The World to Come

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Striped Horse, Jan 29, 2019.

  1. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you think a state bank would do better? And the rescuing and picking of winners and losers is the US Congress and the Treasury.
     
  2. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    1,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't where you got all of those quotes but I very much doubt they all came from me unless you went back a couple of years and pasted them all together today.

    In any case, with the info on the table today you can only justify this incident if you are dishonest.

    What you should do is quote this one from me because it is the most applicable.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  3. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    390
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The solution is a seperation of state and the economy, in the same manner and for the same reason as the seperation of church and state.

    Want to stop businesses from buying politicians? Keep the politicians from extorting the most perscuted minority in the world, the American businessman--set the creative mind free from goverment control and you'll be suprised how much wealth can be created.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  4. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of them are from this thread since three days ago, last Friday. Each of your quotes contained a link to the actual post. You are full of it.
     
  5. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was the idea behind creating the FED instead of a National Bank.
     
  6. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Had you read my post before you crafted your reply to it, you would have seen that I did quote that post.
     
  7. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    18,711
    Likes Received:
    4,568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not sure what we need a "central bank" for, honestly. We got along just fine without one, all-powerful, dictatorial central bank from the creation of this country until 1913, when liberal Democrats created the Federal Reserve. Oh, these Democrats did it, ostensibly, to provide 'stability' and 'safety' for the nation's economy... yet less than 20 years later, the country was thrust into a horrific 'Great Depression'. And, it's just been one big, unending 'boom-bust' series of cycles ever since... except that now we've got the Fed running everything.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  8. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    5,278
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're right about GW, but it's tricky to argue that wars in foreign lands benefit the GW.

    I like the rhetoric, but we are not agents of Liberty, we are grateful recipients of her presence. We are not entitled to go out and kill innocent people in her name.

    The establishment of the CIA gave the government the power, not the right, to **** with the rest of the world in Dark Ops, and Harry Truman wrote about it a month after JFK was taken out.
     
  9. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    390
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Point?
     
  10. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    390
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Anyone who voted for Chavez and Maduro aren’t innocent of anything, and they certainly got what they wished for: the end of private wealth.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  11. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Being honest Eleuthera I do not know the American Constitution by heart with its seven articles and its twenty seven amendments.

    Here was my process of dealing with your post (which I apply to 99% of the stuff on here). I approached your question with a question of my own: "is this a serious challenge to a serious question which if I engaged in a little research and entered into the discussion would teach me something?".

    If the answer to that question is "no" then I would probably conclude that this is only a rhetorical question designed to further the US culture war to the benefit of one side or another. It could be a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

    Nearly every time I ask this question I conclude that it's all about culture wars and therefore a crude and unnuanced argument where facts, logic, reason and judgement are all made subservient to a crude cowboys and injuns worldview that is pretty useless for anything other than bashing a lot of people whose values you despise. It's fun for a while but I do feel sorry for the people who spend all their waking hours here...they really do need to get a life.

    Now when I see your question above I am not sure what category it falls into. Is it asked in good faith or is it a rhetorical device? The original question was this:

    So my process is to assess very quickly whether this is a serious question about the US Constitution or just some hobby horse for a culture warrior. So I interpret regime change as most of the wars that the United States is involved in and also any diplomatic or economic activity which is also designed to achieve regime change (i.e. sanctions).

    I am aware that American Presidents of all parties habitually engage in warfare without congressional approval and that this leads to partisan objection (i.e. who objects depends on who is the President).

    So it looks like one of these points on the surface.

    It could also be an "against most wars" point of view from someone who consistently opposes all wars and believe that the whole political class since the second world war has been criminally liable. But again, that is a side issue as the world we live in is not like such a poster would have it. I am aware that such challenges have been defeated in the Courts, which to me is something set up by the Constitution to ensure the balance of powers. So to me it is not central to the subject - it is a theoretical procedural point where the poster could be on a hobby horse.

    I also draw a distinction between supporting a particular player in Venezuela and supporting my own or any other country in declaring war or undertaking military action in pursuit of that objective. So your premise was wholly false anyway as I am not supporting any kind of military action and I do consider that any executive in any country (including the USA) is entitled to pursue diplomatic and non military means to achieve foreign policy objectives.

    If you are asking where this non-warfare kind of regime change is in the Constitution (this could also be "regime change" - you were not specific that it required military action) then we are again in culture war territory as such a question would to me represent an extreme isolationist perspective and a preposterous conclusion. So debating the Constitution for this end would be like medieval clerics debating how many angels could be gathered on the head of a pin.

    Again though I am guessing. Your question was crude and blunt and could be interpreted many ways.

    So now I'm down to "is this a left wing pacifist culture war" challenge or "is it an American First no foreign entanglements" isolationist. Or the new variant of a combination of the two? Is it someone from the Right who uses pedantry and wholly twisted sophistry about the Constitution to gut its meaning and render it a document for eighteenth century farmers, or is it someone from the Left who is trying to catch our anyone they perceive they disagree with by nailing them with the Constitution (a bit like an atheist might nail a Christian bigot with a scriptural quote)?

    Whatever...these are all culture warrior positions...and they derail any discussion about what should now happen in Venezuela.

    But to repeat - I do not think it is justified to engage in military action against Venezuela right now (by any country, constitution or not) and believe that the circumstances that would justify this would have to be far, far more grave than they are at present. So when I see your reply, which tries to open a debate about Venezuela and turn it into a debate about the whole constitutional issue of how a war by the US should be authorised, I detect a culture war as I said above. It may be a wrong decision but I judged that like 99% of posts on here it is likely that you are not really interested in the American Constitution as much as furthering your own side's battle cry. The American Constitution - one of the great milestones of humanity's progress, like the Magna Carta before it - is seldom debated on here with the respect it deserves. It is used to trash the other side with sophistry.

    The prime questions about justification of war (which I am not seeking to do by the way but we could have a hypothetical discussion as to what circumstances are justified) are not procedural. If we were to debate whether certain members of certain executives were acting legally or legally, that may be a fair point. But the discussion was now whether something was justified or not (and I didn't justify any kind of invasion at present), not on the means of achieving it.

    The other part of your post which shouted "culture warrior" was your haste to move to ad hominem attacks on my "knowledge" of something, a conclusion that you cannot possibly reach with the little interaction with me as you have had. This too signified a desire to score a cheap point rather than to enter into a meaningful discussion.

    As I said, these are all judgment calls that could be wrong. If you want to be serious I am still up for it. I can do polemic and culture war too - although I am in a "culture" tribe all on my own usually. One point where I started to reflect following your post was on the Venezuelan Constitution - which I had very little knowledge of. My point on this is much harder to justify. Under this constitution it is very arguable that Maduro has not been legitimately deposed. And in that case the actions of the USA, EU etc are wrong. This Constitution was backed by 72% of the Venezuelan people in 2010. This is more the central point - not the US Constitution.

    My view here is that under Maduro democratic processes were seriously flawed by the marginalisation and persecution of opposition voices. The overwhelming monopolization of state media by the government is also a factor that demonstrates when elected officials become tyrants. Although it does not make the government of Venezuela total illegitimate, my view is it does seriously delegitimise constitutional changes made in such an environment. For me - my values - are that all proportional actions to protect democracy are justified. Everything, including constitutions, are subservient to that. I would argue that I have the founding Fathers with me on that too but that's another debate.

    On this basis - and there is some basis even in the Venezuelan Constitution for this - I do now judge that the corruption and incompetence of the Maduro regime is now strong enough to justify his removal by other, all democratically elected, parts of the Venezuelan State to organise new elections. If this is supported by non-military means by nations with free and open societies, that can only be a good thing.

    There... I paid you the respect of a long reply. I wonder how you will reciprocate.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019 at 12:07 AM
    Eleuthera likes this.
  12. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    1,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ???
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019 at 12:03 AM
  13. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    1,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are getting yourself worked into a lather. Maybe blocking me will give you relief from what ails you.
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    5,278
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Holy Cow, you DO work for the Ministry of Propaganda.

    Yes, yes, the democratic process is valid only in the US. Others are imposters. LOL
     
    alexa likes this.
  15. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    1,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fun watchin em run circles around themselves
     
    scarlet witch likes this.
  16. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ?????Well, there was the First Bank of the US from 1791 -1811. The 2nd Bank of the US from 1816-1836. There was a period from 1837-1862 when there was no National Bank, which meant there were only the many different State Banks. Average lifespan for a bank was about 5 years, half of them failed. And then 1863-1913 we had the many National Banks.
     
  17. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I don't expect much other than a steady stream of BS from you.
     
  18. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He didn't say it wasn't valid. He said the people who voted for what they got, are responsible for what they got.
     
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    5,278
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My question to you was both an honest question and a rhetorical device.

    If you do not know that part of the document that authorizes the government to overthrow legitimately elected governments around the world, I'm not surprised because THERE IS NO SUCH AUTHORIZATION in the document. And that is the goal of the rhetoric--to have you realize there is no authorization for the federal government to overthrow others. Plain and simple.

    Thus our efforts against Venezuela and 55 other countries around the world are illegal, and often result in military aggression, a crime under treaties to which we are signatory.
     
    alexa likes this.
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    5,278
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True, just as we in the US have the government we deserve. We agree.

    The real issue is the US role in overthrowing legitimate though imperfect governments.
     

Share This Page