Page 2 of 3

Re: SO!

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:50 am
by [KMA]Avenger
Mister Sandman wrote:FYI your getting off topic.

But I will continue.

Money isn't just a security, its a tool.
Compare money with an axe, it provides security against people, also I can be used to cut down trees in order to make things.

Money can provide services, such as lending credit, building infrastructure and so on....

The banking system, should not fail, if it were managed properly. All in all the economy needs sustainable growth. And yet again, that's another argument.

Bring it back to taxes, and the importance of taxes, without taxes we would have a fully capitalist system. Everyone looking our for No.1 (themselves), described as economic Darwinism, all in all people are far too stupid to manage global issues. Take for example Global Warming, there are no REAL restrictions implanted throughout all the countries to reduce green house gas production. Hence why people need a government. To make sure that everyone gets basic human rights, that large decisions are taken appropriately and that everyone is accountable for their actions.




meh, you've missed the point of removing the central bank system :?

the point is this, obama will continue to support and perpetuate a system which is a complete failure. the BIGGEST problem of said system is its central bank.

i have made a case for non-support of our leaders because of their dismal failure to address such a crucial point, and any new leader taking office (regardless of country) wont be able and most likely will not even try to address our economies on such a grand scale. trying to fix the current economic system is like putting a band aid on a leaky damn.


why the hell do we need credit?

interest, credit and tax suffocates and inhibits growth and prosperity...can you NOT see that? :?

Re: SO!

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:10 am
by Mister Sandman
[KMA]Avenger wrote:meh, you've missed the point of removing the central bank system :?

the point is this, obama will continue to support and perpetuate a system which is a complete failure. the BIGGEST problem of said system is its central bank.

i have made a case for non-support of our leaders because of their dismal failure to address such a crucial point, and any new leader taking office (regardless of country) wont be able and most likely will not even try to address our economies on such a grand scale. trying to fix the current economic system is like putting a band aid on a leaky damn.


why the hell do we need credit?

interest, credit and tax suffocates and inhibits growth and prosperity...can you NOT see that? :?


1. Its not much of a point without a central banking system the world would be in worse shambles.
2.Who is to know what Obama will change things for the better, more policies, more control on reckless spending and lending. The better. (beats McCain's system- or should I say Bush's system )
3. Why do we need credit? - It simulates the economy, provides jobs, and opens more purchasing power - without credit, it will take a hell of a long time to even afford to by a house. Without credit, people couldn't pay off all their bills on time. Credit is basically spending future money, and should be done wisely so the consumers are not paying interest - Paying interest is a discouragement on credit - instead they just pay for the convince of being able to expand their PPP.

There is Good and Bad debt.

4. Taxes, interest, and credit in fact provides a stimulus for growth and prosperity.

With wise lending expands a largest PPP thus, benefiting everyone in the economic system.

Can you not see that?

Re: SO!

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:49 am
by TheWay
I simple want to answer Sandmans assertion that somehow Jesus associating with the poor is a reason for supporting the redistribution of wealth.

My complaint was that Obama wants to take more from the rich and then give that money in the form of a check to those who dont even pay taxes. So basically he would be taking from the rich and giving to the poor because many alreday dont have any tax liability. The governement should not atke someones money and force them to give it to people who may not be responsible with it. Many if not the majority of people on wellfare do not even work a full 40hr work week and in that case I think if you arent working 40hrs at least then dont ask for a hand out. There are more then enough jobs around this country the problem is that people have to much pride to go out and dig a ditch for 50hrs a day. In america anyone can become rich but thye must work hard for it. By giving handouts we lessons the motivation because if the governement will just give me money why should I work a more difficult job or work more hours.

In America the successfull almost always put in 50-60 hr work weeks
Doctors
Lawyers
Buisness owners
CEOs
many more

all these positions require a ton of hard work and sure they pay a ton but they are demanding so it annoys me when someone who isnt even working a full week complains about the rich.

Secondly its not a question of fairness but rather justice and it is not just to take from one to give to another rather it should be every mans choice to give to whom he desires.

The best point I can make is as a conservative I believe in helping the poor and helping my family and I do so by giving to the church who ministers to the poor or giving to missionaries who go to places like africa and bring medicine and supplies, they build house and meet needs. I also take care of my family and friends when one is in need they dont ahve to go to the governement for a hand out they can come to family for a hand up.

Take a look at Obama and Biden

Biden only gave a little over 3,000 dollars to charities and yet supports take from the rich and giving to the poor. If he realy cared about the poor maybe he would have given to them out of his pocket. I make a ton less then Bidden and yet I have given many times that amount.

Obama on the other hand has two family members living in complete poverty a brother in Africa I believe and an Aunt who lives illegal in the US, so what are his values that other people should take care of his family rather then him. If you ask me that is just plain wrong and unacceptable.

Re: SO!

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:29 pm
by [KMA]Avenger
Mister Sandman wrote:
[KMA]Avenger wrote:meh, you've missed the point of removing the central bank system :?

the point is this, obama will continue to support and perpetuate a system which is a complete failure. the BIGGEST problem of said system is its central bank.

i have made a case for non-support of our leaders because of their dismal failure to address such a crucial point, and any new leader taking office (regardless of country) wont be able and most likely will not even try to address our economies on such a grand scale. trying to fix the current economic system is like putting a band aid on a leaky damn.


why the hell do we need credit?

interest, credit and tax suffocates and inhibits growth and prosperity...can you NOT see that? :?


1. Its not much of a point without a central banking system the world would be in worse shambles.
2.Who is to know what Obama will change things for the better, more policies, more control on reckless spending and lending. The better. (beats McCain's system- or should I say Bush's system )
3. Why do we need credit? - It simulates the economy, provides jobs, and opens more purchasing power - without credit, it will take a hell of a long time to even afford to by a house. Without credit, people couldn't pay off all their bills on time. Credit is basically spending future money, and should be done wisely so the consumers are not paying interest - Paying interest is a discouragement on credit - instead they just pay for the convince of being able to expand their PPP.

There is Good and Bad debt.

4. Taxes, interest, and credit in fact provides a stimulus for growth and prosperity.

With wise lending expands a largest PPP thus, benefiting everyone in the economic system.

Can you not see that?


i fully understand what you are saying but you have missed entirely the point of what i have said :?


the worlds economy wont collapse into shambles with the removal of the central bank system, the ONLY people who would suffer would be the bankers themselves, and i for couldn't give a stuff what happens to the bankers.

Re: SO!

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:18 pm
by Mister Sandman
[spoiler]
[KMA]Avenger wrote:
Mister Sandman wrote:
[KMA]Avenger wrote:meh, you've missed the point of removing the central bank system :?

the point is this, obama will continue to support and perpetuate a system which is a complete failure. the BIGGEST problem of said system is its central bank.

i have made a case for non-support of our leaders because of their dismal failure to address such a crucial point, and any new leader taking office (regardless of country) wont be able and most likely will not even try to address our economies on such a grand scale. trying to fix the current economic system is like putting a band aid on a leaky damn.


why the hell do we need credit?

interest, credit and tax suffocates and inhibits growth and prosperity...can you NOT see that? :?


1. Its not much of a point without a central banking system the world would be in worse shambles.
2.Who is to know what Obama will change things for the better, more policies, more control on reckless spending and lending. The better. (beats McCain's system- or should I say Bush's system )
3. Why do we need credit? - It simulates the economy, provides jobs, and opens more purchasing power - without credit, it will take a hell of a long time to even afford to by a house. Without credit, people couldn't pay off all their bills on time. Credit is basically spending future money, and should be done wisely so the consumers are not paying interest - Paying interest is a discouragement on credit - instead they just pay for the convince of being able to expand their PPP.

There is Good and Bad debt.

4. Taxes, interest, and credit in fact provides a stimulus for growth and prosperity.

With wise lending expands a largest PPP thus, benefiting everyone in the economic system.

Can you not see that?


i fully understand what you are saying but you have missed entirely the point of what i have said :?


the worlds economy wont collapse into shambles with the removal of the central bank system, the ONLY people who would suffer would be the bankers themselves, and i for couldn't give a stuff what happens to the bankers.
[/spoiler]

I haven't missed the point.

And the worlds economy will collapse without banks:- there wouldn't be any control over spending, lending, ect...if there were no banks.


[spoiler]
TheWay wrote:I simple want to answer Sandmans assertion that somehow Jesus associating with the poor is a reason for supporting the redistribution of wealth.

My complaint was that Obama wants to take more from the rich and then give that money in the form of a check to those who dont even pay taxes. So basically he would be taking from the rich and giving to the poor because many alreday dont have any tax liability. The governement should not atke someones money and force them to give it to people who may not be responsible with it. Many if not the majority of people on wellfare do not even work a full 40hr work week and in that case I think if you arent working 40hrs at least then dont ask for a hand out. There are more then enough jobs around this country the problem is that people have to much pride to go out and dig a ditch for 50hrs a day. In america anyone can become rich but thye must work hard for it. By giving handouts we lessons the motivation because if the governement will just give me money why should I work a more difficult job or work more hours.

In America the successfull almost always put in 50-60 hr work weeks
Doctors
Lawyers
Buisness owners
CEOs
many more

all these positions require a ton of hard work and sure they pay a ton but they are demanding so it annoys me when someone who isnt even working a full week complains about the rich.

Secondly its not a question of fairness but rather justice and it is not just to take from one to give to another rather it should be every mans choice to give to whom he desires.

The best point I can make is as a conservative I believe in helping the poor and helping my family and I do so by giving to the church who ministers to the poor or giving to missionaries who go to places like africa and bring medicine and supplies, they build house and meet needs. I also take care of my family and friends when one is in need they dont ahve to go to the governement for a hand out they can come to family for a hand up.

Take a look at Obama and Biden

Biden only gave a little over 3,000 dollars to charities and yet supports take from the rich and giving to the poor. If he realy cared about the poor maybe he would have given to them out of his pocket. I make a ton less then Bidden and yet I have given many times that amount.

Obama on the other hand has two family members living in complete poverty a brother in Africa I believe and an Aunt who lives illegal in the US, so what are his values that other people should take care of his family rather then him. If you ask me that is just plain wrong and unacceptable.
[/spoiler]


I was stating; just because you converse with people, doesnt make you have the same morals and standards. It was nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth, I cant see how you even translated that to be.


Well there is two basic options to your complaint;
1. Provide people on welfare with jobs;- work for the money;- however, some cannot work due to illness' so are you unethically stop the pittance they receive in welfare just to make by in the world.
2. Kill the unemployed. Simple. However, you would be killing a lot of innocent people. People who want jobs and cannot get them due to racism, and other prejudice.

Everyone should be taxed (except for people under 18 or the legal taxing age) . The government should provide training programs to people who want to work. They say give a man a fish, and they eat for a night and are hungry the next day, teach a man to fish and he wont go hungry.

In addition, it really shouldn't be about the money. It should be about job satisfaction. What's the point working at some place where you want to die half of your working life? Just so you can get a few extra bucks in your wallet? That my friend is capitalism, and thus putting money first over God, Others, and even you own well-being.

People who work hard should get their returns, however, it should not be at the expense of others human rights.
I know people who work really hard at school, and their job. You know where they go? No where, they struggle to get good grades, and the pay check they get is an insult to all the work that is put in.
So thus, working hard does not matter. If people are going to exploit you and pass judgement on your skin, sex or race, there really isn't any incentive to work hard, for you know that working hard wont go anywhere because other people will only profit off you.
I'm not saying working hard isn't good. Its very good, but in the end if it is just for money, its void.

Personally, I have a hard job- I'm also a student - however, I love my job and that I work hard at it. The pay isn't much, but the satisfaction is all I need.


In response to being just in taxation; I don't see it taking from one and giving it to another, I see it as fee that you pay to posses an income of greatness. And that fee is taken and used for good. Basically, without the country, you would not have a business, you would not even have a wage, and your skills would be void. Everyone should have an equal socio status. Everyone has to have their basic human rights. And thus, everyone should pay for the rights, with taxation.

It shouldn't be always up to the person who he decides whom he gives his money.

In contrast with your idea of "peaching" to people in Africa, and sending missionary saying that the African way of life is wrong. Is basically looking into another country eye and seeing the splinter, while ignoring the log in your eye.

First, help your own people, so that there be more power in reaching others. Doing both, reaching everyone, is preferred.


In reponse to Biden only gave a little over 3,000 dollars to charities and you giving more with a less of a income. With tax raises, on the richer, it would effect Biden more, and in fact, since charity donation are tax deductible, you will be paying less in the dollar.

With the comment of people taking care of others in being wrong and unacceptable. That is purely senseless. What if you went into turmoil, wouldn't you be blessed if people kept care of you. Treat others like you wanted to be treated.

Re: SO!

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:01 am
by Brdavs
Funny how the americal electorial process has managed to turn "redestribution of wealth" into a dirty word. When it is in fact the fabric of any society for as long as history has been recorded and further back. Doubly funny how the most christian nation on the globe manages to percieve a derivation from the hard-core individualism as the penultimate evil...

Perhaps you should try one simple exercise... try to ignore the ideological upbringing we both recieved. Your notions of what is "fair" (it may be unfair to you to pay for a freeloader and it may be unfair to me to not give people equall starting points in life etc.).
Apprach the phenomena in a purely practical sense. In todays world and todays USA 90% of the whealth & power is controled by less then 10% of the people, with the gap widening. History and common sense teaches us that these flamable situations tend to blow up. There will be continued and increased (not "introduced"-it has allways been there to an extent) partial redistribution of wealth on both levels. It is unavoidable. The only question is weather it is done through evolution of the current system or revolution, as it has many times before. Hence all the serious talk of a NWO, reforms of all institutions etc. etc.

Romans coined the expression "panem et circenses" 2k years ago. They realised back then that with their simmilar social setup they needed to appease the masses to a degree, sacrifice a bit (in form of free bread and entertainment aka as ancient "wellfare" lol) to keep a lot. Thoe one could argue that they were forced into it heh. Will we learn from them or will we need forcing?

Simply clinging to old ideologies and fear of the "commies" + praying to the gods of liberalism (ala Smith) (who were, in a universal twist of irony, just as twisted from their original form than Marx once was) will bring ruin to this world.

Re: SO!

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:43 pm
by Mister Sandman
There is nothing wrong with the redistribution of wealth.

I believe it needs to take place...

This may be narrow minded, but I believe in equality.

If a man works he eats.... that's all that is needed.

Personal gain should not be an issue, rather we should help others to provide them with basic needs.

Something what the western imperialist views don't uphold.

Re: SO!

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:07 pm
by [KMA]Avenger
tell you guys what...

if Obama makes a difference in the next 4 years, i will print my words out and eat them!
i stand by what i say because i know for a fact Obama wont make bit of difference. he will perpetuate a system that is totally flawed, and the reason its flawed is because of the FOR PROFIT, 100% INDEPENDENT AND PRIVATELY OWNED CENTRAL BANKS.

i really cant understand how you people cannot see that :?


the central bank system comes straight out of the communist manifesto (don't take my word for it, go look it up), and it serves no purpose other than to stifle growth, and if all the bailouts that are going on don't convince you then nothing will, and its pointless us all spitting into the wind :wink:


i suggest all of you go educate yourselves by watching a film called "Money As Debt". its under an hour long but it shows you just how the banking and monetary system works, once you realize how they work it wont take you long to figure out than no matter who takes office, nothing changes!

Re: SO!

Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:13 am
by Brdavs
The fact it comes from the CM is actually a plus. :P

And ofcourse Obama wont change much. Perhaps the world leaders will do a few cosmetic tune ups to the world setup but it has some mileage in it yet, this order. When shiat really hits the fan then youll see change. And not on the wings of some politician. Been thus forever.



So...

Free market gurus... go commie or let General Motors sink and drag a couple million workers etc. with it? :P
Maybe the time has come for the americans to switch from the SUV guzzler to smaller more efficient cars heh... sorta like the... rest of the planet has? or are those still too much of a cultural and or status symbol? :P

Re: SO!

Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:08 am
by [KMA]Avenger
Brdavs wrote:The fact it comes from the CM is actually a plus. :P

And ofcourse Obama wont change much. Perhaps the world leaders will do a few cosmetic tune ups to the world setup but it has some mileage in it yet, this order. When shiat really hits the fan then youll see change. And not on the wings of some politician. Been thus forever.



So...

Free market gurus... go commie or let General Motors sink and drag a couple million workers etc. with it? :P
Maybe the time has come for the americans to switch from the SUV guzzler to smaller more efficient cars heh... sorta like the...rest of the planet has? or are those still too much of a cultural and or status symbol? :P



personally, suv's suck, this is a mans car. rolls royce have nothing on these cars, my uncle has a Rolls Royce Corniche which i've driven and i used to own a jag, the rolls doesn't even come close...

but that's going slightly off topic 8-[

Image

Re: SO!

Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:24 pm
by Demeisen
kma dude did you say george galloway is a good politician? smoked much today? lol he is a unitard :lol:


i think obama will be the same thing just slightly different. like having 2 identical cars with identical performance. even if car 1 has tinted, windows, a cool colour, a loud sound system and is generally more 'flashy,' it will still perform like car 1.

its a hard time to come to power. he will have to a lot of things he doesnt want to. he will most likely break promises. it seems he made a few pledges which arent sensible/possible in the current climate.

in short? obama will be a car with shiney wheels and a fat sound system. loud yeh but still the same old reliant robin.

Re: SO!

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:16 am
by [KMA]Avenger
LiQuiD wrote:kma dude did you say george galloway is a good politician? smoked much today? lol he is a unitard :lol:


i think obama will be the same thing just slightly different. like having 2 identical cars with identical performance. even if car 1 has tinted, windows, a cool colour, a loud sound system and is generally more 'flashy,' it will still perform like car 1.

its a hard time to come to power. he will have to a lot of things he doesnt want to. he will most likely break promises. it seems he made a few pledges which arent sensible/possible in the current climate.

in short? obama will be a car with shiney wheels and a fat sound system. loud yeh but still the same old reliant robin.


could it be? can it be we actually agree on 99% of what you said :shock:


as for galloway, well i don't agree with much of what he says and believes in but i do like the way he stood up to parliament and the US congress (or was it the US senate?) prior to the war in afghanistan.

Re: SO!

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:23 pm
by Demeisen
i have no respect for galloway after he:

~ made a fool of himself on big brother

~ was very chummy with saddam hussein

~ started thinking he was a muslim, standing up for muslims in every single thing to gain their favor.

~ campaigns against afganistan war to gain favor when that war is to protect us.

~ said As part of a speech in his 1994 visit in which Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was in attendance, he said "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability"

~ is in the respect party yet shows none.

~ said ''Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation!"


dude the list is epic. he does stand up for himself, even when he is wrong. i find him utterly despicable and hope he falls down a well. there are people who have my respect without opposing everything to be popular within certain groups. far too often he has been "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood." i thought you would be more astute in recognizing his antics for what they are :?



[KMA]Avenger wrote:could it be? can it be we actually agree on 99% of what you said :shock:

*stockpiles food/beer for the end of the world :-D

Re: SO!

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:16 am
by [KMA]Avenger
LiQuiD wrote:i have no respect for galloway after he:

~ made a fool of himself on big brother

~ was very chummy with saddam hussein

~ started thinking he was a muslim, standing up for muslims in every single thing to gain their favor.

~ campaigns against afganistan war to gain favor when that war is to protect us.

~ said As part of a speech in his 1994 visit in which Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was in attendance, he said "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability"

~ is in the respect party yet shows none.

~ said ''Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation!"


dude the list is epic. he does stand up for himself, even when he is wrong. i find him utterly despicable and hope he falls down a well. there are people who have my respect without opposing everything to be popular within certain groups. far too often he has been "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood." i thought you would be more astute in recognizing his antics for what they are :?



[KMA]Avenger wrote:could it be? can it be we actually agree on 99% of what you said :shock:

*stockpiles food/beer for the end of the world :-D



mate, i saw 2 mins of him in action, that 2 mins he blasted and made fools of parliament as well as some journalists, i never said i knew everything about him, and i don't know a whole lot about him (obviously) but what he said in respects to afghanistan was spot on.


i dont drink beer but i am partial to a drop of Glenfiddich, johnny walker blue label and and slippery nipples (baileys and sambuca), drools, :-D

Re: SO!

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:38 am
by Demeisen
2mins and you didnt hate him? he must have had his best 2mins ever :lol:

god bless slippery nipples. and waffles. damn you now i crave whiskey and its only 10:30am. do like a nice jack daniels, no ice, just a strong glass fresh out the freezer. excellento :-D


i liked mccains sleeping like a baby joke. been gracious in defeat which is sometimes hard.