[durangotang]

(07-02-2012 05:09 PM)soup Wrote:  

The money exists.

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

It's our money.

Not to derail the conversation, but Soup you are sounding more and more like a sociopath. You have expressed that you don't acknowledge individual rights, now you are expressing that you don't acknowledge property rights.

Your money is what you produce and exchange for. If you want more money, find a need or a want of other people, and satisfy that need. If they voluntarily exchange their money with you because you have satisfied a need or a want of theirs, at a price they can afford, then you both win. Find a way to do this with as many people as possible, and consume less than you produce and you are wealthy. But that takes hard work, now doesn't it. It takes thought, effort, and initiative and even then more hard work.

This video is for you:

[durangotang]

@ManAbout

I never said I was supporting Mitt. If he wins I expect him to behave like a white Obama. When Ron Paul leaves the race officially, we will be left without a viable candidate. I would rather have a first term president worried about re-election than a second term president with no such worries, especially after Obama's failed first term.

It's time for someone else. Anyone else at this point.

[soup]

(07-02-2012 05:41 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 05:09 PM)soup Wrote:  

The money exists.

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

It's our money.

Not to derail the conversation, but Soup you are sounding more and more like a sociopath. You have expressed that you don't acknowledge individual rights, now you are expressing that you don't acknowledge property rights.

Your money is what you produce and exchange for. If you want more money, find a need or a want of other people, and satisfy that need. If they voluntarily exchange their money with you because you have satisfied a need or a want of theirs, at a price they can afford, then you both win. Find a way to do this with as many people as possible, and consume less than you produce and you are wealthy. But that takes hard work, now doesn't it. It takes thought, effort, and initiative and even then more hard work.

This video is for you:

This is for you.

Chill with the name calling.

You keep equating apples and oranges.

I never said anything about not acknowledging individual rights.

There is no absolute system of value beyond people. Value is social. Property doesn't exist without people. Money is just paper.. it's not even that anymore.

We let people get rich far beyond what is necessary to lead a good life, and by enabling this, we effectively deny the basics to others.

[speakeasy]

(07-02-2012 04:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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

Male minorities on welfare? I don't know any man that's ever been on welfare. If you're defining welfare as AFDC/TANF.

Quote:

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.

Lol. White males, the most socially privileged class of people on the face of the planet are now oppressed victims, eh?

[ManAbout]

(07-02-2012 06:12 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

especially after Obama's failed first term.

It's time for someone else. Anyone else at this point.

Umm.. right, since the last Republican president was such a smashing success. Obama inherited a country that was going off the cliff thanks to 8 years of that clown. And Obama is the one with the failed first term? OK, got it.

[durangotang]

(07-02-2012 06:27 PM)soup Wrote:  

...
Chill with the name calling.

You keep equating apples and oranges.

I never said anything about not acknowledging individual rights.

There is no absolute system of value beyond people. Value is social. Property doesn't exist without people. Money is just paper.. it's not even that anymore.

We let people get rich far beyond what is necessary to lead a good life, and by enabling this, we effectively deny the basics to others.

You stated people should not be allowed to reproduce without state permission. What about your body, isn't that valuable to you? Does it not belong to you? That isn't social. You own your body, you own your life, and you own your labor. They are not social. This isn't an ant colony or a bee hive. You are not a faceless drone.

You also own the property you accumulate through voluntary exchange.

"We" have no claim to another's property, but lets pretend you are right for a moment and you want to forcibly take others property above a certain level. Who decides that level? Do you expect people to work for free once they have reached their limit? Do you say, sorry Steve Jobs, but you have accumulated enough wealth now, we are taking everything else you earned. Do you expect him to keep working then?

Don't you want him to create more value for people? In your scenario he would have tapped out in his early 20's and never created Pixar or revitalized Apple.

@ManAbout There is no sense discussing anything with you because for you Obama can do no wrong. Let me ask you the same question I asked someone else earlier; what is Obama responsible for then?

[speakeasy]

(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

Clinton left a balanced budget and projected budget surplus. Bush turned that around 180 degrees. Reality often looks a lot different than Glenn Beck soundbites.

[durangotang]

@Speak, on the last page I left a pretty thorough post about Clinton. Did you read it?

[soup]

A child's body is not your body.

[durangotang]

(07-02-2012 07:00 PM)soup Wrote:  

A child's body is not your body.

I would agree with that. However, most people on the left would not, which is the basis for abortion. You have to ask yourself does life start at the moment of conception or is it after the first trimester as currently defined.

The consent of sex and carrying the child to term is the right of the mother. No woman in America needs to seek permission from the government to have a child. That would be in a sense the ultimate tyranny.

[Samseau]

(07-02-2012 06:27 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-02-2012 04:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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

Male minorities on welfare? I don't know any man that's ever been on welfare. If you're defining welfare as AFDC/TANF.

I'm specifically referring to educational and employment welfare male minorities receive in the form of scholarships and affirmative action programs.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Lol. White males, the most socially privileged class of people on the face of the planet are now oppressed victims, eh?

It's that kind of thinking which will push white males further along toward utter abandonment of this country.

They'll just think to themselves, "They don't appreciate what I do, so why should I care about them?"


But that's what I'm counting on. I don't think white males are going to give up on this America because they'll be treated with love and respect.

I think white males will give up on America for the same reasons most male minorities don't like America:

- The game is rigged
- The women aren't worth it


There's zero sense of community anymore between most whites in this country. The only thing holding Americans together is the dollar.

The dollar is the unit of exchange we all depend on for our power.

As the dollar desolves, either from inflation or bankruptcy, so too will any common bonds holding most whites together.

Money is weak glue.


People forget that countries are not some kind of magical entities where random faces show up and coexist peacefully.

It takes a community who's members are mutually interested in self-preservation.

America used to be a Christian nation with common ties going back to Europe.

Christianity today is pretty much dead. It's a comatose patient now.

None of us here know anything about our ancestors, nor do we care.

There is no more community in America. People were raised to be atomized units functioning wherever needed.

The only thing holding Americans together is the dollar, and it isn't going to last.

[Samseau]

(07-02-2012 06:41 PM)speakeasy 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

Clinton left a balanced budget and projected budget surplus. Bush turned that around 180 degrees. Reality often looks a lot different than Glenn Beck soundbites.

Congress is responsible for setting most of the Federal Budget.

The budget surpluses came in under his second term, when democrats were thrown out of Congress and replaced with Newt Gingrich and other conservative Reagan Republicans.


I'm not a fan of Republicans. But I am a fan of reducing Government spending.

The only ones who have even attempted to make any meaningful reductions of Goverment spending have always been Republicans. The Big-Spender Award always goes to Democrats.

[kerouac]

(07-03-2012 09:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The only ones who have even attempted to make any meaningful reductions of Goverment spending have always been Republicans. The Big-Spender Award always goes to Democrats.

Yes, because Democrats always start money-burning wars that push us back into debt. Yes, because Democrats cut taxes right when they start a massive war, further pushing us into debt. Yes, because Democrats...

Samseau Wrote:

I'm not a fan of Republicans. But I am a fan of reducing Government spending.

So you're one of those so called "Independents" who just happens to side with Republicans on 99% of the issues you actually vote on. That doesn't make you a Republican in any way though.

[Hooligan Harry]

(07-02-2012 06:41 PM)speakeasy 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

Clinton left a balanced budget and projected budget surplus. Bush turned that around 180 degrees. Reality often looks a lot different than Glenn Beck soundbites.

Clinton ushered in an era of global debt that is unmatched at any time in our history. He led the government that set in motion a worldwide economic collapse that is on the horizon that will be so severe they will study this for a 1000 years.

Debt went global, then became social. Social debt will bankrupt countries worldwide in a sovereign debt crisis that is now unavoidable. You are living through it.

People seem to think it was 8 years of Bush that caused the mess. It was not, it was Clintons unhinged deregulation of the markets and Bush walking into 9/11

Context makes his balanced budget look rather iffy I must say.

[ManAbout]

(07-03-2012 09:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm not a fan of Republicans. But I am a fan of reducing Government spending.

If you Republicans are such big fans of reducing government spending then why do you spend trillions of dollars invading a country based on made up intelligence and claim that you are bringing democracy to the Middle East? You don't have money to provide health care to all your citizens and you are going around invading sovereign countries on a whim? Give me a fucking break. You idiots are laughable. The only first world country not to have universal health care, but plenty of money to spend on nation building endeavours. If you don't have money, don't act like you are the big boy on the block. STFU and take care of your country first.

[Hooligan Harry]

(07-03-2012 12:44 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 09:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm not a fan of Republicans. But I am a fan of reducing Government spending.

If you Republicans are such big fans of reducing government spending then why do you spend trillions of dollars invading a country based on made up intelligence and claim that you are bringing democracy to the Middle East? You don't have money to provide health care to all your citizens and you are going around invading sovereign countries on a whim? Give me a fucking break. You idiots are laughable. The only first world country not to have universal health care, but plenty of money to spend on nation building endeavours. If you don't have money, don't act like you are the big boy on the block. STFU and take care of your country first.

To protect your dollar.

Afghanistan was for 9/11, had to happen, no other options.

Iraq was because Saddam was chasing a gold backed currency. If he landed it, you would be sitting with 50% unemployment right now. You stayed in Iraq as long as you had to so that a transition could be made to pro western governments and support for the petrodollar.

[Lemmo]

(07-03-2012 12:44 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 09:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm not a fan of Republicans. But I am a fan of reducing Government spending.

If you Republicans are such big fans of reducing government spending then why do you spend trillions of dollars invading a country based on made up intelligence and claim that you are bringing democracy to the Middle East? You don't have money to provide health care to all your citizens and you are going around invading sovereign countries on a whim? Give me a fucking break. You idiots are laughable. The only first world country not to have universal health care, but plenty of money to spend on nation building endeavours. If you don't have money, don't act like you are the big boy on the block. STFU and take care of your country first.

Plenty of conservatives opposed the war and are generally isolationists (see Pat Buchanan). By the end of his 8 years Bush's big gov/pro-war policies had lost him a lot of support among conservatives. So it is a bit more complicated than just saying Republicans want to spend trillions on wars - really just the neocon leadership that has highjacked the party. I'm old enough to remember when the first Bush ran against Clinton with the argument that Clinton was a liberal who would get us into foreign wars because that was considered a liberal position (nation building).

[durangotang]

(07-03-2012 01:13 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 12:44 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 09:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm not a fan of Republicans. But I am a fan of reducing Government spending.

If you Republicans are such big fans of reducing government spending then why do you spend trillions of dollars invading a country based on made up intelligence and claim that you are bringing democracy to the Middle East? You don't have money to provide health care to all your citizens and you are going around invading sovereign countries on a whim? Give me a fucking break. You idiots are laughable. The only first world country not to have universal health care, but plenty of money to spend on nation building endeavours. If you don't have money, don't act like you are the big boy on the block. STFU and take care of your country first.

Plenty of conservatives opposed the war and are generally isolationists (see Pat Buchanan). By the end of his 8 years Bush's big gov/pro-war policies had lost him a lot of support among conservatives. So it is a bit more complicated than just saying Republicans want to spend trillions on wars - really just the neocon leadership that has highjacked the party. I'm old enough to remember when the first Bush ran against Clinton with the argument that Clinton was a liberal who would get us into foreign wars because that was considered a liberal position (nation building).

Baby Bush also ran on a platform against foreign intervention. He is disgusting, because he lied and had no real principles in this area. This is what republicans voted for in 2000:

[kerouac]

The fact of the matter is, when you're voting for a President, you're not just voting for the man, but his associates as well. When you look at Obama or Romney, you should be looking at who their aides will most likely be.

Bush and their family of Republicans have a set of people they typically go to to fulfill certain positions. When you were voting for GW Bush back in 2000, if you were educated in politics (this is where education shows its importance) you would know that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney follow a certain set of politics.

[speakeasy]

(07-03-2012 12:52 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Iraq was because Saddam was chasing a gold backed currency. If he landed it, you would be sitting with 50% unemployment right now. You stayed in Iraq as long as you had to so that a transition could be made to pro western governments and support for the petrodollar.

Conspiratorial nonsense.

[durangotang]

(07-03-2012 01:41 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

The fact of the matter is, when you're voting for a President, you're not just voting for the man, but his associates as well. When you look at Obama or Romney, you should be looking at who their aides will most likely be.

Bush and their family of Republicans have a set of people they typically go to to fulfill certain positions. When you were voting for GW Bush back in 2000, if you were educated in politics (this is where education shows its importance) you would know that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney follow a certain set of politics.

Thank you educated sir. I did not vote for Bush in 2000.

@speak I suggest you pick up a copy of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins. Iraq had attempted to ditch the petro-dollar, which would have had major repercussions for United States hegemony and our reserve currency status.

Here's an except from linked article:

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/demise-petrodollar

"The Iraq war provides a good example. Until November 2000, no OPEC country had dared to violate the US dollar-pricing rule, and while the US dollar remained the strongest currency in the world there was also little reason to challenge the system. But in late 2000, France and a few other EU members convinced Saddam Hussein to defy the petrodollar process and sell Iraq's oil for food in euros, not dollars. In the time between then and the March 2003 American invasion of Iraq, several other nations hinted at their interest in non-US dollar oil trading, including Russia, Iran, Indonesia, and even Venezuela. In April 2002, Iranian OPEC representative Javad Yarjani was invited to Spain by the EU to deliver a detailed analysis of how OPEC might at some point sell its oil to the EU for euros, not dollars.

This movement, founded in Iraq, was starting to threaten the dominance of the US dollar as the global reserve currency and petro currency. In March 2003, the US invaded Iraq, ending the oil-for-food program and its euro payment program."

My thought is that Saddam didn't feel we had the will to go to war for a second time in Iraq, and a bad precedent was set when he was allowed to stay in power after the first war. If it weren't for 911, he would have been correct.

[Samseau]

(07-03-2012 12:25 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 09:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The only ones who have even attempted to make any meaningful reductions of Goverment spending have always been Republicans. The Big-Spender Award always goes to Democrats.

Yes, because Democrats always start money-burning wars that push us back into debt. Yes, because Democrats cut taxes right when they start a massive war, further pushing us into debt. Yes, because Democrats...

Historically, Democrats are just as pro-war as the Republicans. It's only the last 7 years that the Democrats have used the Iraq War as an issue to gain votes.

Guess what? Obama and his congress hasn't done anything to demilitarize the USA.

Also, most spending is from Democrats.

Kerouac Wrote:

Samseau Wrote:

I'm not a fan of Republicans. But I am a fan of reducing Government spending.

So you're one of those so called "Independents" who just happens to side with Republicans on 99% of the issues you actually vote on. That doesn't make you a Republican in any way though.

No, I vote Libertarian man. I mean I thought that would be obvious.

[WestCoast]

Game lesson learned.

Read this thread to understand why you never talk about politics on dates.

[MikeCF]

(07-03-2012 02:33 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Game lesson learned.

Read this thread to understand why you never talk about politics on dates.

Freemasons don't allow members to talk about politics or religion.

I don't talk either subjects with my friends.

It's all bullshit banter, anyway.

Any guy here gonna change the world with his political views?

Also, most of what we believe is recycled bullshit.

"Oh, you support/oppose gun control? How fascinating!"

[Insert Willy Wonka meme.]

[Samseau]

(07-03-2012 02:33 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Game lesson learned.

Read this thread to understand why you never talk about politics on dates.

I'm pretty sure the aversion to political discussion is a cultural thing. Americans seem to be among some of the most sensitive to political discussions.


In 07' I went traveling through France.
I was staying with a family, when a neighbor rolled in the driveway on his bicycle.

The first thing he said to me was, "Hey man, what do you think George W. Bush?"

No names, no introductions, straight to politics.


Talking about politics in France was like talking about music in America.