NationStates

Westgard wrote:

PapaJacky wrote:I'm not proving your point, I'm telling you who is to blame for your assumptions on "assassinations without trial". Unfortunately, the only effective argument you can muster is the "atypical lesser-evil liberal" which is more true than not. Unfortunately as well, Obama can't give "trillions" to Wall Street, despite of giving billions to Main Street.

So if my predecessor to my current job murders people, I can do it blame-free? Wow. Cool. Didn't know that.

Love the "But Bush did evil things, so why can't Obama?!" argument.

And Obama has given trillions. Unless you want to argue the Federal Reserve is completely private and the President has no control over them (but that would be conspiracy theory land), after all the Federal Reserve even gave $15 trillion to European Banks during the crisis, more than the ENTIRE US Federal debt combined.

I don't think you're understanding what "blame" means. It's factual to blame Bush jr. for "assassinations without trial". It's also factual to say that such a policy has continued under Obama. It's not factual, as I'm arguing, to blame Obama for "assassinations without trial", as he is not the source of this modern incarnation of it. As for the Fed, that's Ben Bernanke you're referring to.

PapaJacky wrote:

Westgard wrote:
So if my predecessor to my current job murders people, I can do it blame-free? Wow. Cool. Didn't know that.

Love the "But Bush did evil things, so why can't Obama?!" argument.

And Obama has given trillions. Unless you want to argue the Federal Reserve is completely private and the President has no control over them (but that would be conspiracy theory land), after all the Federal Reserve even gave $15 trillion to European Banks during the crisis, more than the ENTIRE US Federal debt combined.

I don't think you're understanding what "blame" means. It's factual to blame Bush jr. for "assassinations without trial". It's also factual to say that such a policy has continued under Obama. It's not factual, as I'm arguing, to blame Obama for "assassinations without trial", as he is not the source of this modern incarnation of it. As for the Fed, that's Ben Bernanke you're referring to.

Anyway, what $15 trillion? The Fed arranged a loan program in case European banks fell into crisis again, so they wouldn't suck the US down with them. No one shipped $15 trillion to Europe. I think that would have made the news.

Farnhamia wrote:Anyway, what $15 trillion? The Fed arranged a loan program in case European banks fell into crisis again, so they wouldn't suck the US down with them. No one shipped $15 trillion to Europe. I think that would have made the news.

Well there's multiple trillions that are hard to account for, if you go to the feds own site and use their info, they show that about $2.1 trillion has been inflated, however it has been in a revolving door with Europe multiple times so it's not necessarily $15 trillion all at once mind you. Still it's unfair for taxpayers to suffer inflation while the fed hands free money to banks to loan out, essentially loaning the citizenry it's own money at interest. It's all just part of the scam of the private bank called the "Federal Reserve". It's as Federal as "Federal Express" (FedEx).

Westgard wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Anyway, what $15 trillion? The Fed arranged a loan program in case European banks fell into crisis again, so they wouldn't suck the US down with them. No one shipped $15 trillion to Europe. I think that would have made the news.

Well there's multiple trillions that are hard to account for, if you go to the feds own site and use their info, they show that about $2.1 trillion has been inflated, however it has been in a revolving door with Europe multiple times so it's not necessarily $15 trillion all at once mind you. Still it's unfair for taxpayers to suffer inflation while the fed hands free money to banks to loan out, essentially loaning the citizenry it's own money at interest. It's all just part of the scam of the private bank called the "Federal Reserve". It's as Federal as "Federal Express" (FedEx).

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson.

Uh huh. President Jefferson never said that. Someone made it up around 1937. And the Fed's not a private bank, though it has aspects of one. All its profits go to the US Treasury. All of them. If you actually researched what the US economy looked like with an unregulated money supply, you'd be appalled at the cycle of boom and bust, a new recession about once a decade, with inflation and deflation beating the crap out of the working man. Nothing like watching the value of your money evaporate.

Westgard wrote:"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson.

He's right, that's why we created the Fed.

Corrected the quote. Here's a verified Jefferson quote that is similar (which is why I didn't realize the other one wasn't since it sounds like him):

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." - Thomas Jefferson

Happy now? Jefferson condemning banks AND deficit spending all in one.

Farnhamia wrote:And the Fed's not a private bank, though it has aspects of one. All its profits go to the US Treasury. All of them. If you actually researched what the US economy looked like with an unregulated money supply, you'd be appalled at the cycle of boom and bust, a new recession about once a decade, with inflation and deflation beating the crap out of the working man. Nothing like watching the value of your money evaporate.

First, the Federal Reserve is a private bank and all it's profits do not go to Treasury. There has never been an external audit of the Federal Reserve so it's speculation to say where all the money goes.

It was in the case Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
The judge ruled the Federal Reserve banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations" and that it could not be considered a federal agency (despite it having federal in the name).

Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve into creation, said this:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

He continues:
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson.

Westgard wrote:Corrected the quote. Here's a verified Jefferson quote that is similar (which is why I didn't realize the other one wasn't since it sounds like him):

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." - Thomas Jefferson

Happy now? Jefferson condemning banks AND deficit spending all in one.

Yes. His complete lack of understanding of how business actually works, probably explains why he was a lawyer, not a businessman.

Westgard wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Anyway, what $15 trillion? The Fed arranged a loan program in case European banks fell into crisis again, so they wouldn't suck the US down with them. No one shipped $15 trillion to Europe. I think that would have made the news.

Well there's multiple trillions that are hard to account for, if you go to the feds own site and use their info, they show that about $2.1 trillion has been inflated, however it has been in a revolving door with Europe multiple times so it's not necessarily $15 trillion all at once mind you. Still it's unfair for taxpayers to suffer inflation while the fed hands free money to banks to loan out, essentially loaning the citizenry it's own money at interest. It's all just part of the scam of the private bank called the "Federal Reserve". It's as Federal as "Federal Express" (FedEx).

I have to this date never heard of any US funds being used for European banks whatsoever and I work for a news agency that concentrates primarily on market news. What source do you have for that ridiculous claim?

Not Safe For Work wrote:

Westgard wrote:Corrected the quote. Here's a verified Jefferson quote that is similar (which is why I didn't realize the other one wasn't since it sounds like him):

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." - Thomas Jefferson

Happy now? Jefferson condemning banks AND deficit spending all in one.

Yes. His complete lack of understanding of how business actually works, probably explains why he was a lawyer, not a businessman.

Aren't the Founding Fathers considered infallible religious figures over in the US, though?

Greater Unicornwall wrote:

Not Safe For Work wrote:
Yes. His complete lack of understanding of how business actually works, probably explains why he was a lawyer, not a businessman.

Aren't the Founding Fathers considered infallible religious figures over in the US, though?

Unless you're talking about religion. Then all their papers, letters, books, pamphlets are all wrong and they're secretly evangelical christians of whatever stripe the audience wants to believe.

Greater Unicornwall wrote:

Not Safe For Work wrote:
Yes. His complete lack of understanding of how business actually works, probably explains why he was a lawyer, not a businessman.

Aren't the Founding Fathers considered infallible religious figures over in the US, though?

For followers of the political religion, yes. Some of us are trying to push against that.

Greater Unicornwall wrote:

Not Safe For Work wrote:
Yes. His complete lack of understanding of how business actually works, probably explains why he was a lawyer, not a businessman.

Aren't the Founding Fathers considered infallible religious figures over in the US, though?

It depends on who you ask. To clarify, ask them what they think about rape, especially when it comes to abortion. If they mention anything regarding "forceable" and have some sort of religious iconography anywhere in the vicinity or on their person, chances are they do think of the founding fathers as sub-dieties....right below the one that uses rape in mysterious ways.

Greater Unicornwall wrote:

Not Safe For Work wrote:
Yes. His complete lack of understanding of how business actually works, probably explains why he was a lawyer, not a businessman.

Aren't the Founding Fathers considered infallible religious figures over in the US, though?

It's... fuzzy.

Here in the Bible Belt, I have met people that believe that both the Bible and the Constitution were dictated by God.

Similarly, here in California I have met plenty of atheists who treat the Constitution (and, scarier, the Declaration of Independence) as essentially received wisdom from the inner core of everything wise and good about humanity. For some of them, the Constitution (and perhaps the DoI) are the first and/or last examples of good government in the history of theory and practice.

Free South Califas wrote:Similarly, here in California I have met plenty of atheists who treat the Constitution (and, scarier, the Declaration of Independence) as essentially received wisdom from the inner core of everything wise and good about humanity. For some of them, the Constitution (and perhaps the DoI) are the first and/or last examples of good government in the history of theory and practice.

It's just enlightenment philosophy. It's pretty good, but imperfect.

98 % of the Germans would vote for Obama

EDIT: according to a statistic*

Not Safe For Work wrote:

Greater Unicornwall wrote:
Aren't the Founding Fathers considered infallible religious figures over in the US, though?

It's... fuzzy.

Here in the Bible Belt, I have met people that believe that both the Bible and the Constitution were dictated by God.

I know constitutional philosophy is a deep topic and pertinent to the debates and all...

But you seem like a rational reasonable person...how the hell have you not gone completely mental and engaged in a killing spree as far south of the Waffle House/IHOP line you are by now?!

Frisivisia wrote:

Free South Califas wrote:Similarly, here in California I have met plenty of atheists who treat the Constitution (and, scarier, the Declaration of Independence) as essentially received wisdom from the inner core of everything wise and good about humanity. For some of them, the Constitution (and perhaps the DoI) are the first and/or last examples of good government in the history of theory and practice.

It's just enlightenment philosophy. It's pretty good, but imperfect.

There's also the whole "structural racism" issue. For some people, it's kind of an every-day-for-centuries thing.

Free South Califas wrote:

Frisivisia wrote:It's just enlightenment philosophy. It's pretty good, but imperfect.

There's also the whole "structural racism" issue. For some people, it's kind of an every-day-for-centuries thing.

The times were different, bro. You can't expect people to be one hundred years ahead of their time socially.

Vredlandia wrote:98 % of the Germans would vote for Obama

EDIT: according to a statistic*

According to another statistic, 98% of statistics are made-up bullshit.

Frisivisia wrote:

Free South Califas wrote:There's also the whole "structural racism" issue. For some people, it's kind of an every-day-for-centuries thing.

The times were different, bro. You can't expect people to be one hundred years ahead of their time socially.

Which people do we have such low expectations for? The world-conquering slave-drivers, or the slaves? If they objected to slavery, were slaves (and Quakers) merely ahead of their time? Gee, what poor luck, to be born before the, you know, people catch up to you.

Romney has performed better in all debates. Barrack Hussein Obama II has just looked like a foolish escaped mental paitent. Spouting incoherent jibberish.

Vredlandia wrote:98 % of the Germans would vote for Obama

EDIT: according to a statistic*

Mind sourcing that?

All I can find so far is very high approval (75-85), but not 98%.

The Caldari Union wrote:Romney has performed better in all debates. B. Hussein Obama II has just looked like a foolish escaped mental paitent. Spouting incoherent jibberish.

American partisan politics is one hell of a drug.

The Caldari Union wrote:Romney has performed better in all debates. Barrack Hussein Obama II has just looked like a foolish escaped mental paitent. Spouting incoherent jibberish.

I'd happily disagree.