RE: The US and guns

RE: The US and guns (Full Version)

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

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 10:55:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Crappy & Rule - appols for long reply I can't speak for NG or anyone else but I think this issue of guns is a case of each side of the Atlantic being almost extreme opposites and therefore having empathy for the alternative view is difficult. I appreciate you're trying to put a balanced position forward and it is an admirable position to take. As you mentioned my name Dtesmoac and empathy I'll make a point clear. I don't really have a view either way on the rights and wrongs of gun ownership. My question was more around why it is seen as such a right to hang onto. In fact, I stated that I do empathise with the notion it is a civil liberty to hang onto - a point that has been lost in the drama. Plenty of posters have had the courtesy to put together a constructive response. My mistake was to reply to the wrong people expecting to dig further when it's simply turned out to be an exercise in treading on egg shells. From my point of view, lesson learned on the posters to respond to i.e. the ones who will not take a question and a little bit more digging as personal insults. Most people in the UK grow up never seeing or using a live fire arm. Shootings on the news are extremely rare and until a few years ago even in crimes firearms were rearely used. The Hungerford incident xxx years ago highlighted how un-prepared the UK police were for fire arm crime and that has been rectified but at core most Brits grow up with an experience of fire arms being Shotguns for Farmers and Pheasent shooting (if wealthy enough), the odd corporate Clay Pidgeon shoot etc. If you are in one of the Service Cadet forces as a teenager you may fire rifles occasionally. Therefore your starting point for what is sane (and normal) is no guns. In the US I find almost the opposite with some people being incredulous that children & particulalrly adults have no knowledge or interest in guns. Try explaining to a life long veggie why meat tastes so good... similar cmmunication and basis of logic issue...! I suspect that NGs persepective of what constituets fascism will be different from yours. I would be considered by many in the UK to be farely rught wing but am constantly amazed at how extreme right wing I find some "norms" in the US, particulalry on radio stations. The right to vote is different from a right to an effective vote. The right to vote was denied numbers of people in Florida (??? correct me please) which reulted in Bush and not Gore comming into office 2 US ellections ago, do those people have the right to go onto the streets with their legal fire arms and start shooting?? NB to illustrate my point on one of the threads I was described as being "socialist today" but in the past in person I have been accused of being a fascist. I fight with the means necessary and proportionate to the situation, that does not mean I wish to walk around carrying a gun all the time.

CrappyDom -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 11:14:03 AM)
Look at Japan, a country where firearm ownership is again relegated to the very rich. They however have a thriving industry devoted to making fake weapons. They aren't Americans and yet they have a fascination as well.

LadyEllen -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 11:42:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen NG - Yes, I would like to debate with you. Well, stating that I want "people to step forward and prove they're Nazis" is hardly going to make me interested in a debate" A while back I said as much - and I also said it was unfair that you are the one who starts threads, positing ideas to improve life (not so much with this one, but certainly with others), which everyone else then critiques, so I would put forward my own ideas. I did this a few days ago now "Blueprint for Britain;1 Voting Reform (Casual banter - Off Topic discussion). You have not posted one reply to it, though several others have. The ideas I put forward there, are IMO, practical ways to reform the election process so that we can have a representative government, which runs the country for all of the people - which is one of the things you would like to see, according to your comments above. Given this, can I ask why you have not commented on my thread, which was started as a means of showing greater fairness to you, specifically? E Oh boo hoo! Take your ball home then. I seem to recall being offered a fascist blackshirt by you in the past. Dont think I took my ball home at that though? I'm reminded of a tennis partner, in my younger days when I was more mobile and could play - I was pretty good for a casual player. She repeatedly got upset and threatened to go home, because I could serve aces and win a lot of points by way of spinning the ball - something she tried to do but couldnt, and ended up knocking the ball out of the court. The lesson I draw for you, is that if youre going to spin, make sure you can win the point by doing so. E

Pulpsmack -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 12:38:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Crappy & Rule - appols for long reply I can't speak for NG or anyone else but I think this issue of guns is a case of each side of the Atlantic being almost extreme opposites and therefore having empathy for the alternative view is difficult. Most people in the UK grow up never seeing or using a live fire arm. Shootings on the news are extremely rare and until a few years ago even in crimes firearms were rearely used. The Hungerford incident xxx years ago highlighted how un-prepared the UK police were for fire arm crime and that has been rectified but at core most Brits grow up with an experience of fire arms being Shotguns for Farmers and Pheasent shooting (if wealthy enough), the odd corporate Clay Pidgeon shoot etc. If you are in one of the Service Cadet forces as a teenager you may fire rifles occasionally. Therefore your starting point for what is sane (and normal) is no guns. "We" (US gun owners who have observed worldwide firearms regulation) have predictied this for years. Granted, if criminals can mug with truncheons or make a terrorist statement with a fertilizer bomb, most will do so without getting involved with the hassle of gaining access to a firearm. England's citizenry and law enforcement had indeed fostered such an environment, where criminal elements could ply their trade with less of a need for a gun. The problem is that humans are opportunistic, and if a gun causes an unfair advantage to exploit another then someone sooner or later will become "enterprising" enough to capitalize upon it. The police will freak out and take counter measures, and pitted against a well-armed police force, a criminal will then be forced to up the ante if he wishes to be sucessful with certain criminal undertakings. Criminals become more sophistocated and as they do, so too does their tool bag and their arsenal. American gangs of the late 20th century had switchblades and beerbottles at their disposal. As the criminal enterprise grew from mere turf to business (narcotics), they moved up to chains and bats, and some even had a handgun. It wasn't long before all had handguns, and some had special purpose weapons including sawed-off shotguns, Assault and Automatic rifles, and submachineguns. The more sucessful the criminal, the more he accrues, the more he accrues the more firepower he needs to protect himself. England's problem is only going to get worse, as any criminal living in a non-totalitarian society amongst unarmed victims is like a wolf living among the fold. I also heard that Scottland is entertaining (or has already passed) legislation against swords and possibly knives unless a permit is granted for special purposes (i.e. reenactment troupes). That amused me beyond words.

KenDckey -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 1:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac Crappy & Rule - appols for long reply I can't speak for NG or anyone else but I think this issue of guns is a case of each side of the Atlantic being almost extreme opposites and therefore having empathy for the alternative view is difficult. Most people in the UK grow up never seeing or using a live fire arm. Shootings on the news are extremely rare and until a few years ago even in crimes firearms were rearely used. The Hungerford incident xxx years ago highlighted how un-prepared the UK police were for fire arm crime and that has been rectified but at core most Brits grow up with an experience of fire arms being Shotguns for Farmers and Pheasent shooting (if wealthy enough), the odd corporate Clay Pidgeon shoot etc. If you are in one of the Service Cadet forces as a teenager you may fire rifles occasionally. Therefore your starting point for what is sane (and normal) is no guns. "We" (US gun owners who have observed worldwide firearms regulation) have predictied this for years. Granted, if criminals can mug with truncheons or make a terrorist statement with a fertilizer bomb, most will do so without getting involved with the hassle of gaining access to a firearm. England's citizenry and law enforcement had indeed fostered such an environment, where criminal elements could ply their trade with less of a need for a gun. The problem is that humans are opportunistic, and if a gun causes an unfair advantage to exploit another then someone sooner or later will become "enterprising" enough to capitalize upon it. The police will freak out and take counter measures, and pitted against a well-armed police force, a criminal will then be forced to up the ante if he wishes to be sucessful with certain criminal undertakings. Criminals become more sophistocated and as they do, so too does their tool bag and their arsenal. American gangs of the late 20th century had switchblades and beerbottles at their disposal. As the criminal enterprise grew from mere turf to business (narcotics), they moved up to chains and bats, and some even had a handgun. It wasn't long before all had handguns, and some had special purpose weapons including sawed-off shotguns, Assault and Automatic rifles, and submachineguns. The more sucessful the criminal, the more he accrues, the more he accrues the more firepower he needs to protect himself. England's problem is only going to get worse, as any criminal living in a non-totalitarian society amongst unarmed victims is like a wolf living among the fold. I also heard that Scottland is entertaining (or has already passed) legislation against swords and possibly knives unless a permit is granted for special purposes (i.e. reenactment troupes). That amused me beyond words. ROFL If they outlaw knives who will cut their meat for them Bustiea (sp) knives are pretty small. LOL

subfever -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 2:39:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I completely understand Americans' suspicion of Government. You only have to look at the British Government and the establishment over the centuries and their policies have been borne out of serving their own interests. The man in the link was absolutely spot on in his commentary of Britain - in fact, in the space of 5 seconds he did/said everything that needed to be said on the subject. What I don't get is the notion that the solution is to barricade yourselves in rather than form a political movement to change the style of politics you have in your country i.e. dominated by a two party system offering no real alternatives (like Britain). This barracading yourself in notion - is it widespread in the US? i.e. Personally, I don't get the barricade with arms solution either. I'm afraid most people don't want to believe, or just simply don't understand the non-force arsenal that the powers-that-be possess. If we need to barricade with arms, it will most likely be in defense of each other if the powers-that-be decide to wage economic war against us again. quote: do Americans feel that Governments are inherently self-serving and thus any Government will not act in the people's interests rendering it a waste of time to form a political movement aimed at changing the staus quo? I certainly can't speak for all Americans, as my views are considered to be contrarian, and maybe even extreme by many. But I will speak for myself: In today's social and political environment, I personally don't believe that an effective grass-roots effort for real change is even possible. The powers-that-be, and even their politician operatives are well aware that the most effective method of controlling people is through their emotions (fear, greed, gratification etc.) and keeping them confused (and therefore divided, off-balance, disinterested, etc.). They also are well aware that though their investment and effort, they have kept the masses divided primarily and almost evenly by two groups... those that we typically refer to as the right and the left. There will always be numerous exceptions and overlap situations, but to simplify matters for the sake of getting to my main point, let's just say that the core left are primarily those who are beneficiaries of and are fearful of being without the entitlement programs they are already receiving or expecting. They typically tend to champion the "little guy," the notion of nationalized health care, big government to take care of them, taxing "the rich guys" more via progressive tax rates, etc. Many typically feel that they are simply incapable of getting by on their own. Then, with the same numerous exceptions and overlaps, the core right are typically those who see big government and the beneficiaries of big government programs as parasitic. Those in this group tend to feel that they have acheived some level of success largely due to their own efforts. They often feel that if they were able to do it, so should everyone else. They tend to believe that for the most part, people who fail to fend for themselves generally fail due to choices they have made in life. Okay, so much for stereotypes. Let's assume, just for the sake of making my point, that my two main groups above are fairly representative of the American political landscape. Now, I tell you that the powers-that-be feed our division to keep us emotionally invested and controlled. How many of you out there can honestly say that you've never felt pleasure from seeing someone of your opposing political views get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or their pants down? Most of you get off on this, don't you? How many of you can honestly say that you've never felt fear or anger when ideals that you champion are attacked or threatened? And it happens all the time. Just put on your favorite cable network news station and watch for a while. You won't get through a night without your emotions being catered to in a big way. Why do you think that Social Security has been such a successful political football? We are being played like fiddles by the powers that be, and until people begin to realize this, we will continue to remain divided. And as long as we remain divided, both political idealogies will remain focused on seeing each other as the primary problem source, with an eye on at least maintaining the status-quo... and hopefully even gaining some ground over the other side. Meanwhile, the powers-that-be laugh their asses off at us and further their agendas... as we continue to stumble over ourselves. To those on the right, I say to you that much of what you believe about big government is actually true. However, even if everyone went out and made the same choices that you made in life, there would still be great inequities among the people. There just isn't enough cash under our current monetary system to repay all of our debt. It's impossible. That's the way it is designed. And to those on the left, I say to you that bigger government and higher taxes for your more financially successful neighbors is not the road to a more equitable system. The Great Depression spawned the perceived need for big government and big government programs among the masses. Once people become indoctrinated to this, they begin to live perpetually in fear... whether they realized it or not. And fearful people are the easiest to control. It's probably not your fault that you live in fear. Maybe your parents or grandparents suffered greatly during the Great Depression, and you were brought up under a certain belief system as a result. Try to understand that the simple answer to the Depression was simply infusing more cash into the monetary system. But that's not what the powers-that-be did. No, they came up with the New Deal instead. Well, over the long haul, just who benefitted the most from the New Deal? Just think for a moment. In this country we used to live with no federal taxes and almost no inflation. One income used to support a family. What's really changed since then? Why has the value of our dollar depreciated by 96% since 1913? Why have we been indoctrinated into a system of debt? How are we better off now than before this all started? To both the left and right I say: The main problem is the inequitable monetary system, which is privately owned and controlled by the international banking elitists, and the taxes and inflation that their system spawned... not your perceived political opponents. As a society, we've also been indoctrinated to treat the symptom, and not the cause. The solution is to dismantle the Federal Reserve and eliminating the taxes and inflation it spawned under their system, and putting the power of money creation back into the hands of the people. Any other program is merely putting a band-aid on a malignant and festering wound. Until the masses realize this, they will continue to seek treating the symptoms. A grass-roots effort can only work if it seeks to treat the cause. Until then, we will just keep blaming each other and stumbling over ourselves.

CrappyDom -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 3:00:18 PM)
subfever, Since I am one of the dupes you speak of I have a couple of questions. quote: To those on the right, I say to you that much of what you believe about big government is actually true. And to those on the left, I say to you that bigger government and higher taxes for your more financially successful neighbors is not the road to a more equitable system. Since Ronald Raygun it has been Republicans who run us into debt and create larger beuracracies not Democrats, this whole bit seems flawed quote: Just think for a moment. In this country we used to live with no federal taxes and almost no inflation. One income used to support a family. What's really changed since then? Why has the value of our dollar depreciated by 96% since 1913? Why have we been indoctrinated into a system of debt? How are we better off now than before this all started? We have had taxes since this country were founded, originally the govn't ran on duties on imported goods. Income taxes were originally only paid on things like investment income and not on wages and were triggered by the need to pay for wars. Define how money has depreciated 93% quote: The solution is to dismantle the Federal Reserve and eliminating the taxes and inflation it spawned under their system, and putting the power of money creation back into the hands of the people. Any other program is merely putting a band-aid on a malignant and festering wound. Since the Federal Reserve has been around long before income taxes, you can't claim it spawned them. Inflation has always existed, even with gold as the standard. While there problems with the system, the causes you cite are not the source, but I am really curious where you figure our money has lost 93% of its value. If you set aside the decimals and count hours worked for goods recieved, we make more now than ever. Of course there are problems with even that concept but I am curious if you can see them.

Level -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 3:14:01 PM)
Thread hijack alert....... If I see the news media call Bill Clinton the "Democrat's biggest rock star" one fucking more time, I'm going to puke. God damn no original thinking shit knickers.....

ownedgirlie -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 3:25:13 PM)
LOL Level, I'll even hold the bucket for ya.

Level -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 3:32:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie LOL Level, I'll even hold the bucket for ya. LOL owned, as true a sign of friendship as I can think of. [:)] The tv caught me upon waking from a nap, with the rock star crap..... I hate that as much as the "gravitas"-athon of a few years ago.... gravitas on David Brinkley, gravitas on Limbaugh, gravitas in the papers.... made me koo koo. Made me think I was in junior high again, everyone grabbing on to the newest "cool" fad... Oy! [;)]

ownedgirlie -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 3:34:07 PM)
Heh...I say turn the TV off and go back to your nap. [;)]

Level -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 3:40:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Heh...I say turn the TV off and go back to your nap. [;)] I'm tempted, but then I'd never sleep tonight. [X(]

subfever -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 7:20:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Since Ronald Raygun it has been Republicans who run us into debt and create larger beuracracies not Democrats, this whole bit seems flawed Yes, the Republicans have ran bigger deficits. Bush's is larger than all prior administrations combined, to my understanding. But it is the Democrats who push for bigger and better entitlement programs. And if they could get it passed tomorrow, we would have a national health care program. But my point is not to argue who is more at fault. My point is to stop treating the symptoms of what ails us, and address the cause. quote: We have had taxes since this country were founded, originally the govn't ran on duties on imported goods. Income taxes were originally only paid on things like investment income and not on wages and were triggered by the need to pay for wars. Yes, I used the term "taxes" too loosely here. What I meant is income taxes on wage and salaried citizens earning within our borders. (I've outlined this at length in prior posts.) You are correct that prior to 1913, we have had temporary income taxes, primarily to fund wars. quote: Define how money has depreciated 93% Actually, it's 96%. What I mean is that what costs a dollar today, could have been bought for 4 cents in 1913. quote: Since the Federal Reserve has been around long before income taxes, you can't claim it spawned them. Well, the Federal Reserve is actually the 3rd and final privatized monetary system that we've had in this country, born in 1913. The income tax was born the same year. http://www.apfn.org/APFN/reserve2.htm http://www.loc.gov/rr/business/hottopic/irs_history.html quote: Inflation has always existed, even with gold as the standard. Yes, there has been several spikes in inflation, primarily due to war. But the overall, long-term deprecation of the dollar for the last 100 years is many times greater than the 100+ years prior. quote: While there problems with the system, the causes you cite are not the source, Sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Just for the record, from what source do you believe the problems derive? quote: but I am really curious where you figure our money has lost 93% of its value. There are many sources of information on this. Here's one link: http://www.financialsense.com/Market/cpuplava/2006/0512.html quote: If you set aside the decimals and count hours worked for goods recieved, we make more now than ever. Is this why the typical family requires two incomes to get by, and are in debt up to their eyeballs? quote: Of course there are problems with even that concept but I am curious if you can see them. Crappy, it's obvious that we see very different realities. However, you're certainly entitled to both express your opinions and ask me to explain mine.

CrappyDom -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 7:45:27 PM)
Now I understand, you are one of those people who just can't wrap their heads around paper fiat money and want us back on the gold standard. To me and most modern economists, it is the purchasing power of money that counts and how much we earn of it that counts. Look at what most people owned and could buy around the turn of the century, when they spoke of wearing their "sunday best" that was the single best set of clothes they had. If you lived in the city you had a small cramped apartment and little else. By your definition of "money" and "inflation" we should be 93% poorer today than we were in 1913. Do you REALLY believe that? As for the evil Federal reserve causing all this trouble, then why do other countries, even going back to the days of English kings have currency troubles and inflation. I don't think the Federal Reserve is sacred but I don't think it is the source of all evil either. People are in debt up to their eyeballs because that is how we have organized the economy. We have structured the real estate market so people can think it is okay to borrow 120% of the value of an over inflated home. We have done the same thing to our nation under Bush all in order to make people think they are doing okay. There ARE problems but eliminating the central bank isn't going to fix it and would make it much much worse. As for national health care, that is another issue but if done well would be cheaper for all of us and help make America competive again.

Sinergy -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 9:59:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What is the fascination with guns in the US? Nearly all men are interested in weapons. It is required by evolution theory. Those who own and wield weapons may reproduce. Those who do not own weapons are murdered and do not reproduce and their women are made slaves and their possessions are stolen. It is quite simple. Survival of the fittest, i.e. of the ones having weapons. Any man who does not own a weapon, in evolutionary terms is a retard and a looser. Evolution theory predicts that women will find men with weapons more attractive than men without weapons. Was reading an article on forensic archaeology which has shown that significant numbers of skulls recovered going back to prehistorical man had massive blunt trauma injury to the left side of the skull. This is indicative of being struck with a blunt object wielded by a right armed (75% of people are right handed) person. Human fascination with weapons goes way back. Sinergy

subfever -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 10:01:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Now I understand, you are one of those people who just can't wrap their heads around paper fiat money and want us back on the gold standard. Not necessarily. Crappy, I ask you: Where, in any of my posts here on CM, did I ever advocate going back on the gold standard? What I'm saying is that the power of money creation should be taken out of the hands of the elite few, and returned to the people. Let me ask you another question: Why should the government have to pay interest on money when it could create money interest-free... such as Lincoln's Greenback, or Kennedy's US Treasury notes, for examples? Here's still another question I would appreciate you responding to: Who is best served by the interest the government pays, the American people or the shareholders of the Federal Reserve? quote: To me and most modern economists, it is the purchasing power of money that counts and how much we earn of it that counts. Well, I'm more concerned about how much money I get to keep, and how much value it retains. Frankly, I believe that the "modern economists" are going to eventually run our Empire of Debt right into oblivion. It's not a question of "if," it's a question of "when." quote: Look at what most people owned and could buy around the turn of the century, when they spoke of wearing their "sunday best" that was the single best set of clothes they had. If you want to make such a comparison, then you also need to ask: What was available to be purchased back then, and what did people perceive their needs to be at that time? Seriously Crappy, what does a wardrobe comparison have to do with our topic at hand? If you're trying to say that we've become a nation of self-absorbed excess, I would be the first one to agree with you. quote: If you lived in the city you had a small cramped apartment and little else. Again, it was the perceived need of that era. If you're trying to suggest that we get more housing bang for the buck today, even that's debatable if you compare the quality of material and workmanship. quote: By your definition of "money" and "inflation" we should be 93% poorer today than we were in 1913. Do you REALLY believe that? How can you translate my statement that "what cost a dollar today, cost 4 cents back in 1913" to "we are 93% poorer today than in 1913?" Sure, we are earning more dollars than in the past, but the dollar is worth less over time. So how does our purchasing power compare? : http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009459.php (Sorry, couldn't find a chart dating back to 1913 tonight, but you'll get the idea.) quote: As for the evil Federal reserve causing all this trouble, then why do other countries, even going back to the days of English kings have currency troubles and inflation. Primarily from ignorance and greed. Most people today still don't even understand the science of money. Back then, even fewer understood it. Other countries? Ignorance, greed, corruption. quote: I don't think the Federal Reserve is sacred but I don't think it is the source of all evil either. The Federal Reserve, and both the permanent federal income tax and inflation that it spawned, are the primary cause of our problems. quote: People are in debt up to their eyeballs because that is how we have organized the economy. We have structured the real estate market so people can think it is okay to borrow 120% of the value of an over inflated home. Exactly... except "we" as you state, is really the Federal Reserve! You and I had nothing to do with it. The FR intentionally made the cost of money extra cheap so as to ignite a faltering economy. And people took the bait line, hook, and sinker by borrowing all they could get their hands on. They went deeper into debt than ever before, right along along with the federal deficit. quote: We have done the same thing to our nation under Bush all in order to make people think they are doing okay. Of course. That's just one of many illusions created to keep the masses in line. And what do the Democrats do? Raise taxes, and expand social programs and entitlements. And neither of these symptom repairs would be needed if we abolish: the FR, income taxes on domestic wage and salary earners, and inflation. quote: There ARE problems but eliminating the central bank isn't going to fix it and would make it much much worse. How would it be worse? quote: As for national health care, that is another issue but if done well would be cheaper for all of us and help make America competive again. At whose expense? And please explain how it would make America competitive again. The way I see it, it'll make America even weaker and more indoctrinated towards big government. Tell us Crappy, why are you so enamored with big government and big government programs?

Sinergy -> RE: The US and guns (10/15/2006 10:17:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever Frankly, I believe that the "modern economists" are going to eventually run our Empire of Debt right into oblivion. It's not a question of "if," it's a question of "when." Hello A/all, One of the ways that Monkeyboy is paying for his little Iraqi conniption fit, etc., without raising taxes on the American people is by borrowing money from the Chinese, Saudis, etc. So bagging on the American consumer for borrowing money imprudently, running up credit card debt on pointless expenditures, etc., seems a trifle odd to me since the person Dumbfuckistan put in charge of the place is doing exactly the same thing. Of course, I get royally screwed if I fail to make my loan payments, but I suspect when whoever takes over from the Simian In Chief has to pay the bill, they will end up getting blamed for doing what needs to be done (raise taxes, etc) to clean up Monkeyboy's mess. What does he care, he probably believes he can simply print more money to pay them back. Money has a value because it is backed by something of worth, in the case of the dollar bill, that would be the goods and services of this country. To oversimplify this, you add all that up and get a dollar value. Divide by the number of dollars printed, you get the actual real value of a dollar. Printing more money backed by a static amount increases inflation, so the egg you paid $0.25 for six years ago now costs $1.25. Same product, it just requires more of your money to buy it. I am guessing you wont earn 5x what you were making six years ago, but congratulations if you are. So China gets pissy because they money they are paid back is worth less than it used to be when they loaned it to us and demands that the United States repay our debt in Euros. The United States now has to buy Euros with our money. We print more, it costs more dollars to buy a Euro. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy p.s. I find it hilarious that gas prices have dropped so dramatically this close to election time. I imagine Monkeyboy and his party are hoping people forget having to pay $3.00+ a gallon during most of his presidency by knocking $0.60 off 2 months before the election.

NorthernGent -> RE: The US and guns (10/16/2006 12:23:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I completely understand Americans' suspicion of Government. You only have to look at the British Government and the establishment over the centuries and their policies have been borne out of serving their own interests. The man in the link was absolutely spot on in his commentary of Britain - in fact, in the space of 5 seconds he did/said everything that needed to be said on the subject. What I don't get is the notion that the solution is to barricade yourselves in rather than form a political movement to change the style of politics you have in your country i.e. dominated by a two party system offering no real alternatives (like Britain). This barracading yourself in notion - is it widespread in the US? i.e. Personally, I don't get the barricade with arms solution either. I'm afraid most people don't want to believe, or just simply don't understand the non-force arsenal that the powers-that-be possess. As an outsider looking in, I agree. As in Britain, it appears that big business, Government and their media allies almost have a monopoly on the message passed to the masses. They really hold all the aces through as much propaganda as they can pass through TV screens etc. They have all that they want in the form of an extreme capitalist economy and society and can just continue to cream off the wealth from this form of society. They don't need to attack anyone, they have what they want now. If we need to barricade with arms, it will most likely be in defense of each other if the powers-that-be decide to wage economic war against us again. quote: do Americans feel that Governments are inherently self-serving and thus any Government will not act in the people's interests rendering it a waste of time to form a political movement aimed at changing the staus quo? I certainly can't speak for all Americans, as my views are considered to be contrarian, and maybe even extreme by many. But I will speak for myself: In today's social and political environment, I personally don't believe that an effective grass-roots effort for real change is even possible. The powers-that-be, and even their politician operatives are well aware that the most effective method of controlling people is through their emotions (fear, greed, gratification etc.) and keeping them confused (and therefore divided, off-balance, disinterested, etc.). They also are well aware that though their investment and effort, they have kept the masses divided primarily and almost evenly by two groups... those that we typically refer to as the right and the left. There will always be numerous exceptions and overlap situations, but to simplify matters for the sake of getting to my main point, let's just say that the core left are primarily those who are beneficiaries of and are fearful of being without the entitlement programs they are already receiving or expecting. They typically tend to champion the "little guy," the notion of nationalized health care, big government to take care of them, taxing "the rich guys" more via progressive tax rates, etc. Many typically feel that they are simply incapable of getting by on their own. Then, with the same numerous exceptions and overlaps, the core right are typically those who see big government and the beneficiaries of big government programs as parasitic. Those in this group tend to feel that they have acheived some level of success largely due to their own efforts. They often feel that if they were able to do it, so should everyone else. They tend to believe that for the most part, people who fail to fend for themselves generally fail due to choices they have made in life. Okay, so much for stereotypes. Let's assume, just for the sake of making my point, that my two main groups above are fairly representative of the American political landscape. Now, I tell you that the powers-that-be feed our division to keep us emotionally invested and controlled. How many of you out there can honestly say that you've never felt pleasure from seeing someone of your opposing political views get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or their pants down? Most of you get off on this, don't you? How many of you can honestly say that you've never felt fear or anger when ideals that you champion are attacked or threatened? And it happens all the time. Just put on your favorite cable network news station and watch for a while. You won't get through a night without your emotions being catered to in a big way. Why do you think that Social Security has been such a successful political football? We are being played like fiddles by the powers that be, and until people begin to realize this, we will continue to remain divided. And as long as we remain divided, both political idealogies will remain focused on seeing each other as the primary problem source, with an eye on at least maintaining the status-quo... and hopefully even gaining some ground over the other side. Meanwhile, the powers-that-be laugh their asses off at us and further their agendas... as we continue to stumble over ourselves. To those on the right, I say to you that much of what you believe about big government is actually true. However, even if everyone went out and made the same choices that you made in life, there would still be great inequities among the people. There just isn't enough cash under our current monetary system to repay all of our debt. It's impossible. That's the way it is designed. And to those on the left, I say to you that bigger government and higher taxes for your more financially successful neighbors is not the road to a more equitable system. The Great Depression spawned the perceived need for big government and big government programs among the masses. Once people become indoctrinated to this, they begin to live perpetually in fear... whether they realized it or not. And fearful people are the easiest to control. It's probably not your fault that you live in fear. Maybe your parents or grandparents suffered greatly during the Great Depression, and you were brought up under a certain belief system as a result. Try to understand that the simple answer to the Depression was simply infusing more cash into the monetary system. But that's not what the powers-that-be did. No, they came up with the New Deal instead. Well, over the long haul, just who benefitted the most from the New Deal? Just think for a moment. In this country we used to live with no federal taxes and almost no inflation. One income used to support a family. What's really changed since then? Why has the value of our dollar depreciated by 96% since 1913? Why have we been indoctrinated into a system of debt? How are we better off now than before this all started? To both the left and right I say: The main problem is the inequitable monetary system, which is privately owned and controlled by the international banking elitists, and the taxes and inflation that their system spawned... not your perceived political opponents. As a society, we've also been indoctrinated to treat the symptom, and not the cause. The solution is to dismantle the Federal Reserve and eliminating the taxes and inflation it spawned under their system, and putting the power of money creation back into the hands of the people. Any other program is merely putting a band-aid on a malignant and festering wound. Until the masses realize this, they will continue to seek treating the symptoms. A grass-roots effort can only work if it seeks to treat the cause. Until then, we will just keep blaming each other and stumbling over ourselves.

Rule -> RE: The US and guns (10/16/2006 6:51:31 AM)
Blocked for reason of the endless and lazy quote. How hard is it to edit a quote to its essence? Very hard, apparently.

ToGiveDivine -> RE: The US and guns (10/16/2006 7:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Since Ronald Raygun it has been Republicans who run us into debt and create larger beuracracies not Democrats, this whole bit seems flawed Each division of Government has certain responsibilities that the other divisions may or may not have to approve. It is the House of Representatives that is responsible for sponsoring fiscal legislation - which the Senate and President have to approve. Just because the President submits a budget doesn't mean the House has to take any or all of it to review. (It would be considered bad form not to though) In the 80's, Reagan submitted a budget to reduce income taxes and reduce spending. The Democratically controlled Congress approved the tax cuts (grudgingly, Reagan was too popular in his first term) and they decided to table the spending cuts. Unfortunately, the Congress never cut spending, they increased it dramatically because the Tax cuts actually produced more revenue than the original 60+% income tax they were charging before Reagan (More people had more money to spend, the more money to spend the more other taxes could be collected) It was Congress that put together these mega appropriations bills and they always include important items that no President wants to veto in order to get their pork projects in. In 1993, Clinton and the Democratically controlled congress passed a tax and spending increase (some say the largest in history - whatever) and bam, recession. It was the Republican takeover in 1994 where we finally saw the budget balanced for the first time in 40+ years (coincidentally, the first time the Republicans were in charge of both Houses of Congress at the same time in 40+ years). So, from the mid-1950's to the mid-1990's, the deficit grew and grew and grew. During that time we had Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, Liberal Presidents, Conservative Presidents, Moderate Presidents, etc., but it didn't matter as the deficit continued to rise - what was the constant??? (Congress being controlled by the Democrats for 40 years) Move up 12 years, the deficit is up again (of course, there is a war and even if we didn't go into Iraq, we would still be spending lots of money to fight it - government does like to spend) The Republicans have been in control of both Houses for 12 years, the fiscally responsibleness has ended and we're back to where we were when the Democrats controlled Congress. What's my point?!?!?! Both parties are screwing us and it doesn't matter who wins in November, we all lose and any political rhetoric about, "but my Party is going to fix this and fix that" is hooey (sorry for the strong language) - Your Party is going to be dipping their hand in your pocket for crap we don't need so They can get re-elected in 2 years. As for Bush, had Congress had any balls at all; they would have challenged more instead of worrying if voting against a popular President (we're talking 4 years ago) would doom their political career. That was their priority, getting re-elected.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875