The Illusion of Choice: Romney vs Obama

[Larry Gude]

If someone hates you, then you should examine your own behavior as well as theirs, before making a conclusion.

Paul said that and all people heard was "Ron Paul says 9/11 was our fault!"

 

[Christy]

The illusion is that the US Defense and international relations is a way of protecting our freedoms, when its really just a front to enforce international usage of the worthless paper that is the US Federal Reserve Note. See other countries (including Iran) using different curriences and gold to trade for commodities (i.e. oil), and then our immediate intervention to stop it. The gig is up for America when other nations reject accepting worthless paper for real tangible goods that they produce.

Okay, what makes gold any better than the international usage of "worthless paper"? Seriously? Neither are of any more value than what anyone perceives it to be. What can you do with gold? You can't eat it. It's shiny and heavy and people oooh and ahhh over how pretty it is, but other than that, what is it really worth?

It is worth what people are willing to give you for it. The same goes with paper currency, which is basically an assessment and a short term promise of value based upon the economic stability of who issues the money (or gold).

Why not go with salt standard, or a grain standard, how about a water standard? I can't think of anything a human being needs more than water. :shrug:

 

[Vince]

Larry, the only thing these people know and respect is who is the most powerful. We don't just double down, we triple down and we fight these people like we are at war. REALLY at war. We don't pander to any of them. We don't apologize, EVER.
The reason things have ratcheted up against us and against Israel is because they know damn well we're all talk. We hit them every now and again with a missile from a drone, but for the most part they know full well that we are impotent and we (at this time) don't have it in us to get down and dirty and fight them and eradicate them. Hell, we don't even allow our troops to be armed at times for fear that we might inadvertantly kill an innocent villager.

Until we have the will and the determination to fight a real war, none of this will end. We need to go Ghengis Khan on these people or just end it and throw up the white flag. If we throw up the white flag you may as well start learning to live under Sharia Law. That is their goal, everyone will live under Sharia Law or be dead.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[FoundingFather]

Okay, what makes gold any better than the international usage of "worthless paper"? Seriously? Neither are of any more value than what anyone perceives it to be. What can you do with gold? You can't eat it. It's shiny and heavy and people oooh and ahhh over how pretty it is, but other than that, what is it really worth?

It is worth what people are willing to give you for it. The same goes with paper currency, which is basically an assessment and a short term promise of value based upon the economic stability of who issues the money (or gold).

Why not go with salt standard, or a grain standard, how about a water standard? I can't think of anything a human being needs more than water. :shrug:

Money is a medium of exchange. As such, it must have portabilty, durability, divisibility, and inherent value (scarcity). Gold is the element that best fits this criteria. Gold's scarcity cannot be manipulated, unlike what politicians can do with paper promises. You can't print gold, but you can print a paper promise and decrease its value. You see this as inflation of prices, which is nothing more than a hidden tax on you. There's a reason the founding fathers said that Congress could only coin money in gold and silver. It's because gold and silver protect the peoples' wealth from corrupt politicians.

 

[Christy]

That's a shame because it does matter. If they hate us for our policy with their respective nation, then we can actually change that.

If someone hates you, then you should examine your own behavior as well as theirs, before making a conclusion.

I think you must have a very limited understanding of the current Muslim culture and Sharia Law.

 

[Vince]

That's a shame because it does matter. If they hate us for our policy with their respective nation, then we can actually change that.

If someone hates you, then you should examine your own behavior as well as theirs, before making a conclusion.

Is there something you don't understand about us being the infidels and them wanting to kill us? Their religion tells them this. If you don't understand that you should go over there and try to make friends with them. I'll buy you a basket you can take with you to put your head in when they chop it off.

 

[Christy]

Money is a medium of exchange. As such, it must have portabilty, durability, divisibility, and inherent value (scarcity). Gold is the element that best fits this criteria. Gold's scarcity cannot be manipulated, unlike what politicians can do with paper promises. You can't print gold, but you can print a paper promise and decrease its value. You see this as inflation of prices, which is nothing more than a hidden tax on you. There's a reason the founding fathers said that Congress could only coin money in gold and silver. It's because gold and silver protect the peoples' wealth from corrupt politicians.

Your rationalization for using gold as a standard is flawed. The world economy has far exceeded the amount of gold available. Utilizing the gold standard would require more gold to be mined in proportion to what a manufacturer or a business creates in products. It just isn't possible.

I don't think the system we have now is a bad system. It is based on economic output, monetary policy, and fiscal policy. We're screwing ourselves as a country by printing more than what our economic output can sustain. The dollar is in the toilet as it should be because we spend too much and there doesn't seem to be any slowdown in that in the near future, which is why the dollar is being devalued. We're not a sure bet like we used to be.

 

[FoundingFather]

I think you must have a very limited understanding of the current Muslim culture and Sharia Law.

I think you have a misguided and biased understanding. Where do you get your information?

 

[Christy]

I think you have a misguided and biased understanding. Where do you get your information?

I get it everywhere and quite honestly I dig pretty darned deep into issues regarding Sharia Law and the Muslim Brotherhood. You'd be well served in doing the same. You might want to look into Sharia Finance as well.

 

[FoundingFather]

Your rationalization for using gold as a standard is flawed. The world economy has far exceeded the amount of gold available. Utilizing the gold standard would require more gold to be mined in proportion to what a manufacturer or a business creates in products. It just isn't possible.

I don't think the system we have now is a bad system. It is based on economic output, monetary policy, and fiscal policy. We're screwing ourselves as a country by printing more than what our economic output can sustain. The dollar is in the toilet as it should be because we spend too much and there doesn't seem to be any slowdown in that in the near future, which is why the dollar is being devalued. We're not a sure bet like we used to be.

I'm sorry but your rationalization is flawed. We've only been off the gold standard for 40 or so years. That is a short amout of time compared the amount of time gold was considered money. What happened in those short 40 years that now makes it impossible? We didn't leave the gold standard for the reason you stated. We left it because we defaulted on our paper promises of gold to other countries (i.e. we printed too many gold certificates).

But to address your points directly: First, the volume of gold is not important, it is the value that is assigned to it that is important. A zero can be added to a paper bill to change its value and similarly it can be added to the dollar value of a certain volume of gold. Since gold is divisible, it doesn't matter if a bill is backed by an g, kg, ounce, or pound. Second, yes, to achieve decent price stability within a growing economy, the money supply does need to grow. But, how fast? Grow the money supply too quickly you get inflation, too slowly and you get deflation. Long term gold supply growth trends are around 1.6%. US real GDP growth adjusted for population growth over the last few decaded is about the same. It is certainly feasible.

There is nothing inherently evil with paper money, but in practice, those in control of the supply of it will always deceive the population by manipulating its value and that's evil. The gold standard is not perfect, but it is much better than what we have right now. All paper money of the past has collapsed.

 

[FoundingFather]

Is there something you don't understand about us being the infidels and them wanting to kill us? Their religion tells them this. If you don't understand that you should go over there and try to make friends with them. I'll buy you a basket you can take with you to put your head in when they chop it off.

I'm supposed to believe that all Muslims are taught to kill all other non-Muslims?

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm supposed to believe that all Muslims are taught to kill all other non-Muslims?

In a literal sense, yes. In a practical sense, fealty to ones religion we know to be a variable.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Koran is a political book first and foremost. Now, we can ignore it all WE like in terms of how literal we take some of it just as there are parts of the Bible that have long been discarded as impractical and more associated with the time period to be discarded as we evolve, grow and learn.

However, what we can't do is choose how literal THEY take it. Keep in mind, Islam today is as absorbed in an ongoing battle as to the proper way forward as it has been since the decent of Islam began as the modern West ascended.

There are many, many people who want to use it, the Koran, as we use the Bible; keep the good, discard some of the more archaic stuff. And, there are a great many who think the way forward is a much more literal use of the book. The battle tends to boil down to Westernization vs. modernization. Westernize meaning liberalize and modernize meaning to simply use modern tools and methods to achieve the literal teachings of the book.

This is real and ongoing and deadly serious. For contrast, how many people in the west are calling for a return to the Old Testament? And how are they viewed?

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

I'm supposed to believe that all Muslims are taught to kill all other non-Muslims?

In a literal sense, yes. In a practical sense, fealty to ones religion we know to be a variable.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Koran is a political book first and foremost. Now, we can ignore it all WE like in terms of how literal we take some of it just as there are parts of the Bible that have long been discarded as impractical and more associated with the time period to be discarded as we evolve, grow and learn.

However, what we can't do is choose how literal THEY take it. Keep in mind, Islam today is as absorbed in an ongoing battle as to the proper way forward as it has been since the decent of Islam began as the modern West ascended.

There are many, many people who want to use it, the Koran, as we use the Bible; keep the good, discard some of the more archaic stuff. And, there are a great many who think the way forward is a much more literal use of the book. The battle tends to boil down to Westernization vs. modernization. Westernize meaning liberalize and modernize meaning to simply use modern tools and methods to achieve the literal teachings of the book.

This is real and ongoing and deadly serious. For contrast, how many people in the west are calling for a return to the Old Testament? And how are they viewed?

The equivalent would be the Italian scallions and other sola scripture types who think they have the corner on understanding Christianity. They are constantly telling the more liberal denominations, like the Catholics, that they are doing it wrong. There are two threads on the subject in the religion forum right now. If this country allowed the mixing of government and religion we would have exactly the same issues happening here.

 

[Larry Gude]

The equivalent would be the Italian scallions and other sola scripture types who think they have the corner on understanding Christianity. They are constantly telling the more liberal denominations, like the Catholics, that they are doing it wrong. There are two threads on the subject in the religion forum right now. If this country allowed the mixing of government and religion we would have exactly the same issues happening here.

No. There is no moral equivalency. More fundamentalist Christians opinions stop at the waters edge. They never insist, both in word and, more importantly, in deed, that you conform. That is the HUGE difference. In fact, that freedom of will is central. They can say with all certainty that I am going to hell but, it's only IF I choose to not follow the lord as they see it.

Christianity can be coercive to a degree. However, it does not even remotely approach the literal demands of Islam.

There is no equivalency to be found here.

 

[FoundingFather]

In a literal sense, yes. In a practical sense, fealty to ones religion we know to be a variable.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Koran is a political book first and foremost. Now, we can ignore it all WE like in terms of how literal we take some of it just as there are parts of the Bible that have long been discarded as impractical and more associated with the time period to be discarded as we evolve, grow and learn.

However, what we can't do is choose how literal THEY take it. Keep in mind, Islam today is as absorbed in an ongoing battle as to the proper way forward as it has been since the decent of Islam began as the modern West ascended.

There are many, many people who want to use it, the Koran, as we use the Bible; keep the good, discard some of the more archaic stuff. And, there are a great many who think the way forward is a much more literal use of the book. The battle tends to boil down to Westernization vs. modernization. Westernize meaning liberalize and modernize meaning to simply use modern tools and methods to achieve the literal teachings of the book.

This is real and ongoing and deadly serious. For contrast, how many people in the west are calling for a return to the Old Testament? And how are they viewed?

Sure, context and interpretation are important with any literal piece. I don't deny that there are extremists who are violent and hell bent on world domination. But to sterotype the entire Muslim religion as being that way, as suggested in a previous post, is just ridiculous. There are people like that all over the world, regardless of religion. Ironically, some foreigners probably look at the USA and see us in the same light. To ignore that reality is being close-minded.

 

[Christy]

Sure, context and interpretation are important with any literal piece. I don't deny that there are extremists who are violent and hell bent on world domination. But to sterotype the entire Muslim religion as being that way, as suggested in a previous post, is just ridiculous. There are people like that all over the world, regardless of religion. Ironically, some foreigners probably look at the USA and see us in the same light. To ignore that reality is being close-minded.

You act as if Muslim extremists are few and far between. To ignore the reality that they are many is closed minded and downright delusional.

The Muslim society as a whole has always been extreme, the only difference now is that they are becoming more powerful because we are allowing it by our inaction and worldwide inaction to nip it in the bud. The sobbing bleading hearts of the world have allowed them to grow and to begin flexing their muscle.

I have said it before and I will say it again, the only thing these people respect and recognize is sheer power. You see it amongst themselves. Whoever is the biggest, meanest, bad ass, tribe leader wins.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

The equivalent would be the Italian scallions and other sola scripture types who think they have the corner on understanding Christianity. They are constantly telling the more liberal denominations, like the Catholics, that they are doing it wrong. There are two threads on the subject in the religion forum right now. If this country allowed the mixing of government and religion we would have exactly the same issues happening here.

No. There is no moral equivalency. More fundamentalist Christians opinions stop at the waters edge. They never insist, both in word and, more importantly, in deed, that you conform. That is the HUGE difference. In fact, that freedom of will is central. They can say with all certainty that I am going to hell but, it's only IF I choose to not follow the lord as they see it.

Christianity can be coercive to a degree. However, it does not even remotely approach the literal demands of Islam.

There is no equivalency to be found here.

There was before, why did the colonists leave Europe again?

And that is my point, if our country allowed it, the religious zealots wouldn't just be telling you how to live your life, they would have legislated it. Christians have a long history of trying to force others to their version of god, if it wasn't for our constitution we would have had an national religion a long time ago. And it would have been pushed forward by the ISs

 

[FoundingFather]

You act as if Muslim extremists are few and far between. To ignore the reality that they are many is closed minded and downright delusional.

The Muslim society as a whole has always been extreme, the only difference now is that they are becoming more powerful because we are allowing it by our inaction and worldwide inaction to nip it in the bud. The sobbing bleading hearts of the world have allowed them to grow and to begin flexing their muscle.

I have said it before and I will say it again, the only thing these people respect and recognize is sheer power. You see it amongst themselves. Whoever is the biggest, meanest, bad ass, tribe leader wins.

Labeling the entire Muslim society as extreme is nothing more than a stereotype. You act as if there are no muslims who are peaceful and tolerant of others. That's a dangerous idea to be promoting.

Al Qaeda was actually created by the CIA in the first place. In the 1970s, the CIA decided to create an extremist group to create problems for the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. That is a fact, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has been on record saying so herself. Since then we have spent trillions of dollars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen fighting a problem we created. Not to mention Iraq, where the US claimed Al Qaeda was residing, but that of course later turned out to be false.

Now the US is giving assistance to the Syrian opposition which includes Al Qaeda fighters (we did this in Lybia too)! So are they our enemy or not? We are fighting and supporting them at the same time.

And now you want us to go to war with Iran? Why? Because they support Al Qaeda? Because they have a nuke? We've heard those lies before. Give me a break. Iran is not the threat. Look at the image below and you tell me who is the threat.

It sounds to me like you are afraid of the boogyman.

 

[Larry Gude]

Wirelessly posted



There was before, why did the colonists leave Europe again?

And that is my point, if our country allowed it, the religious zealots wouldn't just be telling you how to live your life, they would have legislated it. And that is MY point; they could have and they did NOT.

Christians have a long history of trying to force others to their version of god, if it wasn't for our constitution we would have had an national religion a long time ago. And it would have been pushed forward...

This is why there is NO moral equivalency, at all, between Islam and Christianity. This nation was founded by very Christian people and they chose to make religious freedom NUMBER ONE on the rules list.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



There was before, why did the colonists leave Europe again?

And that is my point, if our country allowed it, the religious zealots wouldn't just be telling you how to live your life, they would have legislated it. And that is MY point; they could have and they did NOT.

Christians have a long history of trying to force others to their version of god, if it wasn't for our constitution we would have had an national religion a long time ago. And it would have been pushed forward...

This is why there is NO moral equivalency, at all, between Islam and Christianity. This nation was founded by very Christian people and they chose to make religious freedom NUMBER ONE on the rules list.

They were being oppressed by Christians, and not all of the founders fell into the same "Christian" category. Many of them weren't even chrisitan. As a result the country that formed did so without religion. Not because they were so Christian they wouldn't force their religion on people but because they didn't want their denomination to be oppressed.