[MikeCF]

(07-02-2012 02:45 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Liberalism is the denial of evolutionary biology, yet game as a concept falls flat without it.

Liberalism is the exact opposite.

Liberalism recognizes that there is natural inequality, and that much of this inequality is based on luck rather than inherent virtue.

I was born with a high IQ in a world where IQ is valued. That was luck. Why should I receive unequal rewards for being lucky?

In Somalia, a person who is born with a high IQ but a small body will be raped.

So there is nothing inherently good about IQ.

I got lucky in two ways:
1. I was born with high IQ;
2. I was born into a society that values high IQ.

Why then is it fair for to receive so much because of luck?

[j r]

(07-02-2012 02:08 PM)assman Wrote:  

jr, the Federal Reserve banks are indeed owned by private banks, not the government.

The Creature From Jekyll Island is a good history of the Fed.

Yes, the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are "owned" by private banks, but that ownership doesn't mean what the conspiracy theorists think it means.

Every bank has to keep a certain portion of their deposit base set aside as reserves, which is meant to ensure a certain amount of liquidity in the financial system. Banks keep their reserves on account at the federal reserve and can borrow money from one another at the overnight rate to meet the reserve requirement. "Owning" shares of the Federal Reserve just means that a bank participates in that process and receives a set amount as a dividend every year.

Monetary policy is set by the Board of Governors, which is appointed by the President, and the Federal Open Market Committee, which is composed of the Board of Governors, plus members of the regional fed banks.

[j r]

(07-02-2012 02:15 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 02:13 PM)j r Wrote:  

Ownership of the fed doesn't mean what you think it means.

Stop getting your history from conspiracy theorists.

You've never posted anything that warrants your tone.

Establish some credibility first.

Otherwise you're being all show and no go.

Make your case, player.

There's no tone.

And I am making my case in a very civil manner.

[MikeCF]

(07-02-2012 02:22 PM)j r Wrote:  

Yes, the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are "owned" by private banks, but that ownership doesn't mean what the conspiracy theorists think it means.

Every bank has to keep a certain portion of their deposit base set aside as reserves, which is meant to ensure a certain amount of liquidity in the financial system. Banks keep their reserves on account at the federal reserve and can borrow money from one another at the overnight rate to meet the reserve requirement. "Owning" shares of the Federal Reserve just means that a bank participates in that process and receives a set amount as a dividend every year.

Monetary policy is set by the Board of Governors, which is appointed by the President, and the Federal Open Market Committee, which is composed of the Board of Governors, plus members of the regional fed banks.

I have a conspiracy theory for you.

A guy sat on the board of the New York Fed. He also sat on Goldman Sachs' board.

When he learned that the Fed was going to take action that would benefit Goldman, he bought thousands of shares, profiting millions.

He was never prosecuted for insider trading. He wasn't even sued by the SEC.

The punchline, as you know, is that this actually happened:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139546243981801.html

[WestCoast]

I agree with the majority of this but it really can squash a lot of the conversation by looking at 2 traits that are confused with being "smart" there is just hard work and privledge.

Those born in high class think they are inherintly smart, just no. You got lucky I have no hate on this but it's just true. Try to study when you are homeless, again good luck. No wealthy person will man up and admit to being wealthy. I have worked with kids who have trust funds tell me they are middle class. Get out of here life was a breeze.

The second piece of luck is hard work. Genius is 95% perspiration 5% innovation. You may be born with a hard work gene, roosh is an example.

Anyway, with that said you should always take a hard look at those two pieces when deciding who to take advise from.

You can't control who your family is.
Lucky people are born smart and smart people are born lucky.

(07-02-2012 02:20 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 02:45 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Liberalism is the denial of evolutionary biology, yet game as a concept falls flat without it.

Liberalism is the exact opposite.

Liberalism recognizes that there is natural inequality, and that much of this inequality is based on luck rather than inherent virtue.

I was born with a high IQ in a world where IQ is valued. That was luck. Why should I receive unequal rewards for being lucky?

In Somalia, a person who is born with a high IQ but a small body will be raped.

So there is nothing inherently good about IQ.

I got lucky in two ways:
1. I was born with high IQ;
2. I was born into a society that values high IQ.

Why then is it fair for to receive so much because of luck?

[j r]

(07-02-2012 02:27 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 02:22 PM)j r Wrote:  

Yes, the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are "owned" by private banks, but that ownership doesn't mean what the conspiracy theorists think it means.

Every bank has to keep a certain portion of their deposit base set aside as reserves, which is meant to ensure a certain amount of liquidity in the financial system. Banks keep their reserves on account at the federal reserve and can borrow money from one another at the overnight rate to meet the reserve requirement. "Owning" shares of the Federal Reserve just means that a bank participates in that process and receives a set amount as a dividend every year.

Monetary policy is set by the Board of Governors, which is appointed by the President, and the Federal Open Market Committee, which is composed of the Board of Governors, plus members of the regional fed banks.

I have a conspiracy theory for you.

A guy sat on the board of the New York Fed. He also sat on Goldman Sachs' board.

When he learned that the Fed was going to take action that would benefit Goldman, he bought thousands of shares, profiting millions.

He was never prosecuted for insider trading. He wasn't even sued by the SEC.

The punchline, as you know, is that this actually happened:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139546243981801.html

I'm not defending the present system. If you're going to speak accurately about how to reform the system, then you need to understand how it works. And you're not going to understand how a system works if you're buying into hokey conspiracy theories about Zionist plots to rule the world.

[assman]

(07-02-2012 02:22 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 02:08 PM)assman Wrote:  

jr, the Federal Reserve banks are indeed owned by private banks, not the government.

The Creature From Jekyll Island is a good history of the Fed.

Yes, the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are "owned" by private banks, but that ownership doesn't mean what the conspiracy theorists think it means.

Every bank has to keep a certain portion of their deposit base set aside as reserves, which is meant to ensure a certain amount of liquidity in the financial system. Banks keep their reserves on account at the federal reserve and can borrow money from one another at the overnight rate to meet the reserve requirement. "Owning" shares of the Federal Reserve just means that a bank participates in that process and receives a set amount as a dividend every year.

Monetary policy is set by the Board of Governors, which is appointed by the President, and the Federal Open Market Committee, which is composed of the Board of Governors, plus members of the regional fed banks.

You are being very naive about this. The banks, via the Fed and their lobby (which ensures that with rare exception, e.g., Ron Paul, the politicians do what they want, including appointing Fed Governors that the banks want), control the money supply in this country. I hope I don't need to explain why this makes the Fed the most powerful institution in this country. The Fed is what makes runaway government growth possible.

I'd urge you to read the book I mentioned earlier.

[thegmanifesto]

(07-02-2012 02:13 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Here's a pie chart from the 2010 federal budget.

Lots of conservative spending going on.

Talk of a civil war is funny. If you're starting an army, you need soldiers.

Where are you going to get your soldiers? From the the 66% of Americans who are overweight or obese?

35% of American youth are ineligible to serve in the U.S. Army because they are too fat or sick.

There will be no civil war. There will be debt peonage. The 1% will enslave the 99%. There are plenty of liberals and conservatives in the 1%.

Either find a way to become the 1% in the U.S. or find a way out.

Yeah, it really is all about becoming part of the 1%.

[j r]

(07-02-2012 02:41 PM)assman Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 02:22 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 02:08 PM)assman Wrote:  

jr, the Federal Reserve banks are indeed owned by private banks, not the government.

The Creature From Jekyll Island is a good history of the Fed.

Yes, the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are "owned" by private banks, but that ownership doesn't mean what the conspiracy theorists think it means.

Every bank has to keep a certain portion of their deposit base set aside as reserves, which is meant to ensure a certain amount of liquidity in the financial system. Banks keep their reserves on account at the federal reserve and can borrow money from one another at the overnight rate to meet the reserve requirement. "Owning" shares of the Federal Reserve just means that a bank participates in that process and receives a set amount as a dividend every year.

Monetary policy is set by the Board of Governors, which is appointed by the President, and the Federal Open Market Committee, which is composed of the Board of Governors, plus members of the regional fed banks.

You are being very naive about this. The banks, via the Fed and their lobby (which ensures that with rare exception, e.g., Ron Paul, the politicians do what they want, including appointing Fed Governors that the banks want), control the money supply in this country. I hope I don't need to explain why this makes the Fed the most powerful institution in this country. The Fed is what makes runaway government growth possible.

I'd urge you to read the book I mentioned earlier.

I understand this stuff. It's what I do for a living.

All I am saying is that once you drill down into all this stuff, it's fairly mundane. Yes the, Fed's ability to make monetary policy makes it very influential, but the Fed isn't run by some secret cabal of Jewish bankers. That's the part that I'm objecting to.

Also, you could argue that it's a terrible idea for an unelected body to have the power to set monetary policy, but what would happen if congress had that power? It would be much much worse.

If you want to argue that there shouldn't be a Federal Reserve at all, fine. Personally, I don't agree, but it's a reasonable argument.

[OGNorCal707]

Aside from Hooligan Harry, anyone else notice how some of the most conservative guys on the forum are also some of the least traveled? Correlation? I think so, it's easy to be conservative when you live inside a little bubble, and have been raised with these beliefs your whole life.

BTW, I'm not "bleeding heart liberal", if anything I am a libertarian, I don't like paying taxes, I think the U.S. shouldn't meddle in other countries affairs, but at the same time I am socially liberal, I think a person should be able to take a hit of weed, or a line of coke if that's there thing. I also think a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants. I could continue this rant, but I'll spare you guys....

Think I may start avoiding these political threads, they give me a headache.

[WestCoast]

"Yeah, it really is all about becoming part of the 1%."

REMEMBER: we all have our limitations. Not all of us can be the 1%. Don't be a fool. I love how G and MCF and everyone encourages you to try. But don't think you are going to break in with a 60K a year accounting job in Cincinnati.

Life is about maximizing your long term happiness. Take every day you are happy divide that by the number of days you were unhappy. That's the number you want to maximize.

[durangotang]

(07-02-2012 03:00 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

Aside from Hooligan Harry, anyone else notice how some of the most conservative guys on the forum are also some of the least traveled? Correlation? I think so, it's easy to be conservative when you live inside a little bubble, and have been raised with these beliefs your whole life.

BTW, I'm not "bleeding heart liberal", if anything I am a libertarian, I don't like paying taxes, I think the U.S. shouldn't meddle in other countries affairs, but at the same time I am socially liberal, I think a person should be able to take a hit of weed, or a line of coke if that's there thing. I also think a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants. I could continue this rant, but I'll spare you guys....

Think I may start avoiding these political threads, they give me a headache.

I don't know how you could extrapolate that conservatives on this thread are the least travelled. How many countries have you lived in? I may be presenting a conservative point of view in terms of welfare, but I have stated I supported Ron Paul (I support legalization of drugs), and am in favor of an FDR, RFC type recovery.

Who seems less traveled? Who lives in a bubble? I think you are making blanket statements based upon nothing. Care to elaborate?

[WestCoast]

It was a blanket statement. The issue he is simply addressing is the moving around and just living in a shell. Like going to Rio staying in Copacabana palace, going to Paris staying in 4 seasons etc. I'd be more impressed to see someone who is very conservative try to swoop up a few hipster chicks, a few rocker chicks, a few xyz chicks. But anyway, I'll leave this thread with that, same comment as before I dunno how anyone can wake up and look in the mirror and honestly say people dont deserve food, water, shelter, and health makes me sick to even think someone can have that mindset.

[soup]

Let's get to the 1% of pussy wrangling.

[Samseau]

I don't see anything particularly conservative about the above chart.

Plenty of it is liberal, though.


The military? A historical accident that's been with us since 1941. Since then, usually the military expands when a democrat is in office.

Social Security, the biggest item on the chart, came from FDR.

Medicare and Medicaid, which both came Johnson, should be listed as one item on the chart and make up the biggest slice of the pie.


Conservatives are pussies. They don't stand up to the Liberals. Once the liberals put a new social program into practice, the conservatives never try to remove it.

But let's give credit where it is due - the Big Spender Award goes to democrats, no one can compete with them.



The part about that graph that kills me though - even though the USA is going bankrupt - is that when Liberals see how bloated our government all they do is say,

"LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY WE SPEND! WHY AREN'T WE SPENDING IT ON (insert program here)!"



Seriously, have these guys ever tried to run a business before?

[soup]

There's nothing wrong with spending money on the right thing.

[assman]

(07-02-2012 03:00 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

Aside from Hooligan Harry, anyone else notice how some of the most conservative guys on the forum are also some of the least traveled? Correlation?

Which conservatives are you referring to?

Nearly all the pages in my current passport are full of stamps.

[Samseau]

(07-02-2012 01:57 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 01:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

My biggest issue with Liberals is that they suck with money. Without the vast USA government to exploit, Liberals would have no way of generating cash.


Thank god the USA will go bankrupt. The liberals will be forced to accept economic reality

I strongly disagree. If the USA goes bankrupt who is going to really go up against our military?

Sam love your game posts, love the strong fisted beliefs but I don't even have to ask. You've never been poor.

Seems to be a disconnect between liberals as whack jobs and conservatives as assholes who love money. Again without an even hand it is next to impossible to move up, hands will never be even, but we can at least give every human a shelter, food, water health care. If that's liberal then color me bad with money.

Dude, I grew up on welfare at one point. My Dad (god bless him) isn't very good with cash.

To this day, I spend no more than $50 per week on food. I shop well, eat well, and live well.


Fact: Most conservatives are young poor white men. Don't believe me? Go to a libertarian convention.

Why? Because they don't get shit for handouts from the gov, are forced to take care of themselves, and get taxed up the ass for it.



Women, elderly, and male minorities receive the lions share of welfare in this country.

Technically, it is children who deserve money the most since they've never had a chance, but money is given to the mothers who waste it on bullshit like cell phones and potato chips.


Regardless young white men get shit. They get bitter for having to work all day and receive absolutely no support or thanks for it.

The problem is compounded when there are literally 100 million white betas who work all the time and just get taxed for it. Then, after supporting their country to work against them, their own women won't even date them.

And if they do get married, they'll just get raped in divorce court.


Trust me when I tell you that young white males are wising up to the schemes of the USA. They won't be a dependable source of income 20-30 years from now, when everything we talk about on these forums will be mainstream knowledge.


Eventually, young white males who are the beasts of burden that do all the heavy lifting for the USA (the military, manual labor, all technology and science) are going to become completely corrupt and hateful towards their masters.

It's happened before, plenty of times. Men will stop paying taxes, start doing crime, and show zero loyalty to their country.


I mean, can you blame them?

[Samseau]

(07-02-2012 03:43 PM)soup Wrote:  

There's nothing wrong with spending money on the right thing.

How about spending money you don't have? Is that wrong?

[ManAbout]

(07-02-2012 04:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 03:43 PM)soup Wrote:  

There's nothing wrong with spending money on the right thing.

How about spending money you don't have? Is that wrong?

As I recall Clinton left the country with a balanced budget, or was it a surplus?

[WestCoast]

(07-02-2012 04:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 03:43 PM)soup Wrote:  

There's nothing wrong with spending money on the right thing.

How about spending money you don't have? Is that wrong?

Fair enough if you tuly were on welfare. I ask you how would you have survived if u literally were given nothing?

You'd be dead.

I am not discounting the over spending, but if you can't eat, sleep or drink how can you possibly get a good job later and make it out?

I won't lie, without the government I would not be where I am today. By the same token, the government sets up millions of traps for us... Marriage, marketing etc.

Government is rarely good or bad it's just knowing how to navigate. Things are rarely "good" and "bad"... Except shit like feminism, coca cola, Burger king etc.

[durangotang]

(07-02-2012 04:32 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 04:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 03:43 PM)soup Wrote:  

There's nothing wrong with spending money on the right thing.

How about spending money you don't have? Is that wrong?

As I recall Clinton left the country with a balanced budget, or was it a surplus?

Clinton "balanced the budget" if you include spending all of the social security money - which is causing the largest part of the deficit today. To his credit, that is more than Bush or Obama have done.

Unfortunately Clinton signed NAFTA and GATT, and granted most favorable nation trade status to China. Since then we have lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs per month. He and Greenspan also lowered interest rates, fueling a stock market bubble which crashed (remember the NASDAQ crash in 2000) when Bush was president. Unfortunately Bush kept Greenspan on and Greenspan lowered rates to fuel another bubble, the real estate bubble, instead of taking the pain then for the stock market bubble when it crashed.

Also, and very important, just before Clinton left he signed legislation removing the Glass-Steagal Act which allowed the mixture of commercial and investment banking activities. This fueled a decade long creation of massive amounts of derivates and leveraging of commercial account assets. Can you say mortgage backed securities? This fact more than anything else will lead to our ruin because now the entire banking system is dramatically over leveraged. We are talking 30-to-1, 50-to-1, 100-to-1 type over leverage. There are hundred of trillions of dollars in derivates.

Check out this page of derivates exposure from last year.



As you can see, bailing out these speculative over leveraged banks to attempt to maintain their derivative exposure on the back of the tax payer doesn't work. The US GDP is $14 trillion per year. World GDP is roughly $60 trillion per year. As of last year the top five United States banks had 96% exposure to $250 trillion dollars in derivates. A reimplementation of Glass-Steagal, and a bank holiday like FDR did to separate illegitimate "wealth" (speculation & derivates) from actual commercial and pension accounts is necessary, or the whole system will come down. I covered this solution earlier here (check out the video):

http://larouchepac.com/credit/#.T_IZZO0qNGE

A big thanks to Bill Clinton, the United States congress, the Federal Reserve System, and Wall Street.

The funny thing is that this has all happened before, FDR got us out of it, and all we have to do is follow that example (minus the world war finale). Unfortunately, Glass-Steagal has been reintroduced in congress, but the Obama administration is not at all supportive and is blocking the way. Obama must go.

[soup]

The money exists.

The rich are rich only because we allow them to be.

It's our money.

[Blackhawk]

(07-02-2012 04:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Are going to become completely corrupt and hateful towards their masters.

You know, winning elections isn't that hard.

I would hope before they decide to destroy the system, that they at least attempt to take control of it first.

They have the ability to be their own masters.

[ManAbout]

(07-02-2012 05:01 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

Clinton "balanced the budget" if you include spending all of the social security money - which is causing the largest part of the deficit today.

And Iraq and Afghanistan wars just paid for themselves?

(07-02-2012 05:01 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

A big thanks to Bill Clinton, the United States congress, the Federal Reserve System, and Wall Street.

. Obama must go.

Oh yes, Mitt is really going to whip Wall Street into shape. Kinda like the fox guarding the henhouse.