'Digital ID's for everyone'.

I.e. This lad in Ireland has been giving authorities the run around for years, by giving false names, aliases, age, location, country of origin, prefrences and so on...

https://www.thesun.ie/news/5055250/asylum-seeker-gay-death-threats-fathered-children-court/
Maybe 'Digital ID's for everyone', could prevent a repeat of this chancer?
Also, coming from Africa he would've been one of the very first (of 1.1.bn <2030) to get id2020's (persistant, birth-to-death) DigitalID.

Anyway the lockdown sunshine beckons once again, good luck in your basements and banging of keyboards therein.

Digital ID's for everyone?

And again with the childish personal attacks against people who debate in good faith with you.

4068ac1elhodqr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And again with the childish personal attacks against people who debate in good faith with you.

Let's be honest here lad, there is no good faith, when some in particular won't address the singular question in the topic title, without clear misidrection and diversion.

The only question here that matters is indeed the topic title
Digital ID's for everyone?

While it's clear the program and platform (via id2020.org) now already exists for such an undertaking (including partner patents and even next-gen technologies such as Quantum Dot Tattoos)

And in light of COVID, this could possible be speeded up (in the developing world, not so much in the West, with it's significant concerns over the much more simple: Bluetooth tracking Apps).

There are already vaccine based combined digital identity systems underway in Bangladesh

Recognizing the opportunity for immunization to serve as a platform for digital identity, this program leverages existing vaccination and birth registration operations to offer newborns a persistent and portable biometrically-linked digital identity.

Digital ID's for everybody?
A Yes, clearly (time and saturation levels, are the only real two variables)

Thus, the debate has now moved to the advantages, or disadvantages of such a huge project.
So to avoid childish links to ufos/skygods/sci-fi and so on. And to debate in in good faith, without such diversions. The next best question of value is actually:
Whether or not it this DigitalID program will be a 'good thing' or not?

One of the best examples of use e.g. within Ireland, would be the fiasco that a lad with no ID whatsoever, who gave numerous false IDs and misleading storylines, to take advantage of his host country.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/5055250/asylum-seeker-gay-death-threats-fathered-children-court/
In this case, is it not true that a universal, persistant, DigitalID would have prevent such an event in the very first place?

If so, perhaps it deserves a balanced debate, outside of simply Y/N for the program. Maybe the programs plan for 1.1bn in e.g. Africa/Asia and the developing world (pre 2030) is a good starting point, before re-assesment.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Let's be honest here lad, there is no good faith, when some in particular won't address the singular question in the topic title, without clear misidrection and diversion.

The only question here that matters is indeed the topic title
Digital ID's for everyone?

While it's clear the program and platform (via id2020.org) now already exists for such an undertaking (including partner patents and even next-gen technologies such as Quantum Dot Tattoos)

And in light of COVID, this could possible be speeded up (in the developing world, not so much in the West, with it's significant concerns over the much more simple: Bluetooth tracking Apps).

There are already vaccine based combined digital identity systems underway in Bangladesh

Digital ID's for everybody?
A Yes, clearly (time and saturation levels, are the only real two variables)

Thus, the debate has now moved to the advantages, or disadvantages of such a huge project.
So to avoid childish links to ufos/skygods/sci-fi and so on. And to debate in in good faith, without such diversions. The next best question of value is actually:
Whether or not it this DigitalID program will be a 'good thing' or not?

One of the best examples of use e.g. within Ireland, would be the fiasco that a lad with no ID whatsoever, who gave numerous false IDs and misleading storylines, to take advantage of his host country.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/5055250/asylum-seeker-gay-death-threats-fathered-children-court/
In this case, is it not true that a universal, persistant, DigitalID would have prevent such an event in the very first place?

If so, perhaps it deserves a balanced debate, outside of simply Y/N for the program. Maybe the programs plan for 1.1bn in e.g. Africa/Asia and the developing world (pre 2030) is a good starting point, before re-assesment.

In your opinion

You are insisting people answer your question yet refuse to answer any that are asked of you.

At best you are not debating in good faith and at worse you are a hypocrite.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Let's be honest here lad, there is no good faith, when some in particular won't address the singular question in the topic title, without clear misidrection and diversion.

But we have directly and clearly answered your question several times in several ways.
The main thrust of which is that your interpretation of what digital id means and what a push means are not accurate to reality.

Another point we've made is that this question:

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Digital ID's for everyone?

Is not even very grammatical or coherent and can mean many different things, so it cannot be answered with yes or no.
(Or Y/N? as you keep typing for some reason)

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

So to avoid childish links to ufos/skygods/sci-fi and so on. And to debate in in good faith, without such diversions.

If it's a diversion, then all you need to do is to state that you don't believe in the biblical prophesy. It's that simple.

However, since you keep avoiding this question and based on your previous points and things like how you used Saved Magazine as a source, we have good reason to conclude that you do believe in the biblical prophesy.
And since you do believe in it, it's a very central point to your conspiracy theory.

Additionally the fact that you won't address this point, and you are not being honest about your own position shows that you aren't debating in good faith by definition.

You are of course welcome to keep ignoring the question. But this only serves to make you look very silly.
And as Timberrrr points out, doing so while also demanding answered to your questions (which have already been answered directly) makes you look like a hypocrite.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Let's be honest here lad, there is no good faith, when some in particular won't address the singular question in the topic title, without clear misidrection and diversion.

Can you answer my questions?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And what's the conspiracy?

Explain it. Bill Gates is doing what exactly, to whom, for what reasons and when is this happening..

Bill Gates wanting poor people (or eventually all people) to have access some sort of universal ID is not some conspiracy, it's the primary purpose of that project.

Read the title of the thread.
You guys claimed Bill gates funded no project to digitally mark people for vaccines. This is 100 percent false. Even a respected journal discussing science topics says it happened.
After denying that, you what to know what the conspiracy is?
Could the elite use digital tattoo marking to control people lives. I think that’s likely. It's too early to discuss how far they take it. This for me is a future thing

Bill Gates I would not trust him at all.I think he's interested in population control of different races around the world. He has had an obsession with diseases since he was a young man. There something off about him and friendship with Epstein there likely something sinister. Epstein was interested in Eugenics too. Gates could be a hiding he's true motive.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You guys claimed Bill gates funded no project to digitally mark people for vaccines. This is 100 percent false. Even a respected journal discussing science topics says it happened.

That's not what we said though.

King Mob wrote: »

That's not what we said though.

Article i published.
Gates requested his foundation fund the project.
Even the journal said that.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Read the title of the thread.

I can read, the main poster in here refuses to provide their conspiracy in any coherent form

Can you explain what their conspiracy theory is?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Bill Gates I would not trust him at all.I think he's interested in population control of different races around the world. He has had an obsession with diseases since he was a young man. There something off about him and friendship with Epstein there likely something sinister. Epstein was interested in Eugenics too. Gates could be a hiding he's true motive.

Okay, and so you think:

1. Bill Gates is a racist and wants to depopulate the world by race? which races exactly?

2. He is obsessed with diseases, you mean in curing them, that's a good thing right?

3. You believe Gates is also a paedophile?

4. You believe Gates is into eugenics, what aspect exactly?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I can read, the main poster in here refuses to provide their conspiracy in any coherent form

Can you explain what their conspiracy theory is?

This is false again. Outlined his position here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113328764&postcount=397

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is false again. Outlined his position here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113328764&postcount=397

Read it. What is the conspiracy?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, and so you think:

1. Bill Gates is a racist and wants to depopulate the world by race? which races exactly?

2. He is obsessed with diseases, you mean in curing them, that's a good thing right?

3. You believe Gates is also a paedophile?

4. You believe Gates is into eugenics, what aspect exactly?

Africa, India examples all people of color. Considered inferior by some Whites.
Did Gates admit once Vaccines can be used to depopulate the world?
I have no evidence he molested young girls.
We know he was a friend of Epstein in the 90s and even after Epstein was convicted in 2007, travelled to his home in Palm Beach to stay. Gates name was on the flight list for Lolita express.
Gates never addressed these concerns in public.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Africa, India examples all people of color. Considered inferior by some Whites.

Okay, so no evidence Gates is racist. Quite the opposite, he's trying to help people in the poorest regions of the world.

Did Gates admit once Vaccines can be used to depopulate the world?

“First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent …”

What do you think he means by that..

I have no evidence he molested young girls.

Exactly.

Gates never addressed these concerns in public.

So to conclude, you have no evidence he's a racist or a paedophile or is motivated by eugenics

But from past experience I know you will continue to try and hold these views, can you explain why you do that?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, so no evidence Gates is racist. Quite the opposite, he's trying to help people in the poorest regions of the world.

“First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent …”

What do you think he means by that..

Exactly.

So to conclude, you have no evidence he's a racist or a paedophile or is motivated by eugenics

But from past experience I know you will continue to try and hold these views, can you explain why you do that?

How does health improvements and vaccines depopulate the world? Is that not a curious quote? Are they not there to keep people alive?
First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent …”

EyesClosed

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How does health improvements and vaccines depopulate the world? Is that not a curious quote? Are they not there to keep people alive?
First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent …”

Third world countries have a higher birth rate and population growth rate than first world countries. This is due to health risks and disease. Families have more children knowing some will die so they have bigger families hoping some will survive to look after them when they are eldery. Ireland was the same around a hundred years ago, now families on average are much smaller. So with health improvements and vaccines availabe to third world countries population growth will drop as family sizes drop.

EyesClosed wrote: »

Third world countries have a higher birth rate and population growth rate than first world countries. This is due to health risks and disease. Families have more children knowing some will die so they have bigger families hoping some will survive to look after them when they are eldery. Ireland was the same around a hundred years ago, now families on average are much smaller. So with health improvements and vaccines availabe to third world countries population growth will drop as family sizes drop.

Health improvements and vaccines depopulate the world (gotcha) Gates even admits in that quote its an ambition of his to control the world population. Is not a medical doctor has no degrees in the field, who appointed him, to control birth rates and decide who dies in poor countries. Why is he only interested in population control in countries that are poor?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How does health improvements and vaccines depopulate the world? Is that not a curious quote? Are they not there to keep people alive?
First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent …”

In certain poorer countries, the populations are growing at exponentially higher rates because they have worse healthcare systems (and health information), e.g. people have more children to compensate for higher levels of child mortality

In modern progressive countries with good healthcare systems, population growth is lower.

If all countries had good healthcare systems (like Germany, Japan) then the population wouldn't be increasing as drastically. If we want to solve over-population, it's something that has to be tackled.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Health improvements and vaccines depopulate the world (gotcha) Gates even admits in that quote its an ambition of his to control the world population. Is not a medical doctor has no degrees in the field, who appointed him, to control birth rates and decide who dies in poor countries. Why is he only interested in population control in countries that are poor?

they reduce the rate of increase they dont depopulate.

EyesClosed

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Health improvements and vaccines depopulate the world (gotcha) Gates even admits in that quote its an ambition of his to control the world population. Is not a medical doctor has no degrees in the field, who appointed him, to control birth rates and decide who dies in poor countries. Why is he only interested in population control in countries that are poor?

Do you get me? .... Cause I really don't think you understand it at all

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In certain poorer countries, the populations are growing at exponentially higher rates because they have worse healthcare systems (and health information), e.g. people have more children to compensate for higher levels of child mortality

In modern progressive countries with good healthcare systems, population growth is lower.

If all countries had good healthcare systems (like Germany, Japan) then the population wouldn't be increasing as drastically. If we want to solve over-population, it's something that has to be tackled.

Whatever way you dress it up Gates goal is birth control and stopping more people of colour having babies. His solution is vaccines and improved health services to stop it. It a billionaire mindset we don’t need more poor people. Gates appointed himself as the guy to do it and uses his foundation for that purpose. If we serious about helping poor countries we should stop bombing them and start with helping them instead.
Vaccines supposed to keep people alive. What vaccine he has in his mind doing to control World population? He says vaccines, is part of the program, to depopulate the world. I struggling to understand what he has in mind?
I understand birth control and protection, and family advice slows the growth.

Even first world countries are over populated, we have people living on the streets, no food, shelter, and millions of families are on the bread line. Poor countries Gates believes is where the problem is ( this is false)

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Whatever why you dress it up Gates goal is birth control and stopping more people of colour having babies.

You clearly have difficulty understanding these straightforward explanation (or are now determined not to understand). It's pretty simple..

Countries like Angola, Malawi, Burundi, Chad, Uganda have far higher population growth than countries like Switzerland, France, Netherlands, Austria

A key reason is because healthcare systems and healthcare education in the former are worse than those in the latter

Here's a graph of countries population growth.

https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=24

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Article i published.
Gates requested his foundation fund the project.
Even the journal said that.

No, that's not what the article you posted said.

That's also not what you claimed we said in your last post.