what... huh?
Active Member
So you are incapable of addressing a single refutation from an idiot?
That has to be embarrassing.
That has to be embarrassing.
Why Gold?
- Thread starter TheBrutalTruth
- Start date
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
I believe I addressed every point you brought up, and destroyed your arguments, now stop trolling my thread.
And I never accused you of being an idiot, I accused you of verbally flailing about like an infant, which you continue to demonstrate was clearly on the mark based on your inability to recognize when you have been bested in a discussion.
what... huh?
Active Member
Sorry about that...
Everything was quoted, so I assumed it had been posted before.
What about muslim ones?
Skurry stuff.
Call me a bigot again.
It is what makes us better than other leaders of the world.
Snatch
The Raggedy Rawney
Angelo, My Love
Lacho Drom
Time of the Gypsies
King of The Gypsies
Into The West
Traveler American
Ivan & Abraham
etc...
I never mentioned Hitler. You did. I said Christianity fueled it. I said the people following orders and turning a blind eye did so because of their own beliefs about jews and gypsies. This IS my point. The ABILITY to USE EXISTING PREJUDICE AND HATRED to accieve a goal existed UNDER BELIEFS BEGAT OF CHRISTIANITY BY CHRISTIANS.
Stop talking about Hitler. I am talking about the people who did the dirty work in the name of God. Tell me the percentage of people involved in atrocities who were and were not Christians. 50/50? 60/40?
Subtlety.
So if you could use quotes like everyone else it would make my job easier. Just as a courtesy. Thanks.
Everything was quoted, so I assumed it had been posted before.
Could you be made to gas Jewish children because X is a cool guy?
What about muslim ones?
Skurry stuff.
Call me a bigot again.
So we entered the war in '39?
When our allies call us to arms with a moral imperative against a force which means to dominate the world... it SHOULD BE OUR BUSINESS. It has been every time before or since.
How can I have a different view of the effects of organized religion which are contrary to yours, and not be a bigot, if you don't mind? Have I at any point suggested people "should" or "should not" believe? Have I said that I do not believe in God? Have I said that I do not believe ANYTHING other than the RESULTS of organized religions work is overall more negative than positive... regardless of its effect on you personally? .
Whenever the US goes to war there are 4 things that always seem to be there. 1. Vested interest. 2. Support of the people. 3. A moral imperative. and 4. The support of our allies or our support of them.
It is what makes us better than other leaders of the world.
And this clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of genetics. If I practice Jewdaism, I am a Jew. If I am a Semite, I am not a Jew unless by choice. You really should just concede this argument... at best ignore it.
The Semites were before Jewdaism. They are the decendants of Shem... one of the sons of Noah, which is why I spoke of him specifically. One of Shems kids was Arpachshad... whom Abraham (the first Hebrew) was decended from. You are simply wrong.
There are.
Snatch
The Raggedy Rawney
Angelo, My Love
Lacho Drom
Time of the Gypsies
King of The Gypsies
Into The West
Traveler American
Ivan & Abraham
etc...
My point was to demonstrate that it DID include the Jewish, and was particularly harsh on them... and that this was religiously motivated.
In what numbers?
I was not addressing any of that. I was addressing our reluctance to get into a war which primarily benefitted a people we didn't care about from a position of isolationism. There is quite a bit of literature written about the subject. Perhaps I can suggest some.
To that, and your continued wiki quoting I say...
I never mentioned Hitler. You did. I said Christianity fueled it. I said the people following orders and turning a blind eye did so because of their own beliefs about jews and gypsies. This IS my point. The ABILITY to USE EXISTING PREJUDICE AND HATRED to accieve a goal existed UNDER BELIEFS BEGAT OF CHRISTIANITY BY CHRISTIANS.
Stop talking about Hitler. I am talking about the people who did the dirty work in the name of God. Tell me the percentage of people involved in atrocities who were and were not Christians. 50/50? 60/40?
Subtlety.
So if you could use quotes like everyone else it would make my job easier. Just as a courtesy. Thanks.
I love to listen to intellectuals argue. They start out with righteousness and reason and quickly degenerate in to white trash when people don't agree with their self serving ideas. ppl who put forth an idea and then get pissed when ppl don't agree with it, piss me off. Sorry i just got divorced, I may be a little sensitive............
what... huh?
Active Member
C'mon... be honest... the trash talking is MORE entertaining IF it is not the focus of the discussion. I like all debate, polite or rank... so long as people can stay focused on their arguments that is.
Hard to find a good combination I find. Brutal is a smart dude, and I respect him. That makes this more fun for me. Poking retards with sticks just isn't fun after the first few times. I much prefer to debate people of similar beliefs than opposing.
Hard to find a good combination I find. Brutal is a smart dude, and I respect him. That makes this more fun for me. Poking retards with sticks just isn't fun after the first few times. I much prefer to debate people of similar beliefs than opposing.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
This is why I put that maybe we need to have a religion thread to not derail this one about gold!
If through the banks people have turned that one million in the first deposit into about $12 million in loans that helps the business owners expand businesses and grow that money further. This allows the economy to expand and work wonderfully well. It is why we prospered so well. We were/are the first and one of the only that excepted the Jewish community that had been practiced in this forever.
They helped us to build up the wealth we had and far exceed everyone else due to us not being shortsighted about it. The deposits are safe (usually) due to two reasons, one FDIC keeps bank panics very low considering. And two the people that save do not need to touch most the money they save.
At least that was how it was until the late 70's-80's when we switched from saving to full on borrowers. That would have been fine if we wouldn't have pulled out all the regulations on the banks that slowed the amount going out (credit cards, sub prime mortgage, ect).
If (as is too often the case) they chose not to hold excess reserves. But your missing the whole point of why this is good (or at least didn't mention it).
If through the banks people have turned that one million in the first deposit into about $12 million in loans that helps the business owners expand businesses and grow that money further. This allows the economy to expand and work wonderfully well. It is why we prospered so well. We were/are the first and one of the only that excepted the Jewish community that had been practiced in this forever.
They helped us to build up the wealth we had and far exceed everyone else due to us not being shortsighted about it. The deposits are safe (usually) due to two reasons, one FDIC keeps bank panics very low considering. And two the people that save do not need to touch most the money they save.
At least that was how it was until the late 70's-80's when we switched from saving to full on borrowers. That would have been fine if we wouldn't have pulled out all the regulations on the banks that slowed the amount going out (credit cards, sub prime mortgage, ect).
The twelve figure is the amount of required reserves that zaps it right about there. Taxes are not a great example since they end up back into the countries accounts somewhere. Even if it is them buying stuff. The only way to shrink the money supply is to take some out and set it aside not being used.
I am using the economic use of greed. The drive that a person has to advance their own means. I define your second definition with something that rhymes I call it "need". It is not set up for the people that misuse it, it is there for the people that actually need it (say closed head case, or orphans).
No it more is about predatory lending, going after people that don't know better or are so jammed up they have no choice. Mentally handicap, College kids thinking they are getting a free t-shirt, people about to lose their homes ect. And a look at some of the collection practices. It is a good watch, and can be described more like a national geographic film where a little zebra gets mauled by a lion.
We don't have a forced currency, check out that book I said before (with farmers) "deep economy" it talks about some areas in the US that are using local currency. The only thing about having a global currency would be expedience. If I could go into a foreign country and build a school it would be much easier to not have daily fluctuations on the price of currency meaning that if I started and it costs 1 million by the time I finish it would actually cost me 2 million due to possible fluctuations, making it very difficult to do things. Especially if you take in account planning, permits ect.
Yeah^^ but that is why I was saying it in context to a global government, leave only the biggest things in its crosshairs and the smaller scale more to the free market, unless it gets too out of hand. I put it more with the idiots we elect (we actually have a dem in the senate that was a Klu Klux Klan member.... And most the rest have such a narrow view of the world as lawyers they don't understand things like science and economics. It is sad.
Very true.
I think it may be because it diminishes their power. I think the saying is "A man cannot serve two masters".
This would make sence because they were the first established religion (I think anyway) so they would not want to lose power. So new guess on my part, it was basically a war between two 'governments' christianity vs islam.
what... huh?
Active Member
Point taken.
Nobody likes a thread jacker. Carry on.
Nobody likes a thread jacker. Carry on.
So your logic is giving banks the power to counterfit is good.
Because thats what they are doing counterfiting.
The entire system as it is now benifits those close to the FED and in banking.
The FED and the fractional reserve system destroys the savings of all Americans.
The FED was created to stop inflation, that was what it was sold as.
Then turns around and inflates the dollar by around 95%.
Then tells us how inflation is good.
Please, Humans are so damn Gullible.
Gold will prevent fractional reserve banking. (in theory)
Gold has served well as money for several thousand years.
Then they say it can't work now, thats rediculous.
Nobody is saying you will have to carry gold coins around.
Banks need to be acountable,
Gold will go a long way to making them so.
100% reserve banking is posable and much to me prefered, IMO.
If you had a grain silo
and tryed to do what a banker does with your money
you would go to prison.
This has happened, BTW.
Money and grain are much the same.
But bankers get a free pass.
You can not print wealth on a printing press.
All you can do is inflate.
That is a tax, a hidden tax, that hurts the poorest first.
Meanwhile those who get the new money first benifit greatly.
To me Gold is just common sence.
Because thats what they are doing counterfiting.
The entire system as it is now benifits those close to the FED and in banking.
The FED and the fractional reserve system destroys the savings of all Americans.
The FED was created to stop inflation, that was what it was sold as.
Then turns around and inflates the dollar by around 95%.
Then tells us how inflation is good.
Please, Humans are so damn Gullible.
Gold will prevent fractional reserve banking. (in theory)
Gold has served well as money for several thousand years.
Then they say it can't work now, thats rediculous.
Nobody is saying you will have to carry gold coins around.
Banks need to be acountable,
Gold will go a long way to making them so.
100% reserve banking is posable and much to me prefered, IMO.
If you had a grain silo
and tryed to do what a banker does with your money
you would go to prison.
This has happened, BTW.
Money and grain are much the same.
But bankers get a free pass.
You can not print wealth on a printing press.
All you can do is inflate.
That is a tax, a hidden tax, that hurts the poorest first.
Meanwhile those who get the new money first benifit greatly.
To me Gold is just common sence.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
The FED was created to be a lender of last resort. One of the tools of its open market operation arm that it has is to cause inflation or stop it depending on which way it is going. This helps to stabilize the country.
In essence the banking system helps to advance the wealth of our country. We are by FAR the largest economy due to the banking system we have (we have over 2k banks, most countries have 4 or 5 super banks). But it is double edged, we don't have slow growth here it is boom and bust (high rates of growth followed by huge market corrections that is the bust). The FED and government act as the speed limit trying to keep the system from this. But over the last 40 years those limits kept getting pushed up leaving the late 1980's-2007 a period of huge boom, and we are experiencing the inevitable bust atm.
If you need it I will try to get into all the ins and outs of it, but really the explanation to teach this is in several textbooks and there would be no way I am going to type it all. And I have a feeling that it may fall on deaf ears.
Basically everything you said is wrong though. If you read through the discussion TBT and I were having you might pick up some of the reasons why.
Currency is just represents the value of one unit of whatever it is being traded for (wages, goods, services). It in itself means nothing. But it allows for a society to easily trade for goods without having to spend everything (barter economy) if I am a dairy farmer and cannot trade all my goods I am going to lose what I cannot get.
And just having gold won't mean that the prices wont fluctuate, they will. And the value of that gold will go up or down just like cash will. But it would allow for worldwide transaction without having place by place fluctuations. So there is good in the idea, it would just be more expedient to have a single currency.
Again read the comments that are back and forth, we have discussed your jail theory for different money and it is bullshit. There are small scale economies that use their own currencies all over america. And it is perfectly legal.
The big thing is that the people you are using as your education don't have the foggiest what they are talking about, and if that isn't the case it is worse since they are using your ignorance and lying to you to get you to buy into their propaganda.
Educate yourself with actual information, not the junk on the internet until you have enough knowledge to sort through the BS of almost everything on the web and find the truth.
jfgordon1
Well-Known Member
I like compare Nixon to Wilson when it comes to fucking up our monetary system. But hey, It shouldn't have been a surprise... Nixon Idolized him
huh, Never really thought about it that way.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Actually the first established religion was Zoroastrianism which was founded in Ancient Babylon and like Judaism (the second organized monotheistic religion) was monotheistic.This is why I put that maybe we need to have a religion thread to not derail this one about gold!
Yes, quite possibly, but I'm not interesting in discussing religion. I believe in God, I'm not going to change my mind, and I think that the good that Religion does far outweighs the bad that it has done.
Unlike Socialism, where the bad that it has done, and the bad that it continues to do will far outweight any "good" that it can be said to accomplish. But I suppose Socialism/Marxism/Communism should be filed under a religion, especially if one holds up religion as being an example of people believing what can not be proven, or can be proven to be false.
If (as is too often the case) they chose not to hold excess reserves. But your missing the whole point of why this is good (or at least didn't mention it).
Ilkhan actually addressed that, but you're right, I jumped from explaining what it was to why it was bad.
The reason why it is bad, is because it gives the banks the unlimited power to inflate. Inflation is of course an entirely unnatural state for an economy to be in (unless it is dying, due to birthrates of workers not exceeding the birth rates of people incapable of working, plus the death rate of former workers plus the number of people becoming disabled (which all too often is a case of laziness, and a lack of drive.))
Inflation increases the costs of living, and as wages are sticky and not inclined to fluctuate up or down, any change in the cost of living has a negative impact on the economy. If prices go down then entrenched workers receive benefit at the expense of new workers who get paid less. If prices go up, as they would under inflation, then entrenched workers lose benefit at the expense of new workers who get paid more.
Not to mention the fact that inflation destroys the value of savings, and thus is a hidden tax on those individuals that practice thrift for one reason or another. Perhaps they want to save up for a vacation. If the currency (assuming it exists in a vacuum) inflates by 2% they then have to save 2% more to be able to receive the same quantity of goods. If they are saving on the long term then they are going to find that the cumulative effects of inflation force them into working for a longer period of time.
Inflation can best be described as the tool of incompetent States that seek to deprive their citizens of the ability to improve their station in life by advancing either their capabilities (education) or by using their capabilities to their own full advantange (entrepreneurship.)
The effects of inflation (as with taxation) are to ultimately slow down the economy, force workers that would otherwise start their own companies, or leave the work force, to remain in the work force against their will. It is a monetary policy that can best be summed up as allowing the State to force its citizens into bondage.
It also discourages savings, thrift, and investment, thus slowing down the economy further by making it more difficult for the entrepreneurs and potential students to secure funding for their ventures or education.
If through the banks people have turned that one million in the first deposit into about $12 million in loans that helps the business owners expand businesses and grow that money further.
See above for my rational against inflation.
Though if you are going to hold up the argument that it speeds up the economy, then I will have to answer that the benefit of that speed up does not go to those who earned it through their labor, but to those that have connections to the banks that generated the inflation in the first place. Originally, of course, these benefits were conferred onto the goldsmiths who were the first banks.
This allows the economy to expand and work wonderfully well. It is why we prospered so well.
Real Wages stagnating, cost of living going up, continual tax hikes due to artificial booms and busts created by the imbecilic expansion of money supply due to government interference in the markets, and refusal to abandon its monopoly on mortgages, or bring Antitrust charges against the State Agencies that brought on the bubble?
You call this prospering?
I wish I could see what you call not prospering, because if it is the exact opposite of this, I do believe I'll have to apply the name of the Garden of Eden to it.
We were/are the first and one of the only that excepted the Jewish community that had been practiced in this forever.
I do believe you mean accepted, not excepted, but that's actually a rather bigoted view. The Medicis and other Italian Banking Families (where banking actually originated) were not Jewish.
They helped us to build up the wealth we had and far exceed everyone else due to us not being shortsighted about it.
I would actually say that what helped us prosper was the fact that we were a nation of rugged individualists that were unwilling to bend to nature and wanted to shape our own destiny free of the undue regulation of Kings and States.
The very principles that were enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.
The deposits are safe (usually) due to two reasons, one FDIC keeps bank panics very low considering. And two the people that save do not need to touch most the money they save.
Considering the it has access to a lot of stolen money, yes. Does it actually do the economy any good?
The answer to that is No.
Bank Runs were a vote of no confidence in a bank. A bank that was able to withstand a bankrun on its own demonstrated that it was well managed, and actually had the deposits that it said it did on hand (it is very unlikely that a bank run would include every depositor.)
Banks that failed due to bank runs were clearly mismanaged and thus represented resources being wasted by economic inefficiencies. That is, they deserved to fail, because their failure ultimately benefitted the economy in the long run by allowing better managed banks to take their market share.
At least that was how it was until the late 70's-80's when we switched from saving to full on borrowers.
Try 30s. The United States has rarely ran a budget surplus since the Great Depression. A policy that will sooner or later bite us in the ass. Keynesian Economics is not conducive to the wealth or health of a nation, because if the government borrows money today, it will have less in the future and thus has sold itself into bondage to the bankers whom it is supposed to control.
That is why it is easy to apply the term State (a band of thieves) to the Federal Government instead of the term Government (elected representatives concerned with the governing of the nation.) Instead of being answerable to those who should be their true masters (the citizenry) our nation is ran by people that are answerable to those that should be regulated by them, the bankers. It is not a structure conducive to the governance of any nation for any period of time, and does not deliver true benefit to the nation.
Interesting saying,
"Borrow a dollar and the bank owns you, borrow a million dollars and you own the bank."
Our government has borrowed one dollar and is thoroughly dominated by the banking interests that became its masters upon its acceptance of their loans.
Furthermore, the government, or rather State (I have to remember that the government has long abdicated its responsibility to protect all citizens and is now in the business of screwing over certain classes through theft, for the benefit of others, and thus can no longer be called a government, but a State) has abdicated the responsibilities that were entrusted to it under the Constitution and handed them over to unelected bureaucrats who are not answerable to the public.
Our government is no longer one by elected representatives (yes, they may still make laws), but a state controlled by unelected bureaucrats and whatever interests they practice their sycophancy upon.
That would have been fine if we wouldn't have pulled out all the regulations on the banks that slowed the amount going out (credit cards, sub prime mortgage, ect).
The mismanaged firms would have failed, and the well managed firms would have survived. The end result would have been a short lived recession during which competition in finance reached a fever pitch as the survivors tried to grab their portions of the resulting vacuum.
As far as the claims about the regulations. More important is the fact that the government allowed the monopoly of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to remain, despite knowing that the market was dominated by Fannie Mae, and thus was not conducive to the proper functioning of the mortgage markets.
It was the government that allowed bands of roving thieves (ACORN) to dictate to banks that they had to make loans to subprimer borrowers or else face expensive audits, continued harassment, and risk of forfeiting their rights to conduct their business.
The twelve figure is the amount of required reserves that zaps it right about there. Taxes are not a great example since they end up back into the countries accounts somewhere. Even if it is them buying stuff. The only way to shrink the money supply is to take some out and set it aside not being used.
I believe I was stating that taxes kill the money before it can circulate fully. I don't see how it was an example, it was a statement of fact, and regardless of whether or not it ends up in the State's accounts is irrelevant to the effect that taxes have upon the circulation of money.
Depriving people of their ability to spend their money how they want can only have a negative effect upon the natural flow of the economy, where individuals use the fruits of their labor (wages/salaries) to purchase the fruits of another's labor. Taxes can be seen as stealing benefit from the purchaser (they no longer are able to purchase as much) and from the seller (they no longer receive the money that they would have, forcing them to accept lower real pay) and thus interfering in the natural flow of money around the economy. That's of course with sales taxes, income taxes, and other taxes that are not collected prior to the goods entering the market (tariffs.)
There was many reason's why the founders specifically prohibited taxes that were not apportioned by per capita, but the main reason is because of the natural abuse of the power of taxation by the State. An abuse that they revolted against, because the government was using its power of taxation for the benefit of private interests (Dutch East India Company) and directly against the interests of their own subjects.
I am using the economic use of greed. The drive that a person has to advance their own means.
Need a better word, greed is a horrible word to describe a person's desire to improve their means. Industriousness, would be an infinitely better term. Greed has no space in an economic discussion, because of the negative connotations it carries with it.
I define your second definition with something that rhymes I call it "need". It is not set up for the people that misuse it, it is there for the people that actually need it (say closed head case, or orphans).
Don't need the government to add middlemen into the equation to deliver charity. Especially when said charity takes place at the point of the gun. It is entirely irrational to steal the bread from one man's mouth every third day and give it to some one else, and then expect for both the man, and the recipient of the theft to actually be well fed. The end result is that both are starving, not that both are fat from being able to indulge their need for food.
No it more is about predatory lending, going after people that don't know better or are so jammed up they have no choice.
This is going back to the argument about the lack of proper education.
Though seeing as how that would be an incredible dull statement, and quite against my natural proclivities to engage my mind by being verbose (when I'm actually interested in what is being discussed) I will throw out the fact that there's a reason why the United States was formed with a national system of bankruptcy laws. It was so people that find themselves oppressed by their debts can get relief and attempt to start their lives over again.
If those people that are hard-pressed by their creditors are unwilling to reduce their standard of living and thus release themselves from their disgusting addiction to credit then what happens to them is there responsibility and no one else's.
Mentally handicap,
(Sorry, can't resist) like yours?
College kids thinking they are getting a free t-shirt,
Between too good to be true and worse than you can imagine, bet on worse than you can imagine. And if they have such a lack of commonsense what are they doing in college to begin with? Their parents should have forced them to spend a couple years in the real world before allowing them to go into the artificial realm of fairy-tales and fiction that is the college system.
people about to lose their homes ect.
This is where bankruptcy law comes in handy. Currently under bankruptcy law, you keep your house, and one vehicle, provided you can pay for them. If people did not read the fine print on the contract that they signed, or ignored it, thinking that they would benefit from quickly selling the house a year or two later (before the Payment started including principle) then it is entirely unfair to punish the public for their greed, which is the immoral type of greed, and not the economic type of greed, because it does not stem from them improving themselves, but from them speculating on the housing market.
And a look at some of the collection practices.
"If you borrow a dollar from the bank, the bank owns you."
Or perhaps a better fitting saying would be, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be."
It is a good watch, and can be described more like a national geographic film where a little zebra gets mauled by a lion.
I'm not going to comment on my thoughts about the quality of International Politic, other than to state that like the quality of Popular Science, the NY Times, Popular Mechanics and other formerly decent magazines full of useful information, it has gone down hill.
We don't have a forced currency, check out that book I said before (with farmers) "deep economy" it talks about some areas in the US that are using local currency.
Liberty Dollars, read up on what happened to that, and then see if you can tell me with a straight face that we don't have a forced currency.
The only thing about having a global currency would be expedience. If I could go into a foreign country and build a school it would be much easier to not have daily fluctuations on the price of currency meaning that if I started and it costs 1 million by the time I finish it would actually cost me 2 million due to possible fluctuations, making it very difficult to do things. Especially if you take in account planning, permits ect.
A better way of going about it, would be to purchase all the supplies you need in the local economy, and convert all your currency into the local currency so that your costs (other than perhaps giving out bonuses for speed) would not fluctuate with the ForEx.
Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
Yeah^^ but that is why I was saying it in context to a global government, leave only the biggest things in its crosshairs and the smaller scale more to the free market, unless it gets too out of hand. I put it more with the idiots we elect (we actually have a dem in the senate that was a Klu Klux Klan member.... And most the rest have such a narrow view of the world as lawyers they don't understand things like science and economics. It is sad.
Yes, it is. What is that line from Gibson's Apocalyptico, a society can not be destroyed from with out, until it has been destroyed from with in...
Very true.
I think it may be because it diminishes their power. I think the saying is "A man cannot serve two masters".
Yes, but if they are worried about their own power then they are clearly trying to establish a system of slavery and treat the citizens as their chattel, thus demonstrating their immorality, avarice, greed and lust for power.
They are also ignoring the ideals that this nation was founded on, and confusing the power they are granted with in the limited confines of the Constitution with the unlimited powers of a tyrant.
"Sic Semper Tyrannis"
This would make sence because they were the first established religion (I think anyway) so they would not want to lose power. So new guess on my part, it was basically a war between two 'governments' christianity vs islam.
Unlike Judaism, Zoroastrianism preached about an unending fight between good and evil, between dark and light, between life and death. It was eventually abandoned by all but a few citizens of Iran, but it is still actually practiced.
Islam is actually the youngest of the major monotheistic religions not being founded until the 5th or 6th century AD by Muhammad, depending on if you use the date of his birth (570 ad) or date of his death (632 ad)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Though yes, Religion is much like a State, but at the same time it provides more benefits than the State, because it serves as a focus for communities and thus allows communities to become better connected and networked.
Personally, I prefer to do my networking at bars, which serve a similar purpose, and actually deliver a service I want. I don't actually have anything against religion, and I respect the teachings of Catholicism (and adhere to them) but I don't need to be told repeatedly not to kill, steal or adulterate. The first two are self-evident in their anti-social tendencies, and the third can easily be seen as being related to the first.
Of course, I also don't believe that the Church has the right to demand any tithing from me, unless it is going to ensure that my income is not stolen from me by the government, which would mean the church would need to stop looking after its financial health, and start doing something about its declining moral health.
I still have no idea what madness possessed the church to accept non-taxable status in exchange for not being able to interfere in politics. So goes the moral health of a nation, so goes the actual health of the church.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
I do believe it is sufficiently clear that the reason why I am not responding to your posts in total at the bottom, but in part, making use of BOLD test to denote what I am saying and separate it from what you are saying is because there's a shit load of dumb crap to respond to.Sorry about that...
Everything was quoted, so I assumed it had been posted before.
That's why I was using Bold, because I'm trying to respond to each point in turn, not to have to summarize everything at the end, and thus have a disorganized incoherent mess at the bottom.
Could you be made to gas Jewish children because X is a cool guy?
Does he have a few hot chick friends that will give me blow jobs for helping him gas Jewish Children?
(Sorry, being a smart ass)
No, I'd actually probably be trying to kill him, or helping those that were.
What about muslim ones?
No...
Skurry stuff.
All that is required for Evil to occur is for good men to do nothing. Those that failed to respond to Hitler's Evil were allowing it to happen, whether or not they supported it, or just didn't resist it.
Call me a bigot again.
All right, BIGOT!
So we entered the war in '39?
December 8th, 1941 (day after Pearl Harbor)
When our allies call us to arms with a moral imperative against a force which means to dominate the world... it SHOULD BE OUR BUSINESS. It has been every time before or since.
No, it shouldn't and it didn't happen before.
Revolutionary War - Tyrannical King pissed us off
Barbary Coast Wars (1803 - 1815) - Pirates demanded ransom and tribute to leave our ships alone. As we were sick of paying tribute we went and kicked their asses, and made it abundantly clear to them that fucking with us was a bad idea.
War of 1812 - Britain wouldn't stop sinking our merchant vessels and impressing their crews.
Mexican-American War - Mexico refused to recognize that as it has not granted the citizens of Texas a voice in their governance that they were fully capable of seceding (Texas kicked their asses) and when it came down to Texas asking to be recognized as a state a dispute over where its southern border was resulted in that War.
Civil War - Whether one argues for the South or for the North another party can be portrayed as the aggressor, but the event that really sparked the war was South Carolina's assault on Fort Sumter, once again, we were not at war with the South until the South took military action against the North.
Spanish-American War - United States Ship sunk in Havana Bay. Yellow-Journalism turned it into a Casus Bellis, and made the public believe we were attacked first.
World War I - German U-Boats sunk the Lusitania, a United States Ship, with out provocation on the flimsy pretext that it was carrying arms to the UK (which it might have been, but did not give them an excuse to attack us.)
World War II - Japanese Carriers stage assaults on Pearl Harbor
Since then every war we have gotten involved in has been to serve our interests, or protect other nations, but everything before World War II did not start until we were either sick of being attacked, or were actually (or just possibly) attacked.
How can I have a different view of the effects of organized religion which are contrary to yours, and not be a bigot, if you don't mind?
The problem is that you are simply looking at a few isolated incidents, but Religion routinely does a lot of good, such as providing charity for unfortunate individuals, and helping communities (and society) function more smoothely by bringing its members into contact with one another.
The benefits of an organized religion that is relatively homogenous in its composition is really hard to quantify.
Yes, the Church (not to be confused with Christianity as a whole) has done some regretful things, but even the Church recognizes that such actions were wrong, immoral and completely hypocritical, unlike the Socialist States that killed their own citizens, which insisted that the sacrifice and murder of so many people was for the good of the nation...
Have I at any point suggested people "should" or "should not" believe? Have I said that I do not believe in God? Have I said that I do not believe ANYTHING other than the RESULTS of organized religions work is overall more negative than positive... regardless of its effect on you personally? .
What effects on me personally, I deprive no benefit from religion, nor have I suffered from it.
Whenever the US goes to war there are 4 things that always seem to be there.
1. Vested interest.
Revolution - Independence
1803 - Keeping Citizen's safe
1812 - Keeping Citizen's Safe
Mexican-American - Keeping Texas whole
Spanish American War - Monroe Doctrine (Europe not having a place in American (North and South) politics)
World War I - Keeping Citizen's Safe
World War II - Keeping Citizen's Safe
Korean War - No real vested interests, we were doing it because North Korea had invaded South Korea with out provocation.
Vietnam War - France got its ass kicked and asked us to step in, thus we were helping an ally.
Gulf War I - Interventionism (or Checking the Monster we created in Iraq)
Gulf War II (which is really a continuation of the original Gulf War, as there was no Peace Treaty Signed to end Gulf War I) - End Gulf War I, and bring our soldiers home.
Afghanistan - We got attacked, and they refused to surrender Bin Laden, so we attacked them.
Oh yeah, everything we did was thoroughly dominated by vested interests...
Namely the government following through on its duty to protect its citizens from foreign aggressors.
2. Support of the people.
Vested Interests
3. A moral imperative.
We've never gone to war because there was a "moral" imperative.
and
4. The support of our allies or our support of them.
It is what makes us better than other leaders of the world.
Besides the fact that we have yet to truly fight a war where we were the aggressors?
And this clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of genetics. If I practice Jewdaism, I am a Jew. If I am a Semite, I am not a Jew unless by choice. You really should just concede this argument... at best ignore it.
If you are Jewish, you are a Jew, you can also be a Jew and not practice Judaism.
If you are a Semite, and you practice Judaism, you are a member of the Jewish Faith, but not of the Jewish People. There's a difference between the former (Faith) and the Latter (People.)
The Semites were before Jewdaism. They are the decendants of Shem... one of the sons of Noah, which is why I spoke of him specifically. One of Shems kids was Arpachshad... whom Abraham (the first Hebrew) was decended from. You are simply wrong.
No, I was right, I said that you were confusing PRE EXODUS or Genesis if you'd rather, with Exodus or Post Exodus.
Genesis was the creation of the world, and Exodus was the escape by the Jewish people from Egypt after the plagues, and their adoption of the 10 Commandments, and organization of their religion.
Clearly, for them to actually have been able to recognize each other in Egypt, prior to fleeing, they all had to have some distinct genetic heritage, or language, that allowed them to identify their own members, and thus the Jewish People existed before the Jewish Religion.
There are.
Snatch
The Raggedy Rawney
Angelo, My Love
Lacho Drom
Time of the Gypsies
King of The Gypsies
Into The West
Traveler American
Ivan & Abraham
etc...
My point was to demonstrate that it DID include the Jewish, and was particularly harsh on them... and that this was religiously motivated.
It wasn't religiously motivated. Did you actually read any of those two links?
In what numbers?
IDK.
I was not addressing any of that. I was addressing our reluctance to get into a war which primarily benefitted a people we didn't care about from a position of isolationism.
At the time we were not aware of the atrocities being committed. Oh, yes, there were stories and rumors in circulation, but it's not like Hitler, Goebbels and other leading NAZIs were about to invite their own citizens, let alone foreigners to visit the Concentration Camps, or tell them what they were being used for.
You have to remember that even back in the 30s, people were not omniscient or omnipotent. Hindsight is always 20/20, because it is possible to see the entire picture.
For the leaders that were leading the various nations, they maybe were lucky to see a third of the big picture.
There is quite a bit of literature written about the subject. Perhaps I can suggest some.
To that, and your continued wiki quoting I say...
Nothing, because you apparently are too intellectually dishonest to bother reading it.
I am not about to bother doing more than a basic search to demonstrate that your unfounded beliefs that Nazism and its persecution of the Jews was based on Christianity are false.
But if you really insist on having additional references provided for you
http://www.pacwashmetrodiv.org/projects/nazipers/
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id2.html
http://www.christianreviewofbooks.com/nazi_persecution_of_the_churches.htm
http://www.lawandreligion.com/nurinst1.shtml
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Persecution_of_Christians#Nazi_persecution_of_Christians
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/leaf-sum/naziperscath.htm
http://chgs.umn.edu/museum/responses/steyer/jWitnesses.html
http://www.spindleworks.com/library/peet/german.htm
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0033.html
http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/SpecialCollections/Donovan/index.cfm
I never mentioned Hitler. You did. I said Christianity fueled it. I said the people following orders and turning a blind eye did so because of their own beliefs about jews and gypsies.
To quote you back to yourself
Clearly, you are attempting to pass your opinions that it was because they were Christian that the Germans did nothing.
Perhaps you should wrap your mind around the fact that they were living under a Tyrannical Regime that was not providing them with all the information, and there were people that found out what was going on and attempted to do something.
Do you think that the recent movie that was released, the Valkryie, did not have some basis on reality, despite it being distorted by Hollywood, which clearly, like you has an irrational bigotry when its comes to Christianity, American Culture, and Freedom?
Do you think that it is possible that your "some" research is not properly directed to uncover anything that demonstrates that Christianity had anything to do with Nazism.
Even the most rudimentary of searches reveals that the Nazi goal was to ultimately do away with the Catholic and Protestant Churches, because they recognized the fact that they would challenge the power of the NAZIs, and object to the Evil that was taking place on German, Polish and Austrian Soil.
And, yes, your attitude is that of a bigot. You have demonstrated that you are closed minded with your imbecilic attempt to disregard the entry in Wikipedia that attempts to address your accusations that Christianity had anything to do with the Holocaust.
More importantly, is the fact that you are not just a bigot, but a cowardly bigot that is incapable of standing behind his own bigoted comments clearly due to the fear of being labeled as such.
This IS my point. The ABILITY to USE EXISTING PREJUDICE AND HATRED to accieve a goal existed UNDER BELIEFS BEGAT OF CHRISTIANITY BY CHRISTIANS.
Hindsight is 20/20. I really doubt that a great many Germans had any clue what their government was doing. Obviously that information was not going to be shouted out from rooftops across Germany, because the likely response would have been protests, revolt, and revolution.
And now I'm going to stop repeating myself, because I've posted enough on your ill-researched claims that Christianity "allowed" the Holocaust, or supported it.
Clearly, as the United States can best be decribed as being a Christian Nation, it could be argued that Christianity actively fought against the Holocaust, but that would be dishonest, because we did not know what was happening in Germany.
Stop talking about Hitler.
Stop being a dumb ass
I am talking about the people who did the dirty work in the name of God.
Lots of links above that you need to read you ignorant bigot.
Tell me the percentage of people involved in atrocities who were and were not Christians. 50/50? 60/40?
How the hell am I supposed to know this? I can guarantee you that all of them were NAZIs, and all of them believed in Hitler's plans, and that makes their religion irrelevant.
Subtlety.
So if you could use quotes like everyone else it would make my job easier. Just as a courtesy. Thanks.
Why the hell should I do something that would convenience you at the expense of my own convenience.
No critical thinking ability, either.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Wages are sticky in the downward. They rise constantly, Cola's and payraises keep them moving up. There are a lot of examples of companies that try to supress wages, but it usually leaves them with not being able to get new employees and losing others.
But you are right in a lot of what you said here if you chose to not believe that money is not a finite number, it is what it represents. Only a unit of measure.
One side effect of inflation is investment, if people invest they stay well above rates of inflation (in normal times). But this is all econ 101.
And inflation helps loans (your education example) be lower since a dollar today is not as much as a dollar tomorrow so paying back loans is cheaper.
The last part is wrong it encourages all of them.
Growing money and causing inflation are not the same thing, but they do both move together.
Boom and busts have been around long before government intervention and not having gold standard, and they were far worse and more devistating, but we covered that in another thread somewhere.
Here the thread starts to go awry. Stolen money? Now we are back to the irrational statements I thought that we got past.
But as to the bank run, maybe the first one or two banks that fail in a bank run where due to mismanagement, after that it is sheer panic that tanks the rest.
But if you refuse to see the benefits of banks and how they help the country prosper, whats the point of even explaining that.
I think you put too much on Keynesian economics. It mainly shows how cause has an effect. If you invest one dollar with someone that can make something worth $4 everyone can benefit. And if you can buy the same item for 50 cents from someone else, allowing you to put that dollar somewhere else and make $4 everyone benefits more.
And if I can borrow $1000 for a car that allows me to get to a job that I can make $2000 it is worth it if the alternative is to make $500. The principles are very simple, and usually correct.
After WWII the economy was very very stable and moved in a very nice line (with looking at inflation) until the 70's. Budget surplus/deficit doesn't have much to do with growth.
You kind of went off on a rant after that so we can just look past it and say the government is not pristine, it is corrupt as all get out, I think we can agree on that.
How about very well ran firms that see other firms dismantle themselves causing the well ran firm to fail due to the proximity of their products?
The rest is right wing nutbaggery, before this last election noone knew what Acorn was. And Fannie/Freddies loans where very stable until the smaller deregulated lenders (quickloans) went off the deepend with bad loans to anyone with a pulse ( I think we are starting to beat a deadhorse here as I know we talked about this about 3 or 4 times now) because they were able to sell them to wallstreet. This is what caused everything to collapse. Again not Fannie/Freddie or Acorn.
It doesn't end up in the states accounts, it ends up being put back into the economy, it is called injections (Government spending, Investments, Exports fall into this realm). So it doesn't stop the circulation.
Now we are getting close to people not ever wanting to spend money on things that they need or not knowing why they need it. I am not all about having everyone make decisions with everyone elses lives being affected by them. And that statement does go both ways. Remember the house on fire example, you may not want to pay taxes for the fire department, but it is not just your house that will burn it is your neighbors too.
Can't help you there, that is the correct word for it. TheBrutalTruth, with a name like that you should get it!
I am not about forcefeeding people that don't want to eat either, but the tune changes when people need help. Most people don't understand what is good for them, but it is like giving a kid some medicine you can't just say ok, if you don't want it thats fine.
No problem!
Bankruptcy laws costs us all more money. It would have been cheaper for us all to just to immediately have the banks write it off.
Just read up on it. Here is a list of local currencies:
I think it is just as likely that they were doing something that may have been illegal. But I don't know the evidence of it.
Senerio: You buy all the goods at this price have the place ready to go and the foreign government pull the permits and says you cannot build. Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance in a vacuum in the real world shit changes and you have to be ready to adapt.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
It's that belief that caused the economic crash. All those derivatives and hedging attempts...
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Huh!? You having a bad night or something?
Where do you get derivatives and hedging out of anything I said?
Your using a true statement about the crash and attaching it to my statement that doesn't even come close to saying that. Do you work for the big tv 'news' company, And just say things that have no sound facts or reason?
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
That is true.
Which is what is not supposed to be. Money is supposed to be a convenient commodity that sets a benchmark for the trading of all other commodities. Nation's can not just print themselves into prosperity. I do believe that the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe illustrate this point quite effectively.
Actually, the problem is that inflation punishes past investment, and it does little to discourage current investment.
Real returns from the stock market have crashed since the crash began, with a multitude of corporations cutting dividend payments, and thus serving to discourage investment.
T-Bonds are yielding negative after inflation.
Doesn't really sound like a conducive environment to investing, considering that the majority of long term financial gains are the result of dividends being reinvested to create a cumulative effect.
Yes, it helps people get something for nothing, which means it is screwing over the people that made the loans to begin with. No such thing as a free lunch.
I do believe the above is sufficient to demonstrate that I'm at least partially correct.
Inflation doesn't encourage savings, and it doesn't encourage thrift. If prices are rising faster than real incomes then it makes since to purchase now, instead of later. It makes more sense to purchase on credit, than to save to purchase, because in the future the prices will be higher, thus depriving you of the benefit of your savings.
As far as investment, if real returns are negative then it makes more sense to spend the money rather than hold onto it.
As inflation is cumulative, and quantity of inflation will ultimately punish savings and investment by depriving the money invested of its value, unless real returns (after inflation returns) are actually positive.
Inflation is a hidden tax that encourages people to be unduly greedy, because they have to ensure that their earnings are sufficient to compensate for the negative effects of inflation.
A business that is not making enough profits to continue to match increasing expenses due to inflation will end up bankrupt.
Actually the Great Depression was more devastating than any other bust. By comparison the prior busts through out the 19th century were short term affairs that resolved themselves quickly.
Stolen money, taxes are collected by force and coercion. If taxes were voluntary who would pay them?
Not necessarily. A bank that has sufficient reserves to withstand the demands of its depositors will survive, thus while mismanaged banks that underestimate maximum reserve requirements to survive a run fail, those that correctly estimate the response to the demands of depositors will remain solvent.
A good example of this would be the response of National City, which was mismanaged. When the news became public the CEO disclosed what had happened, and then provided the bank with sufficient capital to cover the theft of customer funds by the employees. (They were actually speculating on the stock market.)
I never said that banks didn't provide a beneficial service, I am emphasizing that they are being dishonest, and that their current mode of operating deprives people of their savings, investments by encouraging inflation.
That's common sense...
And if the interest on the loan makes the real cost $2,500, and deprives you of the ability to eat, despite having that job?
Prior to 1913, the economy averaged much higher growth on a much more consistent basis.
Other firms would likely be capable of stepping in to fulfill demand.
I'd urge you to go read up more on ACORN, their tactics in encouraging those banks to make those bad loans weren't exactly savory.
It does however interfere in the natural flow of money, which I believe is what I said.
And government injections do not benefit the economy, because the money would have remained in the economy to begin with. It's like taking a bucket of water out of one side of the lake and then pooring it into the other. There really is no change, except wastage due to the person drinking water while walking, and any spillage.
Volunteer Fire Departments.
Actually, I believe it is not the correct name. Or at least not the best name. Industriousness or Initiative are two better terms to describe a rational person's motivation to better themselves.
Freedom to fail, if people are going to be stupid then the best thing to do is to let them, so that people have an example of why it following the same course of action is stupid. Allowing people to learn from other people's mistakes, and their own is better than obligating other people to suffer for them.
Yes, but that just leads to abuse by people that would take loans with no intention of paying it back, leading to interest rates and collateral requirements rising because the bank would need to require more protection from default.
Do any of them purport to be attempting to replace the Dollar?
Neither do I, but I don't think they were doing anything illegal, aside from calling their coins currency.
Actually, I'd say that prior proper planning would have resulted in you being prepared for that contingency. Clearly if the regime was unstable then it did not make sense to invest there.
what... huh?
Active Member
I assumed you had been on a forum before. When I try and quote your post it isn't there... so it creates MORE work than you had to do. As I said, it is common courtesy, and you are the single exception in a fairly vast history on BBS's which refused to show it. It also italicizes the font, making it more difficult to read. I am clear now that it is intentional. You are not ignorant, you are a jackass. So be it.
I am going to skip the rest because it is all straw, and I need that answered...Does he have a few hot chick friends that will give me blow jobs for helping him gas Jewish Children?
(Sorry, being a smart ass)
No, I'd actually probably be trying to kill him, or helping those that were.
Everyone says that. Almost nobody did.
This is a photo of GI's forcing the town to witness what they were complicit in.
All that is required for Evil to occur is for good men to do nothing. Those that failed to respond to Hitler's Evil were allowing it to happen, whether or not they supported it, or just didn't resist it.
This is sort of the crux of my argument... nice that you are waging it for me. Why were they all complicit? The Germans, the French, the Belgians... the United States?
December 8th, 1941 (day after Pearl Harbor)
Yes, I know... it was rhetorical. Almost 3 years we sat around.
No, it shouldn't and it didn't happen before.
Revolutionary War - Tyrannical King pissed us off
Moral imperative- Taxation without representation is unjust.
Oh yeah, everything we did was thoroughly dominated by vested interests...
Namely the government following through on its duty to protect its citizens from foreign aggressors.
And here I see that as a moral imperative.
Besides the fact that we have yet to truly fight a war where we were the aggressors?
I am not arguing that we are aggressors. I will call that a straw man.
If you are Jewish, you are a Jew, you can also be a Jew and not practice Judaism.
Incorrect.
If you are a Semite, and you practice Judaism, you are a member of the Jewish Faith, but not of the Jewish People. There's a difference between the former (Faith) and the Latter (People.)
You are incorrect again. If you are a Semite and a Jew you are considered to be a "true Jew", and one of God's chosen people. Descendants of Shem, who begat... down to Abraham who HAPPEN to believe in Yahweh. The problem is that most people of the arab world are Semites. Anti-Semitic is a misnomer. The manipulation of language is how you userp a superpower.
A Semite can be punished for commiting anti-Semitism. Ain't that a kick in the head?
The Semites were before Jewdaism. They are the decendants of Shem... one of the sons of Noah, which is why I spoke of him specifically. One of Shems kids was Arpachshad... whom Abraham (the first Hebrew) was decended from. You are simply wrong.
No, I was right, I said that you were confusing PRE EXODUS or Genesis if you'd rather, with Exodus or Post Exodus.
Genesis was the creation of the world, and Exodus was the escape by the Jewish people from Egypt after the plagues, and their adoption of the 10 Commandments, and organization of their religion.
Clearly, for them to actually have been able to recognize each other in Egypt, prior to fleeing, they all had to have some distinct genetic heritage, or language, that allowed them to identify their own members, and thus the Jewish People existed before the Jewish Religion.
Yes dipshit, they were Hebrew. Descendants of Eber... great grandson of Shem. You do realize where I get all of this don't you? Nothing pisses me off more than a Christian arguing a bible he doesn't read. Why is it my fucking job to explain your word to you?
I don't know how to make this any clearer. They were Semites. Polytheist and "Jewish" Semites. Abraham is the first Jew. The genesis of Judaism. Shem had lots of descendants. Lots. Only one of which was Abraham. You cannot tell a Jew from any other Semite. Pharaoh said kill the Hebrew children. He enslaved the Hebrews... the ancient people... the descendants of Shem. There was a regional population explosion OF SEMITES and Egypt saw this as a threat.
It seems like you are arguing that there was Judaism before Moses... and I am aware of that. However monotheism didn't catch on too well. It was a RACE of people enslaved, some of whom were Jews. Then the baby Jesus opened up the sea and let those tired people go home. It all ends very sweetly. There was a movie... but they really don't go into detail about who the slaves were.
It wasn't religiously motivated. Did you actually read any of those two links?
Yes I read the links irrelevant to my position. It is a logical non-sequitur to suggest that Hitlers motivation was the motivation of the PEOPLE who carried it out, who turned in Jews, and people harboring Jews. I argue that more had Christianity behind them than Hitlers motivations and ideals... which is again... HOW Hitler was able to USE Christianity FOR that purpose.
IDK.
Bout time you came around to realizing it.
At the time we were not aware of the atrocities being committed. Oh, yes, there were stories and rumors in circulation, but it's not like Hitler, Goebbels and other leading NAZIs were about to invite their own citizens, let alone foreigners to visit the Concentration Camps, or tell them what they were being used for.
We knew enough. We knew and we didn't care. Much like the Gypsies. Who gives a fuck if a bunch of thieves and whores are killed? The same reason we don't have any memorials to their suffering. Nobody gives a shit. Nobody gave a shit about the Jews at that time either.
You have to remember that even back in the 30s, people were not omniscient or omnipotent. Hindsight is always 20/20, because it is possible to see the entire picture.
For the leaders that were leading the various nations, they maybe were lucky to see a third of the big picture.
Nothing, because you apparently are too intellectually dishonest to bother reading it.
I am not about to bother doing more than a basic search to demonstrate that your unfounded beliefs that Nazism and its persecution of the Jews was based on Christianity are false.
You gonna keep building straw men? I didn't say anything about Nazism being Christian. I said the worlds complacency existed because of deeply rooted, open, anti-Jewish sentiment.
But if you really insist on having additional references provided for you
http://www.pacwashmetrodiv.org/projects/nazipers/
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...ftist/id2.html
http://www.christianreviewofbooks.com/nazi_persecution_of_the_churches.htm
http://www.lawandreligion.com/nurinst1.shtml
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Per..._of_Christians
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages...ziperscath.htm
http://chgs.umn.edu/museum/responses...Witnesses.html
http://www.spindleworks.com/library/peet/german.htm
http://catholiceducation.org/article...ld/wh0033.html
http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu...ovan/index.cfm
Straw
To quote you back to yourself
Clearly, you are attempting to pass your opinions that it was because they were Christian that the Germans did nothing.Me said:
And Polish, Romanian, East Prussian, Austrian, Czechoslovakian, well... really all of Europe, save a few. Were they all Nazis? Or German? What sort of common thread do we have going here?
Perhaps you should wrap your mind around the fact that they were living under a Tyrannical Regime that was not providing them with all the information, and there were people that found out what was going on and attempted to do something.
Do you think that the recent movie that was released, the Valkryie, did not have some basis on reality, despite it being distorted by Hollywood, which clearly, like you has an irrational bigotry when its comes to Christianity, American Culture, and Freedom?
Loves me a movie reference in a historical debate.
Do you think that it is possible that your "some" research is not properly directed to uncover anything that demonstrates that Christianity had anything to do with Nazism.
Well... except... to quote back yourself.
How exactly? How did the existence of Christianity further his own goals?
I didn't read every post here so I can only assume no one has corrected a couple of minor facts in the original post by TBT. Im not trying to be critical here, just want to make some minor corrections. First off the dollar was not originally based on 1/20 an ounce of gold, it was actually based on the spanish silver dollar or reals ( Pieces of 8 coin). The silver dollar was authorized by Congress on April 2, 1792. Weight and fineness were specified at 416 grains and .8924 fine. The weight was changed by the law of January 18, 1837, to 412 grains and .900 fineness.Until 1804, all silver dollars had the value stamped on the edge. HUNDRED CENTS ONE DOLLAR OR UNIT. Interestingly enough 1837 was also the year they changed the dollar to the gold dollar you mention.
There was no such thing as a silver eagle, only the gold coins were called eagles, the silver coin was just called the "Dollar". Today the US Mint produces investable quality 1 troy ounce .999 fine silver coins called Silver Eagles now, but they have only been producing them since 1986. They weigh 2 grams more and are 100% silver as opposed to the 90% of the circulating coins of yesteryear.
The US phased out the use of Silver in almost all coins ( Except for 40% silver kennedy half dollar ones)after 1964. All coins since then have been a nickle clad copper slug. Since 1981 the US no longer makes pennies out of copper (Zinc now), a penny pre 1982 is worth almost 3 times its face value in metal value. Pre 1964 silver coins are worth 12 times face value in metal value as of this date. Forget about gold coins, they don't circulate since they were made illegal to own in 1933 by FDR who confiscated all citizens gold to pay for all the social programs he came up with. It was made legal to own again in 1973, but by then we were deeply entrenched in worthless "Paper" money and printing it as fast as we could spend it.
Anyway just wanted to clear that up, fascinating reading.
There was no such thing as a silver eagle, only the gold coins were called eagles, the silver coin was just called the "Dollar". Today the US Mint produces investable quality 1 troy ounce .999 fine silver coins called Silver Eagles now, but they have only been producing them since 1986. They weigh 2 grams more and are 100% silver as opposed to the 90% of the circulating coins of yesteryear.
The US phased out the use of Silver in almost all coins ( Except for 40% silver kennedy half dollar ones)after 1964. All coins since then have been a nickle clad copper slug. Since 1981 the US no longer makes pennies out of copper (Zinc now), a penny pre 1982 is worth almost 3 times its face value in metal value. Pre 1964 silver coins are worth 12 times face value in metal value as of this date. Forget about gold coins, they don't circulate since they were made illegal to own in 1933 by FDR who confiscated all citizens gold to pay for all the social programs he came up with. It was made legal to own again in 1973, but by then we were deeply entrenched in worthless "Paper" money and printing it as fast as we could spend it.
Anyway just wanted to clear that up, fascinating reading.
what... huh?
Active Member
I have gold certificate dollars. As I understand it they were used for inter-bank transfers or some such nonsense. I have no idea but would be curious what you knew about them ND. I have all denominations up to 100... well... minus the 2. But I have several of some. 20s for some reason. Odd I have never googled them.
Yeah the 1934 series of Gold certs was not legal for private citizens to own, only were used by banks to pay off balances. I think they are still Illegal to own, not sure on that one though and I doubt they are gonna come bash your door down to take you to prison. Certainly have value as a collector item if nothing.