Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by tacotiklah, Apr 30, 2015.
I think you have a thing for Hillary.
I'm starting to think you have a thing for Trench..
You'd be wrong.
Your recent posting behavior is indicating otherwise
The Christie has thrown his hat in the ring too. I think the car must seriously be running out of room now!
Who else wants to see Trump and Christie "debate"?
Now I'm thinking YOU have a thing for Trench AND me. Leave me alone.
/also clearly thought this was the presidential thread. oops. carry on.
Swank maybe , at least she knows karate (and boxing) and could mount a defense against all those violent leftist. (joking)
On topic, @ elk
True. She did vote for the invasion, but given the fact she could've used the "we were mislead by the WMD falsehood" excuse/reason to completely justify that I'd still say she would have fared as well if not better than Kerry. (but who knows I guess)
I also agree in theory that it was Kerry's to lose, much like it was Romney's to lose, and just as in the 2012 election the 2004 race just didn't have a shiny enough challenger.
Had Kerry or Romney either one had the "cool factor" I think we'd be reading a different history book, at least so far as the order of presidents. Maybe, maybe not, but also in Kerry's case there was the 4th-quarter attack on his credibility with the veterans coming forward to refute some of his claims, and that along with his drabness sure didn't help him get over the hump.
Kerry handled his campaign media very poorly... and I think also was just blindsided by the bitterness and vitriol with which he was attacked. And the facts-not-mattering thing about his service.
I rather disagree '12 was Romney's to lose though. His internal polling was... bad.
I think the bottom line is the United States is a corporation that answers to a private bank (the federal reserve) and is bullied by a private tax agency (IRS). Hell, the national treasury is fully titled "The National Treasury of Puerto Rico".
An extension of that is corporations heavily deciding who's elected and what they do once elected. Elections, while not a complete sham, might as well be. they remind me of reality show contests like American Idol, Voice, So You Think You Can Dance, etc. Yes they are qualified and talented, but they didn't pick purely based on qualifications/talent and the judges tend to put ideas in the viewers head to influence the vote. Sounds exactly like our political system and media to me. Personally, I think we need to get rid of the party affiliated elections, get rid of winner take all (do what most other nations do and allot seats based on percent of votes) and introduce a 3rd major party into government like a labor party or something of that sort. Everyone is so focused on either hating Obama or social issues that people are forgetting that one of the big platforms right now is workers rights and how many politicians think we should be working longer, harder hours essentially for less pay, which also ties into ACA a bit as well.
If the corporation controlled the private bank and tax agency, and who was running them...
Oh you know who.
The IRS is an agency of the IMF, which is an agency of the UN according to Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition page 816.
The United States corporation filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1929, meaning it can still operate as a business so long as it meets the contracted mandates under supervision. On June 5, 1933 they passed the House Joint Resolution 192, which effectively ended the gold standard and the US corp became an official debtor. It made the people the actual creditors, and our signature extends credit whenever they request it. It looks like a mortgage payment or cc bill, but It is legally a request for credit. Refusal of credit on our part, ie not "paying the bill" qualifies us as a delinquent creditor, at which point they can liquidate our personal assets.
So it's hard to call it an oligarchy in a way, as we simply discharge debt and extend credit. There is no money anywhere. It is impossible to pay a debt. The only reason the $20 in your wallet can be exchanged for "value" is because someone else accepted it as value. It is not backed by anything truly valued at $20. It's a big scam on all people. It's debt based slavery.
Money may not have any literal value, but that logic applies to gold too. Gold only has/had value because people accepted it as currency. If people looked at it as just a rock it'd be equally worthless. The very fact that you can barter with money is evidence to the fact that it does have inherent value. That's hardly a scam. If you went completely off the grid or were dirt poor you wouldn't be paying taxes either so slavery is a bit of an exaggeration.
You're not quite understanding. There's a difference between private and public/commercial commerce. I'm talking about the laws that make the U.S. A debtor to its own people, until they can bring back the gold standard which would ratify ch 48,48 stat 112. Until that point, they have manipulated our laws so heavily that people don't even know that it is them personally that is the only currency currently accepted by the private bank. The bank doesn't care what you do for work so long as you get up and go do it. If you don't want to think of yourself as a slave then indentured servant works here too.
Gold or paper dollars or Popsicle sticks are all the same if someone's willing to accept it as payment. I am simply referring to gold because that is how it is written in our laws.
Wait, are you seriously advocating returning to the gold standard....?
Also, no, seriously, the IRS is part of the Treasury Department.
Indentured to whom? I'm not being thrown in jail, I'm allowed to do as I please for the most part, I can leave the country, I can gain citizenship in another country and I can revoke my citizenship form this country. Slavery and indentured servitude wouldn't allot for that at all.
Other than having to pay taxes once you enter a tax bracket (which help keep infrastructure running even if they aren't always using our taxes usefully) how are you being scammed or turned into a slave, even metaphorically? Don't get me wrong, I think there is a lot of puppeteering in the media and politics and I agree things need to change in many ways, but 'slavery' isn't one of them. We the people still hold the power. We just aren't nearly active or unified enough to make good use of that power at all. It doesn't help that the media and politicians deliberately try and distract us from more pressing issues, try to divide everyone into powerless niche groups and do more slandering than propping up of actions. As an example, Ted Cruz when he ran for senate didn't release a single campaign video of himself saying what he'd do to help the US and Texas. Instead, he had probably 75% slander campaign videos against his opponent and the other 25% were him promising to repeal a bunch of laws while not saying what he'd add to the table (which is the norm). People here voted for that ass despite him not promoting himself at all technically. The problem isn't identifying the problem, it's getting people to listen to themselves rather than soundbytes and were losing that battle. But I'm going off topic.
Also, you were heavily implying that paper money is worthless (I believe you said scam). I was pointing out that all forms of currency have no value until it is traded for something useful. All money of any kind is a universal means of bartering essentially.
I may be reading a bit into DudeManBrother's post, but I think he was getting at the fact that fiat money has no inherent value whereas something like gold has an intrinsic value due to it's scarcity. Because of this, changes in gold pricing are due primarily to changes in demand, whereas governments can create new fiat money by simply printing more (or allowing banks to loan more than they actually posses), leading to inflation due to increased supply rather than increased demand.
Gold only has value inasmuch as people give a toss about it.
Not to mention that pegging your currency to a changeable asset is both a bad idea on the face of it but also gives you way fewer tools through monetary policy.
For example, we actually could just print money *right now* as stimulus, and it wouldn't be inflationary because we're in a liquidity trap and suffering a shortfall of demand.
Considering the US dollar has more value in some countries than their own native currency I don't think it being just paper is a realistic real world issue. Gold has the same pitfalls as any other form of currency except because of its scarcity there is now an arbitrary reason why certain countries are more wealthy than others despite not necessarily bringing more to the table. I don't see it as anymore valid than fiat currency personally. With either form of currency people can easily decide it isn't worth the time of day and not want it as financial compensation.
To argue inherent worth just isn't relevant in the real world because it has significant worth in a financial transaction (given the fact that the US dollar is accepted as currency literally everywhere for the most part).