"I don't think that's necessarily your fault though.. A misunderstanding might lead a segment of the population to conclude that your anti Israel, which in turn might lead you to have to endlessly explain your position on Israel rather than the original concept…That no country has a right to exist… Or that terrorism is terrorism no matter who the perpetrator might be…etc…"
To which you replied:
"In my opinion... that was a real nice way to say... 'the ignorant arrogance of racists bigots like SAVCPL, PADOC, SENSHUUS, CALLIE, and others cause them to lash out at you due to the fact you are informed of what you speak and when you speak you expose people like them for what they are.' :)"
Although that is your opinion, I can say with absolute certainty that wasn't my intent. I will not judge the character of any individual based soly on their virtual persona in a blog.
I also stated:
"I think you might want to try a little harder to relate to people in terms they can understand a little better though."
"Your station just got all fuzzy. I'm not receiving your signal."
Let me try to clarify again because you seemed to understand where I was going previously.
"He is an Idealist through and through as I suspect you are as well. You expect an unrealistic cordiality or at the very least assume that your fellow man can affably relate to you if you just explain it the right way (your way) Please don't take that as a dig, it's meant as a compliment, I admire your passion and enjoy your posts. Being an idealist can be a good thing."
"I am receiving your signal."
I'm not too concerned with virtual assholes because there are far too many genuine ones in reality to deal with. Anyone who participates in a blog can either be interpreted as, informed or misinformed, depending on whether someone agrees with them or not. The difficult part is relating an idea that might open a mind to a different concept. Being stubborn isn't necessarily a more grievous sin than changing your mind every time a new theory is posed to you. Sometimes if you plant a seed it just takes time for it to sprout…
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth.
4. A gold standard facilitates speculative attacks on an economy, which is dependent on how much gold it can hold within it's national boundaries. This is what happened to the UK in 1931, which ended the gold standard in Britain. To combat this the government would then be forced to raise interest rates, leading to less investment and consumption, and therefore less output in the economy overall.5. Gold mines would become strategic targets for terrorists. You take out a significant gold mine in the US and you cause chaos in the economy until gold production returns to normal, which could take years.6. We actually want inflation as a way of reducing real wages across time. People will often refuse to have their nominal wages (salaries) cut, no matter what is happening in the economy, because they aren't educated in economics. Inflation is a way of reducing everyone's wages with time (which is why salaries have risen with time). This allows employers to reward their successful employees much more easily. If you give someone a pay-rise under the gold standard, that's a permanent pay-rise effectively, and they may be less inc d to continue working hard once it is secured. Employers are therefore much less likely to give these pay-rises out to begin with, because it is much more of a long-term commitment. Real-wages are therefore higher without a gold-standard. This leads to higher quality of life, at least materially speaking.7. The advantage to savers under a gold standard is not the case if those savers instead invested their money rather than letting it sit in a bank. The stock market has better returns than inflation.8. The USD will lose its status as the world reserve currency. America will therefore lose the advantages she has as being the only legal printer of dollars. Our debts will become more expensive, reducing the capital available to future generations. Again, this hurts the US in the long run.
Disadvantages of a gold standard*:1. There is not enough gold in the world (140,000 tonnes total = $6 trillion dollars) to back current US debt commitments that stand at $15.064 trillion. Usually a gold standard would not have allowed us to accrue so much debt, which would have been great. However, if we revert to a gold standard now, we will be forced to default on this debt (something else Paul is in favor of). The global economic ramifications of this would be disastrous. Investors would be highly reluctant to loan to the US except at much higher interest rates because of this betrayal. As a result, every loan you try to get will be much more expensive. As domestic entrepreneurs find it more expensive and riskier to start businesses, investment in the US will fall along with the number of start-ups. This will harm the total output of the US economy considerably.2. As loans become more expensive, debtors spend a larger portion of their paycheck paying back debt. Consumption of goods and services falls as a result as people have less money to spend as they see fit. Again, the output of the economy will fall to reflect this weakened demand for goods and services. The current weakness of our economy means we certainly would be in another recession in 2012.3. The Fed would not be able to exercise monetary policy in the short-run business cycle because the money supply is determined by the quantity of gold, not by what the Fed wants (the economy rises and falls every 18 years roughly; when it falls it's a recession, when it rises it's a boom). Monetary policy is critical for mitigating the effects of recessions. The Great Depression was caused in large part because at the time the USA was on a gold standard and therefore unable to alleviate the 1929 recession; we then went into a Great Depression until 1938 that only a world war stopped. In short, recessions will become much worse and much longer (ie. we will have more depressions). Those countries that ditched the gold standard (UK, Scandinavian countries) avoided the Great Depression, while those that did not (USA, France) suffered terrible unemployment and crippled economies/societies.
The January 1993 issue of the Survival Report worries about America’s “disappearing white majority.”
The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Report declares, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems,” and defends David Duke. The author of the newsletter—presumably Paul—writes, “My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school. He tells me there would be no way to persuade his fellow students of the case for economic liberty.”
A March 1993 Survival Report describes Bill Clinton’s supposedly “illegitimate children, black and white: ‘woods colts’ in backwoods slang.”
A February 1991 newsletter attacks “The X-Rated Martin Luther King.”
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,”and “Lazyopolis ” would be better alternatives—and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”
A May 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report cites Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance.
“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”
The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind wordsfor David Duke.
This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”
"If that was the will of the people. Countries become countries because of the will of the people."
I don't think it was the will of the people of the CSA... I think it was the will of the Northern Army..
You also said: "Lots of different reasons"
Thank you for being so specific in your response... :)
You then said:
"Depends on why they were given foreign aid."
Perhaps it would have helped The CSA to have recieved munitions from other countries...
Finally you said:."Israelis would still be Israelis, there just wouldn't be an Israel"
Much like "Dixie" and all of it's glory still exists in parts of this country...
I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations and you're not in this world to live up to mine. Bruce Lee
Hello again Sav….
"Just because countries come and go, then mean they don't have a right to exist. A country isn't a plot of soil, is the common bond of the people on that soil."
The Confederate States of America were crushed after declaring their independence. Did they/do they have a right to exist?
If it is truly a right for a country to exist then how come those Countries I listed collapsed? If they were given adequate foreign aid would that have kept them in existence and would it have been justified?
By your logic Israelis would still be Israelis even if it Collapsed and there was nothing but Palestinian territories left behind... Kinda like the Confederate States of America...(shrugs)
Only very slowly and late have men come to realize that unless freedom is universal it is only extended privilege.John Edward Christopher Hill
I'm gonna have to disagree with that...Actually its along the of the people with-in that country has a "right" for that country to exist."
Interesting you bring that up… I was in a bar the other day when this Prussian walked in, we chatted it up for awhile and out of nowhere a citizen of the Ottoman Empire came strolling through the door with a Roman. Things got a little tense when these guys from the Soviet Union got a little loud though…
Fortunately security showed up and although no one could really understand them, they all spoke French...
Fortunately a group of guys from The Confederate States of America came in and lightened the mood.... (bit of a stretch?)
"A peace is of the nature of a conquest; for then both parties nobly are subdued, and neither party loser."
"I was weighing in on the, "Does Israel have a right to exist" thing. I was pointing out that Israel started out like many countries and so far their history has been considerably less egregious than quite a few others."
"Yes, they have a right to exist…."
"Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Now hold on, all haters that might be reading... don't go assuming any thing now. As my business professor used to say when you assume... you make an ass out of you and an ass out of me."
I understand what you're saying…No country has a right to exist…. I actually have to agree. The problem you seem to have in relating this concept to other people is because the majority of the content in your arguments are about Israel. I don't think that's necessarily your fault though.. A misunderstanding might lead a segment of the population to conclude that your anti Israel, which in turn might lead you to have to endlessly explain your position on Israel rather than the original concept…That no country has a right to exist… Or that terrorism is terrorism no matter who the perpetrator might be…etc…
You then asked:
"So let me ask you Bill, after all you've read of my posts to this date, including this one, and what others like SAVCPL have said/lied about me... would you say I'm a fucking antisemitic douche that needs to be called out for what he is.....or not.....? :)"
I don't think so :) I think you might want to try a little harder to relate to people in terms they can understand a little better though.
(You can still be every bit as cocky)
You then said:
"Bill…. Bill... stop poking the animal in the cage, that's just mean. You're going to make SAVCPL's head explode. I take that back, keep doing that. Please."
If I've pissed off or frustrated anyone, I apologize. It's not (always) my intention to do that but it happens sometimes. I am acutely aware that I'm not going to change anyones mind and vice versa, the best we can hope for is maybe relating a concept to one another so we might be a little more open to other ideas….
"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?"
"Here is the test to find whether your mission on Earth is finished: if you're alive, it isn't." Richard Bach
"Section 8 has been asked, several times. He is just to much of a coward to answer it"
Is IMNO so beneath your contempt that you call him "Section 8?" or call him a "coward" because he doesn't respond to you? I realize to get respect you have to give it first but If I felt someone was being a dick, I wouldn't act like a dick myself to show them up....Fuck, take the high road man...You then said:"For the first part...
If you ask someone "Do you believe speeding thru a school zone is wrong"...If that person believe do 20 over the speed limit isn't speeding then he is gonna answer "no"I'm not going to go there again, asking if he thinks that blowing up Israeli kids is any less an act of terrorism. I think you've got a serious case of intellectual dishonesty going on because your animosity is so intense at the dude.
On the last part...
Your analogy isn't in conjucture with the subject at hand."I was weighing in on the, "Does Israel have a right to exist" thing. I was pointing out that Israel started out like many countries and so far their history has been considerably less egregious than quite a few others. Yes, they have a right to exist....What a person might ponder is how long they would have actually existed on their own without foriegn aid from the United States..http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdfCheersBill....
"I do personal attacks only on people who specialize in personal attacks."
"You see in Section 8 mind blowing up little Israeli kids eating cake at a birthday party isn't terrorism."
He answered the question… Without a drawn out explanation. He's an ornery cuss and you don't like the way he expresses himself, perhaps something is left open for interpretation? To be fair, he's probably more than a little guilty of that himself. Everyone around here could stand to have their tea cups filled by the Zen Master once in awhile….(Thanks Wynot) :)
You then stated:
"Now ask the coward if he thinks the Israelis should have their own country"
You could ask him yourself… Do you remember when we were having a discussion about "inflection" in writing? Everyone writes with an inflection, IMNO's inflection pisses you off and vice versa….
I'm going to try and give you a little analogy and see if you can relate…..
Years ago the Pilgrims set out to a new land and established colonies. This land was not incorporated by any country however there were natives.
The natives weren't too thrilled with the idea of the pilgrims customs and traditions because they didn't coincide very well with their own beliefs and traditions (and because they were expanding into their native territories)
Years went by the colonies expanded and the ancestors of the pilgrims eventually formed their own country. There weren't any other traditional governments there, so in acting in their best interests they claimed the colonized land for themselves.
However as the population grew, more land was needed and as a result these new country men expanded their claims on the territory. The natives were pushed back further into the countryside and if they protested they were mowed down.
Many wars between the natives and the new country men took place but the natives didn't stand a chance…. State authorized genocide of the natives followed…. Those that survived were put on reservations so that they could maintain their native heritage and stay out of the country mens hair…… Unless the country men found a resource that they could exploit on the native peoples "new" land, in which case……The country men had the courtesy to supply them with U-Hauls..
Bottom , Israel has a much better track record than some other places….
"All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason."
Hello again Sav…
My god we're both pathetic, here on a Sunday… I'll drink a beer in your honor later…
Now where did I say that?
You didn't say that…
You also asked:
Last time I checked, "Canadians" and "Mexicans" were still "North Americans" too"And your point is...comma"
that by definition Israelis are Palestinian…..
"My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them." Mitch Hedberg
"it was a non-sequitur...Sorta like saying Colt made the rifle that killed some somebody in NYC last month. Donald Rumfield gave Iraq the money needed to buy mustard gas that people keeps saying didn't exist....you know, the stuff that he didn't have that he dropped on the Kurds."
I see...So because guns, thermite, chemical and biological weapons don't kill people, people kill people, it's a good idea to sell them to our enemies...
You further stated:
"???? Last time I checked, There is a Israeli gov't."
Last time I checked, "Canadians" and "Mexicans" were still "North Americans" too
When I was a little kid we had a sand box. It was a quicksand box. I was an only child... eventually.
"Bandbea...Thats my point. Section 8 has splatter his hatred of Israel all over these blogs, yet he is strangely silent on the many many verified & proven terrorist acts in the name of "islam"Please from this point forward, I ask that everyone refer to me as "Bill." The Bea of this duo is in no way preoccupied with my sordid interests in anything political. As a courtesy to her, I would appreciate that everyone would please direct their joy or animosity at me.Ok.... I can't speak for IMNO.... So I'll ask him, with all my heart, do you condone terrorism whether it's Palestinian or Israeli? You also said:
*and no, its not ALL muslims...just the camel fucking cowards that do things like murdering a man for not having a beard or blowing up kids eating cake at a birthday party or (etc etc)*Thank you....You then quoted me with:
"The organization that took credit for the bombings in Beirut was called "Islamic Jihad" and if you want to give credit where credit is due, "Unfortunately you left out the last part of the quote, "Ollie North was selling their handlers the supplies to do it... Semper Fucking Fi...."You continued with:I might be wrong, but i do beleive that organizations are made up by people...Right???so who were the people that made up that organization??Who drove the trucks into the barracks??They were Extremists...... Because that's all thats's required to do something so fucked up... There is no such thing as a Palestinian government. By definition Israelis are Palestinian.... Just because one organization, country, sect does something fucked up, doesn't excuse another for doing something just as fucked up... Even if it's not with the same method or regularity...I don't know if this appeases or comforts you (I doubt it) But it's as best as I can try to relate to you. You are more than welcome to be disgusted with IMNO or at least try to make the effort to hear him out.. I don't know, maybe he's a fucking antisemitic douche that needs to be called out for what he is.....or not.....CheersBill....(Yet another Irish parable)A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world. Oscar Wilde
"It is kinda funny how you never condem muslims for their many many many proven and verified acts terrorism... Such as the urder of men, women and children peacefully praying in a church on Christmas day 3 weeks ago"
Maybe I'm wrong (?) but I don't think that there would be a lack of condemnation concerning the Muslims who bombed the church in Egypt. The ones responsible are douchebag extraordinaire... but if you don't predicate your statement with a "Those"(muslims) it kind of sounds like you're condemning all muslims for the actions of the ones who did it. Much in the same way some people might consider a critique of Israel as anti-semitism...You also said:
"or the deliberate murder of 241 AMERICAN sevice members by Palestinian in 1983" The organization that took credit for the bombings in Beirut was called "Islamic Jihad" and if you want to give credit where credit is due, Ollie North was selling their handlers the supplies to do it... Semper Fucking Fi....Cheers (?)Bill....No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means. George Bernard Shaw
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
God damn... these blogs are like manna from heaven at times. :)
IMNO: Sorry about the delayed response to you.My reference to your initial post was not meant as a dig at all. I was just acknowledging what I agree is an inconsistency. In fact, that inconsistency is precisely why it is impossible for me to support someone like Paul--because I do not buy into the libertarian dogma about the preeminence of market based solutions to every problem. I do, however, very much like his anti-imperialism.
Also, to be clear, I don't have any problem at all with the length of your posts. Simpatico.
"BandBea...I'll see your Brendan Behan and raise you an Oscar Wilde"Sorry but I'm holding a pair of Behan...
"If it was raining soup, the Irish would go out with forks." Brendan Behan..I'm going to throw my hand in because I already know you've got me beat :) and..we're hijacking IMNO's blog...CheersBill....
"Shortsighted folks can keep buying the "hope and change" Kool Aid or the next ridiculous GOP flavor of the week. They believe whatever and follow whoever the establishment tells them they should. Critical thinking is not necessary for that scared crowd. Functional thought processes will in fact hamper finding any common sense or reason with the current bought and paid for suit selling us to the highest bidder... or his flip flopping lies through his teeth twin who says whatever frightened and befuddled masses want to hear."
"I'll keep standing behind a man of principles and consistency... with my spine and conscience intact."I suppose I'm one of those shortsighted folk with a dysfunctional thought process :) You're pretty familiar with my thoughts on Ron Paul, I don't think he's going to win and I feel that a vote for any of the other Republicans is just a vote for GW.You're a cocky mother fucker and I like that :) Don't get so frustrated with the rest of humanity, we're all in this together brother. Just remember, somethimes what's right for you, might not be what's right for me :)CheersBill....One for my favorite miscreant...
"It's not that the Irish are cynical. It's rather that they have a wonderful lack of respect for everything and everybody."
Hello again Sav
The main problem is, a person can't inject "inflection" in the written word. So much is lost because there isn't a "tone of voice". My last post is three different thoughts but in support of each other."
I believe that you most eloquently spoke to me in this post, with a very understandable inflection. I also believe that you can't bullshit a bullshitter :)
And then you said:
"You have people like Nippy that seem to think there would be no wars if america pull behind our oceans. Which is just...well dumb."
I honestly don't believe Nippy is advocating the United States to not defend itself. From what I gather he would rather not see the United States advocating "The Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive strikes against other countries for the sake of our "security."
You continued with:
"The only reason why there isn't attacks on our own soil is because nobody can do it. (well, not do it and win anyhow). There is more to protecting the US than making sure an enemy can't land ships at Daytona Beach. "
I absolutely agree with you that nobody could conquer the United States in an occupational attempt.
Our military and those 200 million used car salesmen that Dr. Thompson referred to would see to that. What I find ironic about defending our coast can be found in the link I posted earlier
Take a look at the coastal defense systems world wide as opposed to the United States. We're not setup for defense nearly as much as we are for offense.
You also said:
"If America pull back behind it shores, there would still be wars and conflicts all over the damn place because...well humans suck."
Then you said:
"Humans being are nothing more than a virus. It doesn't take much for them to revert back to being a caveman. Like the old addage goes...The only thing a lock does is keep an honest man honest. The same can be apply to foward bases. If there is no chance of winning, then appeal to start something loses it luster."
There you go, making me agree with you again. Winning seems to be very subjective, all of you Bobby Bare fans out there are well aware of it.
Finally you said:
"It keeping funny how the people keep saying the US in some kind of monster unless they are the ones getting beat on by their neighbors, then its "We love the US, come save us"
Honestly….. Who needs saving? and what is our criteria for saving them? The last country we "saved" was Kuwait and if you recall after 911 there was video of the Kuwaiti people dancing in the street after the World Trade Center collapsed. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? (shrugs)
Since you probably won't be hearing from me until next year, here's wishing everyone a prosperous and happy new year (as long as you're not too skeevy)CheersBill....
One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds.
First, I agree with Bill 100% on Kucinich. Would be nice.
Regarding Paul, I think it is sort of depressing that the Republican Party is now so closely aligned with not only elite business interests, but also the disturbingly militant and hateful tea party element that now a purist libertarian like Paul looks sort of like a progressive reformer. But here we are.
As it stands, Paul is on balance a positive influence on the Republican Party. His anti-imperialist position alone makes him a valuable voice . But that is really only because he is a Republican. If he were a Democrat or still a third party fringe type, he would be just another lost Ayn Rand disciple. Since he is a Republican, he is a breath of fresh air.