RE: The evolution of political discourse (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Owner59 -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/8/2008 10:49:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: orfunboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: christine1

i could go look up a bunch of quotes from famous people in history myself and get the complete opposite statements you did...what's your point?


I guess some people can't get their minds off the man. I notice it in other threads too. Doesn't matter what the subject is, they drag Bush in some how. At least this one started off that way, so it won't get high jacked.

Funny,people on a political thread ,complaining about political discourse in political threads.

Do you complain about the fishy smell on your hands after fishing?

You don`t have to fish,ya know.lol



I long for the heady days, when political discourse was about a bj or travel office firings or important stuff like that.

This death,debt and gas price disaster stuff is getting old.

The blame isn`t only aimed at Bush.

"McCain blames Obama for high gas prices".

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-ad-blames-obama-for-gas-prices/

Maybe if Obama was as much a fuck up as the bushies are,folks would feel sorry for him too, when it was pointed out or mentioned on a message board.<snicker>

It`s working for Bush.



DomKen -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/8/2008 11:31:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Let's put it this way, if silver skyrocketed, like many people think it will, would we see dramatic price reductions at the grocery store, the DIY, and at the gas pump ? No. With exceptions. Domestic production would keep an even keel, but the exceptions are many because we import almost everything that really matters in the economy.

This shows a serious misunderstanding of the issue and that means its going to be hard to continue.

If the commodity the dollar was pegged to gained or lost relative value the dollar would experience roughly the same effect though delayed. The guy at the gas station isn't going to change his prices immediately but if the change in value is significant, as happened with Silver in the late 70's or is happening with oil right now, the buying power of the dollar, inside the US, would be stable while the buying power of the commodity in the rest of the world would go up dramatically. This creates an incentive to redeem the money for the promised commodity. which causes a shrinkage in the money supply which leads to deflation. Because we haven't seen it recently most people don't understand how devestating even very low deflation rates can be over the long term. To understand that you need to consider the classic farm economy. In the spring the farmer takes out a loan for seed and operating expenses that is due at harvest. The maximum amount of the loan is obviously tied to the expected value of the crop. If prices are deflating, even by a very low amount 1%/year or less, the loanvalue of the crop is lower at harvest than it would have been at planting while the input items to the crop, seed, labor, equipment etc., was paid for at higher prices which means the farm is now operating on a much reduced margin. This was by itself enough to drive people into bankruptcy particulary during the long post Civil War deflationary period.

The primary means of preventing this sort of thing is for all currency to be tied to the same commodity. This is where Fort Knox and similiar facilties came in handy so that various nations gold reserves could held at the same site and payments betwen nations could be handled by a guy with a forklift. Then someone realized that everybody pegging their currecny to gold wasn't much different than everybody pegging their money to nothing as long as sensible monetary policy was followed. And the nations of the world converted to fiat money and the developed world has by and large done just fine.
quote:

I will agree to disagree, but we really don't disagree on everything. And thank you for the flattery. Comparing me to Castro is flattery to me.

Castro was known for the amazingly long and tedious speeches he gave. Not something I'd desire to be compared to.



UncleNasty -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/8/2008 2:32:31 PM)

DomKen,

It appears you are unable to disagree with someone and carry on discourse without resorting to insults, personal attacks and threats. This is not the first time you have given yourself over to a childish fit and aimed insults at me merely because I have expressed something you don't agree with. In this thread you've done same with two people, myself and Termyn8or. I must admit to befuddlement regarding how you see such behavior being productive.

Uncle Nasty



cloudboy -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/8/2008 2:39:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

DomKen,

It appears you are unable to disagree with someone and carry on discourse without resorting to insults, personal attacks and threats. This is not the first time you have given yourself over to a childish fit and aimed insults at me merely because I have expressed something you don't agree with. In this thread you've done same with two people, myself and Termyn8or. I must admit to befuddlement regarding how you see such behavior being productive.

Uncle Nasty


I'm sorry, DomKen is merely effectively arguing a position. Any poster worth his salt is going to have an edge, remove all such edges and you have a boring MB.

Why don't you respond to the content of his posts, because they are full of information.



UncleNasty -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/8/2008 3:29:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

DomKen,

It appears you are unable to disagree with someone and carry on discourse without resorting to insults, personal attacks and threats. This is not the first time you have given yourself over to a childish fit and aimed insults at me merely because I have expressed something you don't agree with. In this thread you've done same with two people, myself and Termyn8or. I must admit to befuddlement regarding how you see such behavior being productive.

Uncle Nasty


I'm sorry, DomKen is merely effectively arguing a position. Any poster worth his salt is going to have an edge, remove all such edges and you have a boring MB.

Why don't you respond to the content of his posts, because they are full of information.


Because the content of his posts frequently includes insult, personal attacks and threats I am responding to content in his posts.

Typically, effective communication ends when one party or the other feels some slight or reproach, or when one party or the other intends such. Were he truly "effictively arguing a position" then antics of that nature would not be necessary.

Truth carries the day on its own merits. It isn't in need of diversionary tactics.

Uncle Nasty



DomKen -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/8/2008 4:07:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

DomKen,

It appears you are unable to disagree with someone and carry on discourse without resorting to insults, personal attacks and threats. This is not the first time you have given yourself over to a childish fit and aimed insults at me merely because I have expressed something you don't agree with. In this thread you've done same with two people, myself and Termyn8or. I must admit to befuddlement regarding how you see such behavior being productive.

Uncle Nasty

You stated as facts things that were simply wrong. Not a little detail wrong but spectacularly wrong so as to indicate that you'd listened to fraudsters in the tax evasion industry for your information on monetary theory.

I said so. That I offended you is simply too bad. You were shoveling BS as if it was true and this wasn't the first time. I'll continue pointing out when you or anybody flat out makes stuff up or relies on fraudulent sources to spew untrue "facts."

Now if you actually want to discuss monetary theory I'll be happy to. Tt is a bit of a hobby of mine but don't expect me to accept the stuff you were shoveling up thread.

Although before we continue you need to understand making claims about the US going to strictly fiat money in 1913 will be met with demands for references especially since I'm staring right at a 1957 silver certificate one dollar bill as I write this.

Another incorrect statement in that original post is that a private corporation creates our currency. That would probably come as something of a shock to the US government employees at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing who manufacture the paper money and those at the US Mint who produce the coinage.

Maybe you'd care to acknowledge these mistakes made no doubt by believing which ever tax protestor site you drew this info from or you could continue to whine about how I was mean when I pointed out just the worst misstatements in your first post.



UncleNasty -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/8/2008 6:39:34 PM)

DomKen,

Dude, you need to relax and eat some fruit or something.

I'm willing to embark on just about any adventure or discussion with just about anyone - but only in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Not inordinate or undue respect. Just basic human respect. When you lead with insults as a standard procedure and way of relating you demonstrate clearly that you don't respect others - as Berne illustrated some years back a life position of "I'm OK You're not OK."

The insults and aspersions you are so quick to cast are of no effect and I really take no offense. I just consider the source. It is a bit over the top, and self aggrandizing, for you to believe I have any interest in complying with demands you futiley make over a keyboard, screen and net connection. I have to admit though, the language was entertaining, "...will be met with demands..."

I really don't care which of us has the bigger dick, or can piss farther. I don't derive my senses of value or worth from your approval, or lack thereof.

The truth of the issue, and each of our positions and knowledge, is probably more like this: We've both studied the issue and both of us have probably come across a lot of truth. We've both probably made some mistakes and we both probably believe some things to be true that aren't. Yogi Berra said it quite eloquently, "It ain't what you know, its whatcha know that just ain't so." 

I've never met anyone that I consider to be THE ARBITER OF TRUTH. I make no claims of being that myself. I'm also certain that you aren't it either.

Most sincerely,

Uncle Nasty






DomKen -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/8/2008 9:14:32 PM)

You're upset that someone called you on spewing BS. Stop doing that or get used to it happening.

You claimed the US has had fiat currency since 1913, 95 years ago, which is of course untrue. We were printing and distributing silver certificates until 1957 and in reality until 1971 when the Breton Woods aggreement collapsed the dollar was pegged to and convertible to gold. Now I only have a bachelors in mathematics so maybe I'm doing it wrong but 2008 - 1971 doesn't equal 95.

You said a private company creates our currency. As I pointed out the US Mint and the BEP actually do that and both are Department of the Treasury entities.

You then tried to make some claims about article I sections 8 and 10 and tried to use that as the basis for claiming the dollar as it is now isn't "real" money, a fairly common lie passed around the tax protester movement and when used by someone is diagnostic of them being exposed to these sources. The fact is the Congress did and does authorize the Department of the Treasury to make currency by line item appropriation every year as well as all sorts of enabling legislation. Furthermore no state has made any laws regarding what is or isn't legal tender so section 10 is moot.

You then try and claim that the Mint and Coinage Act of 1792 is the defining law of the US monetary system. Now maybe you don't understand that later laws my supercede earlier laws or you were trying to deceive. I truly don't know which but this statement was at best a non sequitur.

You then made claims against the Secret Service as if preventing counterfeiting was somehow a bad thing. The puzzling thing about that is the line of Article I section 8 of the Constitution immediately after the one you quoted states "To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States." Now perhaps you were trotting out one or another tax protester lie here about the Secret Service but it got confused in you attack and outright mistake about the Federal Reserve System.

You then claim that inflation would not occur under a hard currency, your restaurant example, when ample facts of history disprove that contention.

I didn't attempt to source your quotes by the Founders but I hope you made sure of your sources before using those quotes.

So basically your post contained some quotes that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on and a bunch of miststatements.



Termyn8or -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 9:57:11 AM)

There are alot of people in the world who are never wrong. I am not one of them. These minor barbs thrown out here are not what I consider insults. If you want insults I am an expert at it, in fact I do it inadvertently at times.

Anyway, enough discourse about the discourse itself.

I had forgotten about the silver certificates even though I have a couple. But if I were to go get one out of the safe and read what is written on it, I believe it says something like "is redeemable for lawful money". Now the modern bills say "is legal tender".

The government declared a national banking holiday so that people could not get their money out.

The government made it illegal for private citizens to own gold for a time.

These facts taken together indicate something. I believe the problem here is that people have different definitions of money. Money is a medium of exchange, and it only works because it is agreed upon. Even gold. The common Man has very little use for gold. You can't eat it, it is too soft to make tools or weapons, so the same thing that can be said about currency can be said of gold, it is practically worthless.

It is only worth something because we agree it is worth something.

I saw an ad, yes it was for gold, that demonstrated something that interested me. I don't remember the other year they used but they used one from the past, and a current one. What it said is that the same amount of gold that could buy a new car then could buy a new car today. I didn't do the math, but I suspect it is true. It does seem about right actually, if someone cared to research it I would be all ears.

It could be argued that currency is more valuable than gold. Ever try to buy a car with gold ? Pay the bills with gold ? Buy groceries with gold ? They are not equipped to accept it and I don't even think the banks are, except if you want to put it in a safety desposit box. So you would have to find somebody to buy the gold for currency to actually use it.

So does that make currency more valuable than gold ? That argument would seem to prove it, but...... We are living in a time when money in the bank is almost the worst thing to have. Every year it is worth a bit less. Of course it has had some minor rebounds here and there, but in the long run you lose.

So, what is money ? As usual more questions than answers. Do we trust wiki for the definition or do we have our own opinion ? I think the latter is true. More importantly, which definition counts ? And to whom ?

In closing, I will end this post because I don't want to get like Castro. I was aware of his speeches. But he and Chavez basically told the US government to go pound salt. I would have done the same.

With that I yield the floor.

T



celticlord2112 -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 10:11:17 AM)

quote:


I want a president who believes war is wrong; people should be fed, educated and cared for; and the planet should be cared for. I don't see that president on this years ballot.

I want a President who understands that his sole sworn duty as President is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

I want a President who will happily wage war when necessary in discharging that duty. 

I want a President who will happily broker peace when the reasons for war are done.

I want a President who grasps that a man does not need to be fed; a man merely needs folks (i.e., government) to leave him be to feed himself and his household.

I want a President who understands that government is at best a necessary evil, and even then is more evil than necessary.

I am not going to get what I want this election cycle.  I continue to want, however--and to hope.



DomKen -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 10:30:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

There are alot of people in the world who are never wrong. I am not one of them. These minor barbs thrown out here are not what I consider insults. If you want insults I am an expert at it, in fact I do it inadvertently at times.

Anyway, enough discourse about the discourse itself.

I had forgotten about the silver certificates even though I have a couple. But if I were to go get one out of the safe and read what is written on it, I believe it says something like "is redeemable for lawful money". Now the modern bills say "is legal tender".

The wording on mine is "This certificate is legal tender for all debts public and private" Wikipedia has a picture of a couple of silver certificates and they all have wording identical to mine.
quote:

The government declared a national banking holiday so that people could not get their money out.

The bank holiday was part of FDR's plan to restore confidence in the banking system. The banks closed for four days while federal auditors examined the books and determined which were solvent and could reopen and which weren't and would be closed. This helped put an end to the bank panics and runs which were making the Great Depression even worse and was threatening to bring the entire economy down.

I know a lot of sinister motivations have been placed on this action by the conspiracy folks but the facts of history are quite clear on both why it was needed and what it accomplished.

quote:

The government made it illegal for private citizens to own gold for a time.

These facts taken together indicate something. I believe the problem here is that people have different definitions of money. Money is a medium of exchange, and it only works because it is agreed upon. Even gold. The common Man has very little use for gold. You can't eat it, it is too soft to make tools or weapons, so the same thing that can be said about currency can be said of gold, it is practically worthless.

FDR made gold ownership illegal in an attempt to keep banks and the Treasury solvent and to slow/stop deflation. If you look up thread you can find where I describe what happens if the commodity a currency is pegged becomes more valuable than the currency. People will simply exchange it for the commodity. Which is precisely what happened in the early 1930's. Britain was forced off the gold standard by speculators manipulating currency prices in the face of the Great Depression and the US was in serious trouble. Deflation during this period was about 10%/year and that sort of economic catastrophe is virtually unimaginable today.

FDR solved the problem, not particular well mind you but solve it he did, by forcing americans to sell their gold to the Treasury at about $20/ounce and afterwards pegging the dollar to $35/ounce, an immediate 40+% devaluation of the dollar.

Just as an interesting trivia federal law makes any contract specifying renumeration in some specific quantity of gold invalid which is a result of dealing with the consequences of forbidding US citizens from owning gold.



DomKen -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 10:32:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
I want a President who will happily wage war when necessary in discharging that duty. 

I hope we never again have a president who is happy to wage war. Sending Americans into combat is not something that should be easy or pleasing.



celticlord2112 -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 10:43:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
I want a President who will happily wage war when necessary in discharging that duty. 

I hope we never again have a president who is happy to wage war. Sending Americans into combat is not something that should be easy or pleasing.

Pleasing? Absolutely not.  But if war is what's needed to defend the Constitution, then absolutely the President should be happy to discharge his duty. 

Reluctant leadership is a contradiction in terms.



popeye1250 -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 11:26:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:


I want a president who believes war is wrong; people should be fed, educated and cared for; and the planet should be cared for. I don't see that president on this years ballot.

I want a President who understands that his sole sworn duty as President is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

I want a President who will happily wage war when necessary in discharging that duty. 

I want a President who will happily broker peace when the reasons for war are done.

I want a President who grasps that a man does not need to be fed; a man merely needs folks (i.e., government) to leave him be to feed himself and his household.

I want a President who understands that government is at best a necessary evil, and even then is more evil than necessary.

I am not going to get what I want this election cycle.  I continue to want, however--and to hope.



Yup, that's the order of things.



Termyn8or -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 5:29:13 PM)

DK, you have defined the reasons for those actions like a text book, which we "know" never lie. I do not accept that, and even if I did, I don't think it was OK.

Even if I accept all you said, what they did was to protect the rich at the cost of the poor, and that is not OK with me. That is not their job, but it is really. They are controlled by big money, and they will protect big money. There is not a damn thing we can do about it either. But published facts are not always the whole truth.

You seem to be well read on the subject, but it is all what the establishment wants you to believe. You make it illegal for people to take their money out of the bank, and you make it illegal to own gold ? That is pure and simple taking away people's rights to defend themselves financially. And it is something that was caused by the "buddies" of the government. The depression was not caused by some stockbroker getting bit by a mosquito and pushing the wrong button or making the wrong call.

It was caused by the big players. The stock market is and always has been a scam. It is an open scam, but people have spirit and they want to play. They think they can play with the big boys, but they can't. And the system preys on them.

Think of it this way, you get into the stock market it is as if you are sitting down at a table to play poker, you come in all cocky with your million, but your opponents have billions. And it is a high stakes game, you can get raised off the table in notime if they please. Playing is a disadvantage, to the point where playing the game would be stupid. I could do it, but I am not stupid.

The other problem is that the dividends come from the pockets of the customer. That fuels inflation and does nobody any good. Now we are in a situation where there are many retirement funds vested in it. You want to let our old people starve ? So there is no way out.

You define the trap we are caught in, but none of us can offer a solution. I like to think myself a problem solver, but I am coming up short on this one. Usually I can find a solution that though it is so drastic it may never be implemented, but in this case I have none. They control us.

They will continue to control us until we break our addiction to money. And that addiction is very strong. I have no solution and neither do you. Just ride the storm out. What will be will be. Fuck all this shit about where money came from, we have contemporary problems that are going to require contemporary means to solve, if they can be solved at all.

I don't subscibe to these people who say that you don't have to pay taxes because the money is not real. That means nothing. When my time comes with them I have alot more powerful shit, and some of these theories are plain bullshit. I don't like bullshit. I don't have any desire to tango with them, but if they have to fuck with me, fine.

Thing is, the US economy is going to collapse unless we do many specific and not so pleasant things. That is a fact. When ? Anybody's guess. I firmly believe that we would be better off today if they had let it happen back in 1929.

Case in point, somewhat hypothetical but very possible. You are retired from a steel mill or something, you bitch about gasoline prices, but your own retirement fund is vested in oil futures, which is one of the primary things fueling the price increase. You get your couple grand a month, until it bellies up. Then they either shut it down or the tax money bails them out. But in the interim, the fund managers and directors got all kind of bonuses.

Even banks, some of them only operate on like three percent or less capitalization. You deposit money and might get what, one or two percent ? But the bank invests that money in high yield ventures, which are also high risk. If it falls on it's face, the government will always bail them out WITH OUR MONEY. So they have impunity.

It's called fractional banking. They invest so much of depositors' money that they have none to loan. They have to borrow it, and it ultimately came from a stroke of a pen at the Federal Reserve. They make their money on the spread between what they are paying interest, and what they are charging the customer. All the time making money on your money. And if they blow it, there is always the FDIC, FSLIC (which are also private companies funded by tax dollars) to bail them out.

Do you think that's OK ?

T



DomKen -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 6:28:57 PM)

Look I've heard all the conspiracy theories. You really don't need to repeat them.

Let me make some things clear you're fuzzy on. The bank holiday was 4 days and wasn't a surprise. People didn't go hungry due to the bank holiday unless they were going to go hungryeven with the holdiay. 2/3rds of the banks reopened the rest were insolvent and voluminous documentary evidence exists proving that fact.

As to the taking of gold, who do you think it hit? The common person didn't own much if any gold and what he had was likely a gold coin or two. The wealthy got hammered by this. Anyone who thinks the wealthy elite came out of the Great Depression unscathed is seriously misinformed. It is trivial to find the old mansion suburbs of any of the rust belt cities and look into what happened to the various tycoons of industry who were completely wiped out by the Great Depression.

As to the whole thing only benefitting the stock market and futures guys. Nothing could be further from the truth. sure the deflationary period of 1930 to 33 hit the markets hard but it killed the small businesses and farm owners. Try and wrap you head around 10% per year deflation. Your pro hard currency source likely ignore that very real consequnce of having money directly convertible to any commodity.

Now to ignore your ramblings and make a point, you tend to claim or try and imply in a significant number of posts that you have some otherwise unavailable source of knowledge that is somehow better than anyone elses. That doesn't fly with me. You've tossed out any number of complete whoppers that I've called you on and you always retreat to this "well I know the real truth" BS. I'm going to keep calling you on them and if you keep it up I can easily enough start posting links to the conspiracy loon websites you draw this stuff from. So in short save me some effort and you some embarassment and don't try this tactic with me again.



Hanable -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 7:07:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

I want a President who understands that his sole sworn duty as President is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

I want a President who will happily wage war when necessary in discharging that duty. 

I want a President who will happily broker peace when the reasons for war are done.

I want a President who grasps that a man does not need to be fed; a man merely needs folks (i.e., government) to leave him be to feed himself and his household.

I want a President who understands that government is at best a necessary evil, and even then is more evil than necessary.

I am not going to get what I want this election cycle.  I continue to want, however--and to hope.



agreed... i want/hope/pray for a pres that knows what he must do and dosent care what the annoying lobbiests want. IMHO i think most/all lobbiests need to be hog tied and gaged till after the electionis over. they do nothing but cause problems and headaches.

H >:)



Owner59 -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 8:10:21 PM)

 




Sending our GI`s to war should be the very last resort and shouldn`t be done recklessly,as the neo-cons have done in the middle east.

Anything less, is an abuse of our GIs and their pledge to serve.

The neo-cons at their beginning(mid to late '90's),advocated the use of our military to secure strategic energy supplies around the world.Ie. war for oil and use/exploitation of our nation`s military for private enterprise.

This was before Bush took office and un-wittingly(or not) loosed PNAC`s neo-conservatives on our nation.Imo,the lives of our GIs are not line-items,like a tank,truck or dollar and shouldn`t  be treated so.


The costly Iraq mis-adventure is a mess that a post-Bush America will have to deal with.Our kids will be paying for this ,maybe our grandkids.

Iraq has also harmed the real fight against terrorism,in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr. Obama wants to raise troop levels there,which will get our NATO allies to up their numbers too.


One of many intelligent and reasonable suggestions, Mr Obama`s made.Doesn`t sound like a shallow politician blowing smoke or trying to be popular.



celticlord2112 -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/9/2008 9:35:52 PM)

quote:

Iraq has also harmed the real fight against terrorism,in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
That is debatable at best.  It is certain that Al Qaeda adventurism in Iraq backfired on them.  Al Qaeda is hardly the terrorist power broker of 2001, and their overplaying of their hand in Iraq has played a role in that decline.

quote:

Mr. Obama wants to raise troop levels there,which will get our NATO allies to up their numbers too.

Sounds wonderful.....but wait...the "surge" in Iraq was doomed from the start according to Obama.  You can go dig up the Youtube link yourself for his actual words, but he is on record as saying that the troop surge would only make matters worse in Iraq.  So now he wants to implement the "surge" in Afghanistan.

Repackaging a strategy he dismissed as disastrous is not the sign of a shallow, smoke-blowing, political hack?

Obama also said he would invade Pakistan--a nation who is America's presumptive ally in the war on terror (not to mention a nuclear power).

In summary:
  1. The "surge" in Iraq failed.  A "surge" in Afghanistan will succeed.
  2. Invading our allies is a sound strategy for taking on terrorists.
This is intelligent and reasonable?  Hardly.  The kindest assessment is Obama blowing smoke.



Termyn8or -> RE: The evolution of political discourse (8/10/2008 7:16:54 AM)

DK, I am to the point of dropping the subject. You accuse me of claiming to have some superior source of knowledge when that is simply not true. To that I say this - Don't read between the lines, just read the lines.

Everybody knows if you get the flu to go to the doctor and get some pills. I got the flu many years ago along with the accompanying pneumonia. I took no pills. People told me I was nuts and threatened to drag me to the hospital, and I told them flat out "If you do that you better hope I die there because if I live I am going to kill you". Well they backed of and guess what, I lived anyway. If you get a headache you need an aspirin, common knowledge right ? Bullshit.

What I am saying is that you have the establishment view of the topic, and that is why I would just as soon drop it. You disagree with me but you rarely disagree with the facts, you mainly disagree with my, and others' conclusions based on the exact same facts. You claim to know WHY they did things when these things happened before any of us were born.

The fact is you are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you, so I propose we drop it here. It seems someone else is trying to get in edgewise and to be polite, I would like to stop polluting this thread with all the talk about value of money, origin of money, how they get the money. It's just not working. Oh, and some people did get very rich because of the depression, that is a fact. But see here I go starting again.

But this whole subject is deteriorating. I have once said one thing about you, which was that you don't understand what a fiat currency is. Yet you claim that I claim to have some sort of superior knowledge and have indicated other things more than once. I have learned not to address the addressor with such things as they are counterproductive.

If you would really like to hash out the money situation, start a thread, I will surely be there. We can argue until the cows come home, or actually until the cows die. We can bring in all the cites and quotes in the world, ad infinitum. However I don't think this thread was intended to talk about money exclusively.

DK, you like to argue, and so do I. Except for the occasional barb here and there you have been civil. We can do this in another thread, but I think that we have monopolized (duopolized ?) this one long enough. Let some of these other people get in here edgewise. Do you even remember the OP at this point ?

I do but I must admit that I had to go reread it the other day. It has a bunch of quotes from days of yore, and then from George, "There are alot of numbers in it". I don't think that was meant to spur on a conversation about the budget, and money, the creation thereof and whatever else.

I don't think we hijacked the thread (read the notice from Mod11) because money does play an important role in politics, but I think to further our arguments on this thread would be wrong. Like derailing it. The OP has probably already abandoned it. Do you want that ? If you started a thread and this happened would you like it ?

Now watch, we can go start a thread, go at each other about money, scan documents, give all kinds of links and quotes, do it all. And then others will pollute that thread with political ideas. We will have to put up with it.

I have stated publicly that you seem to be well read on the subject, and also that you reminded me of a couple of things I had forgotten. I forgot all about Breton Woods, and even though I actually have some silver certificates, I completely forgot about them. That was a good point, and you may have noticed that I have not responded to that point. When I have a response, you will be the first to know.

As much as we have said about the subject of money, I think thusfar it is OK, because it is part of it, but I want to hear what others have to say. Money was not the point of this thread.

You can start the other thread or I will. If I send you a scanned document would you trust me if I told you that I saw the original and it had the state seal on it ? That it was a certified copy that came from the government ? Or would you say that I am lying ?

Now I am going to go back and read this thread again, ignoring this part of it. I want to see what others think, that's what a DF is about. We could have had our argument about money in email.

T



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875