The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:BTW, did you have any specifics on what you want the Federal government to stay out of the States way on? Any ideas how to get there? Looking to gain from your insight and guidance as I'm still unable to comprehend your great equation the best way to limit government is to ask a socialist/Marxist to stop just talking and act. Far beyond my comprehension, oh wild one.

I want the federal government to stay out of every issue not specifically assigned to them by the Constitution. Here are several:

Abortion
Education
Religion
Health Care
Free Trade / Free Enterprise
Stem Cell research
Same Sex Marriage

None of these are issues where the federal government is granted Constitutional power as the Constitution is written. If I had more time, I could make this list several pages long. The bottom line is I don't want the federal government involved in or concerned with anything that is not a federal concern as defined by the Constitution.

And, since the only personal criticism you've managed to come up with Whitey hater Obama is that he's too much talk and not enough action and he opposes most of your positions, again, how does that make sense if these really are your positions? The only criticism you can come up with to criticize the race baiter is you want him to act more? Explain.

Specific to Obama:

Abortion. He won't be having one, or refusing to have one. He should have no opinion on the subject.

Education. He didn't pay for mine, yours or his own. I don't want to hear how education should be from anyone who didn't work to pay for theirs. He should have no opinion on how to do something he never had to do. Did Obama ever teach under NCLB? Why does he think reforming it would make a difference? What would make a difference is to stop dangling federal funds based upon standardized test results. That would be the elimination of NCLB, not the reformation of NCLB.

Religion. I don't care if Obama loves, hates, or gives his priest reach arounds in the shower while his wife watches. You have freedom of your own religion, not the freedom to make it a non-separation of Church and State. Not everyone is religious. Not everyone shares Obama's religious views. Not everyone cares about Obama's religious views. I could worship Satan and actively support Obama. I don't do either but for argument's sake, does Obama want me promoting both his campaign and my Satanic views at the same time? I care if Obama is a Marxist, Fascist, Communist. I don't care if Obama is a Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, Shintoist, Satanist. I'm not choosing who to vote for based upon religious views.

Health Care. Obama's health care is paid for by our tax dollars. He wants to give us the same plan he has, meaning it will also be paid for by our tax dollars.

Free Trade. Obama thinks amending NAFTA will change the outsourcing of jobs. The jobs are being outsourced to India, China, Taiwan. Those don't fall under NAFTA.

Stem Cell Research. Obama supports federal funding for stem cell research. Another way of spending the tax money he claims to want to recoup from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Stem Cell research is not a federal issue. Is there a Cabinet Department Of Medical Research?

Same Sex Marriage. This is a State issue. Period. Homosexuals are not a federal issue, unless being gay somehow interferes with interstate commerce. Obama opposes same-sex marriages but also opposes a federal law banning them, meaning the issue is left to the States. So, Obama's opinion on this issue means only that he lost the "gay" vote.

Aside from disagreement with Obama's views on these and other issues, the man talks too much. As President, he's likely to stick his foot in his mouth. Shut up and lead by your actions, not your words. Of course, I could say the same for every politician.

GSPODS wrote:Abortion. He won't be having one, or refusing to have one. He should have no opinion on the subject.

This is a liberal talking point, you love using those. And I don't get it. What precedent in the law is there for only being able to have an opinion on things you can personally do? What else would that apply to? My view as a Constitutional matter is it's clearly not addressed, this is a State issue. The Constitution is an enumerated document. At the State level I'm pro-choice.

GSPODS wrote:Education. He didn't pay for mine, yours or his own. I don't want to hear how education should be from anyone who didn't work to pay for theirs. He should have no opinion on how to do something he never had to do. Did Obama ever teach under NCLB? Why does he think reforming it would make a difference? What would make a difference is to stop dangling federal funds based upon standardized test results. That would be the elimination of NCLB, not the reformation of NCLB.

Again I don't get the he shouldn't have an opinion, but I'm totally with you on killing the no child gets ahead program. And we should end all Federal laws and funding for education based on that there is simply no Constitutional Authority for it. Education is not a power enumerated to the federal government and therefore is by the 10th Amendment reserved to the States or the people.

GSPODS wrote:Religion. I don't care if Obama loves, hates, or gives his priest reach arounds in the shower while his wife watches. You have freedom of your own religion, not the freedom to make it a non-separation of Church and State. Not everyone is religious. Not everyone shares Obama's religious views. Not everyone cares about Obama's religious views. I could worship Satan and actively support Obama. I don't do either but for argument's sake, does Obama want me promoting both his campaign and my Satanic views at the same time? I care if Obama is a Marxist, Fascist, Communist. I don't care if Obama is a Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, Shintoist, Satanist. I'm not choosing who to vote for based upon religious views.

I agree if you're talking about his father being Muslim. I disagree if you're referring to his defending his minister's racism, which is not a religous issue. Having a racist President would clearly be counter to a basic requirement of a free, diverse country.

GSPODS wrote:Health Care. Obama's health care is paid for by our tax dollars. He wants to give us the same plan he has, meaning it will also be paid for by our tax dollars.

Is there a position in here? I don't see one.

GSPODS wrote:Free Trade. Obama thinks amending NAFTA will change the outsourcing of jobs. The jobs are being outsourced to India, China, Taiwan. Those don't fall under NAFTA.

Largely true, but you don't really take a position on free trade in general, one of and rightly so one of the most critical libertarian concepts.

GSPODS wrote:Stem Cell Research. Obama supports federal funding for stem cell research. Another way of spending the tax money he claims to want to recoup from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Stem Cell research is not a federal issue. Is there a Cabinet Department Of Medical Research?

Agreed. I oppose Federal funding for Stem Cell research. Not on any religious grounds, I oppose ALL federal funding for medical as it's such an inefficient use of money and there is no Constitutional Authority for it.

GSPODS wrote:Same Sex Marriage. This is a State issue. Period. Homosexuals are not a federal issue, unless being gay somehow interferes with interstate commerce. Obama opposes same-sex marriages but also opposes a federal law banning them, meaning the issue is left to the States. So, Obama's opinion on this issue means only that he lost the "gay" vote.

Um...Mr. Lawyer, this is not a commerce clause. This is covered under:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof"

The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to block gay marriage. It does give the Federal government the power to determine if other States need to recognize it or not, which is what it's been doing. Interesting when you finally refer to the Constitution you're wrong.l

GSPODS wrote:Aside from disagreement with Obama's views on these and other issues, the man talks too much. As President, he's likely to stick his foot in his mouth. Shut up and lead by your actions, not your words. Of course, I could say the same for every politician.

This is where you fail in reinventing yourself, ATV. It's not about just speaking concepts. Had I tried to be a liberal even though I stated your views I would say things that liberals just don't say because I couldn't help it. Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians are HAPPY about this because it's the only think that stops socialists like Obama from being effective. We don't WANT him to be effective. Nice try though, sort of.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Abortion. He won't be having one, or refusing to have one. He should have no opinion on the subject.

This is a liberal talking point, you love using those. And I don't get it. What precedent in the law is there for only being able to have an opinion on things you can personally do? What else would that apply to? My view as a Constitutional matter is it's clearly not addressed, this is a State issue. The Constitution is an enumerated document. At the State level I'm pro-choice.

GSPODS wrote:Education. He didn't pay for mine, yours or his own. I don't want to hear how education should be from anyone who didn't work to pay for theirs. He should have no opinion on how to do something he never had to do. Did Obama ever teach under NCLB? Why does he think reforming it would make a difference? What would make a difference is to stop dangling federal funds based upon standardized test results. That would be the elimination of NCLB, not the reformation of NCLB.

Again I don't get the he shouldn't have an opinion, but I'm totally with you on killing the no child gets ahead program. And we should end all Federal laws and funding for education based on that there is simply no Constitutional Authority for it. Education is not a power enumerated to the federal government and therefore is by the 10th Amendment reserved to the States or the people.

GSPODS wrote:Religion. I don't care if Obama loves, hates, or gives his priest reach arounds in the shower while his wife watches. You have freedom of your own religion, not the freedom to make it a non-separation of Church and State. Not everyone is religious. Not everyone shares Obama's religious views. Not everyone cares about Obama's religious views. I could worship Satan and actively support Obama. I don't do either but for argument's sake, does Obama want me promoting both his campaign and my Satanic views at the same time? I care if Obama is a Marxist, Fascist, Communist. I don't care if Obama is a Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, Shintoist, Satanist. I'm not choosing who to vote for based upon religious views.

I agree if you're talking about his father being Muslim. I disagree if you're referring to his defending his minister's racism, which is not a religous issue. Having a racist President would clearly be counter to a basic requirement of a free, diverse country.

GSPODS wrote:Health Care. Obama's health care is paid for by our tax dollars. He wants to give us the same plan he has, meaning it will also be paid for by our tax dollars.

Is there a position in here? I don't see one.

GSPODS wrote:Free Trade. Obama thinks amending NAFTA will change the outsourcing of jobs. The jobs are being outsourced to India, China, Taiwan. Those don't fall under NAFTA.

Largely true, but you don't really take a position on free trade in general, one of and rightly so one of the most critical libertarian concepts.

GSPODS wrote:Stem Cell Research. Obama supports federal funding for stem cell research. Another way of spending the tax money he claims to want to recoup from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Stem Cell research is not a federal issue. Is there a Cabinet Department Of Medical Research?

Agreed. I oppose Federal funding for Stem Cell research. Not on any religious grounds, I oppose ALL federal funding for medical as it's such an inefficient use of money and there is no Constitutional Authority for it.

GSPODS wrote:Same Sex Marriage. This is a State issue. Period. Homosexuals are not a federal issue, unless being gay somehow interferes with interstate commerce. Obama opposes same-sex marriages but also opposes a federal law banning them, meaning the issue is left to the States. So, Obama's opinion on this issue means only that he lost the "gay" vote.

Um...Mr. Lawyer, this is not a commerce clause. This is covered under:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof"

The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to block gay marriage. It does give the Federal government the power to determine if other States need to recognize it or not, which is what it's been doing. Interesting when you finally refer to the Constitution you're wrong.l

GSPODS wrote:Aside from disagreement with Obama's views on these and other issues, the man talks too much. As President, he's likely to stick his foot in his mouth. Shut up and lead by your actions, not your words. Of course, I could say the same for every politician.

This is where you fail in reinventing yourself, ATV. It's not about just speaking concepts. Had I tried to be a liberal even though I stated your views I would say things that liberals just don't say because I couldn't help it. Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians are HAPPY about this because it's the only think that stops socialists like Obama from being effective. We don't WANT him to be effective. Nice try though, sort of.

Obama is opposed to a Constitutional Amendment overturning Roe v. Wade. I am opposed to the existence of Roe v. Wade. It is a matter left to the States.

Education is a right reserved to the States or to The People.

Religion is a right reserved to The People.

Health Care is a right reserved to the States or to The People.
The federal government has no Constitutional interest in health care.
The position you asked for is that the federal government should not spend our tax dollars to pay for our health insurance.

"Full faith and credit ... each State to honor all others" applies to State Rights, not to federal interference in State rights. Federal opinion in a State's right to allow or ban gay marriages is beyond the scope of the Constitution. The federal government only has the power to set uniform burden of proof standards and to enforce them between the States. That is why my New York state driver's license is valid if I drive to Virginia. Professional (Medical, Bar, etc.), Occupational, and state issued licenses (driver's, marriage, etc.) are honored between the States under this clause.

The original purpose of the clause was for each State to honor the currency of all others to promote interstate trade. I'm sure you are aware each state used to print its own currency. That clause has been manipulated from its original purpose, much like every other clause of the Constitution.

Debating the Constitution is a topic for a thread of its own, and I'm certain we could carry that thread on for years in debating what each clause says, what each meant when written, and how each has been "interpreted" by the Modern Court.

GSPODS,

I follow you....and I agree with your points. But there is no single answer lying within any of the issues to correct the mess we are in.

Ron Paul is the only one I've heard that gets it. We cannot make any effective change in this country so long as we remain powerless. Why are we powerless? Because we do not control the money. M O N E Y is the answer.

Until we eliminate the Federal Reserve (read: private international bankers who control the money, hence control commerce, politics, religion, and everything in between, we will R E M A I N powerless.

That is the most fundamental issue, constitutionally speaking. I hear a lot of talk about what the government is involved in that it shouldn't be....but the real problem is what they have failed to be involved in that they should be. Only congress has the power to coin and regulate the value of our money. They have unconstitutionally transferred that power into the hands of private bankers who now control us with it.

Get rid of the federal reserve, cut the size of the federal government by 75%, and abolish the IRS and income tax, and we will be on the fast track to regaining our liberty.

Damn, RayNAustin. I don't buy the conspiracy theories, but I am 100% with you on war and the Federal Reserve (well. . .as much as I've read, anyway).

Do you consider yourself a part of the Austrian school?

Irn-Bru wrote:Damn, RayNAustin. I don't buy the conspiracy theories, but I am 100% with you on war and the Federal Reserve (well. . .as much as I've read, anyway).

Do you consider yourself a part of the Austrian school?

Can you explain the Federal Reserve issue to me, Irn-Bru? Ironically though I'm libertarian, an MBA and biz consultant I've never actually gotten the desire to get rid of the Federal reserve. What exactly is the issue?

Now I will say one reason I believe we should be cutting spending and having no deficits and paying off the debt is that clearly the Federal government uses that they are the biggest debtor in the world to control the value of US currency, interest rates and all that and we'd be so much better off if they did not have that power. But that involves paying off the debt and controlling spending, not "blowing up" the Federal reserve. And I mean blowing up figuratively for any NSA robots or FBI Bushmen hitting this.

RayNAustin wrote:GSPODS,

I follow you....and I agree with your points. But there is no single answer lying within any of the issues to correct the mess we are in.

Ron Paul is the only one I've heard that gets it. We cannot make any effective change in this country so long as we remain powerless. Why are we powerless? Because we do not control the money. M O N E Y is the answer.

Until we eliminate the Federal Reserve (read: private international bankers who control the money, hence control commerce, politics, religion, and everything in between, we will R E M A I N powerless.

That is the most fundamental issue, constitutionally speaking. I hear a lot of talk about what the government is involved in that it shouldn't be....but the real problem is what they have failed to be involved in that they should be. Only congress has the power to coin and regulate the value of our money. They have unconstitutionally transferred that power into the hands of private bankers who now control us with it.

Get rid of the federal reserve, cut the size of the federal government by 75%, and abolish the IRS and income tax, and we will be on the fast track to regaining our liberty.

Oh, but there is a single answer. It's called strict construction. It could also be called literal interpretation of the Constitution. No room for interpretation from either party. No laws to change laws that made no sense to begin with. Complete erasure of any laws made which were not specifically enumerated as powers granted in the Constitution. That in and of itself would eliminate the need for 95% of the Executive Branch, which is the branch most responsible for our current situations.

Ron Paul may have been closest to the vest of any of the candidates insofar as his intentions, however, he is by no means a walk the line Libertarian. He is simply closer than anyone else. When the alternatives are McCain, Clinton, and Obama, how could Ron Paul not look good by comparison?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Can you explain the Federal Reserve issue to me, Irn-Bru? Ironically though I'm libertarian, an MBA and biz consultant I've never actually gotten the desire to get rid of the Federal reserve. What exactly is the issue?

This actually gets to the heart of what I think separates between different kinds of libertarians. Your man (and CT's man) Boortz is, I think, very good on issues pertaining to government regulation and taxes. (Well, I still don't buy the FT, but you know what I mean )

However, one reason why I don't put much stock in the Boortz strain of libertarian philosophy is that it focuses almost exclusively on regulation and taxes. But I think there are larger concerns that are actually far more serious and deserve, but don't receive, much more libertarian attention. War would be one issue, and the Federal Reserve would be another.

Libertarian concerns with the Federal Reserve always come back to money. One of the better, ultra-short introductions is an essay that Alan Greenspan wrote back when he was essentially a libertarian (in the Ayn Rand camp):
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html

He obviously changed his views rather radically once he became invovled with the Fed. The basic concern with the Federal Reserve is that it commits fraud and causes inflation, which is problematic for a number of reasons. This is a great summary article:
http://www.mises.org/story/2914

The late, great Murray Rothbard is the man on this topic. His very short book on money is fantastic (and changed my life, as much as a short book on economics can):
http://mises.org/money.asp
(and its companion): http://mises.org/story/1829

There is also a really good audio-book version of that book, if that's your thing (when I was commuting an hour a day I "read" quite a bit this way).

One more: this documentary is dated (and a little cheesy), but still very good--especially the second half. I point it out because I find it easier to watch a movie than to read:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE

I hope that the effect of dropping a dozen links isn't that you don't look at any. But that's the best I can do for an introduction to a libertarian perspective on the Fed.

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Can you explain the Federal Reserve issue to me, Irn-Bru? Ironically though I'm libertarian, an MBA and biz consultant I've never actually gotten the desire to get rid of the Federal reserve. What exactly is the issue?

This actually gets to the heart of what I think separates between different kinds of libertarians. Your man (and CT's man) Boortz is, I think, very good on issues pertaining to government regulation and taxes. (Well, I still don't buy the FT, but you know what I mean )

However, one reason why I don't put much stock in the Boortz strain of libertarian philosophy is that it focuses almost exclusively on regulation and taxes. But I think there are larger concerns that are actually far more serious and deserve, but don't receive, much more libertarian attention. War would be one issue, and the Federal Reserve would be another.

Libertarian concerns with the Federal Reserve always come back to money. One of the better, ultra-short introductions is an essay that Alan Greenspan wrote back when he was essentially a libertarian (in the Ayn Rand camp):
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html

He obviously changed his views rather radically once he became invovled with the Fed. The basic concern with the Federal Reserve is that it commits fraud and causes inflation, which is problematic for a number of reasons. This is a great summary article:
http://www.mises.org/story/2914

The late, great Murray Rothbard is the man on this topic. His very short book on money is fantastic (and changed my life, as much as a short book on economics can):
http://mises.org/money.asp
(and its companion): http://mises.org/story/1829

There is also a really good audio-book version of that book, if that's your thing (when I was commuting an hour a day I "read" quite a bit this way).

One more: this documentary is dated (and a little cheesy), but still very good--especially the second half. I point it out because I find it easier to watch a movie than to read:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE

I hope that the effect of dropping a dozen links isn't that you don't look at any. But that's the best I can do for an introduction to a libertarian perspective on the Fed.

I appreciate the links. I've heard references to this through the years and always wanted to get a better understanding of the real issue specifically with the fed. I'll take a look, I'd like to understand better.

In general I agree with your saying CT and Boortz and I are of the same genre of libertarian. I did find the war example odd though. I'm like Boortz in the more narrow point that we're there now and I think we need to fight it and win it and get out, not just pull out.

But I've argued strenuously against the general war on terror and strongly advocated pulling US troops eventually to only US territory and international waters. I was against invading there and Afghanistan, but I'm recognizing we are there now. Boortz not only supported both but is arguing for expanding the war on terror and pursuing them across the world. I have a hard time seeing us as in sync on that issue. Boortz advocated W's reelection for that reason and I opposed it.

I can't say for CT's specific views, I'll let him speak to that, but I've seen him be more in sync with me then Boortz on that. Again I agree with a lot of your comparison, I agree with Boortz more then the Libertarian party on the few issues they disagree on. It was just the war part I found odd.

Well, the Libertarian Party is another matter entirely. . .I don't consider myself affiliated, actually.

I find different strains of libertarians all over the place, from self-proclaimed "libertarians" along the lines of Chomsky and crazyhorse (and I hope he doesn't take offense at that), to the dudes with long hair who just want to smoke pot, to libertarian/conservative republicans like Boortz, to some really radical people like Murray Rothbard.

A great book to get a rise out of people is Walter Block's 'Defending the Undefendable' (with an introduction by Rothbard): a book that makes the free market case for drug users and pushers, prostitutes, loan sharks, and other untouchables in our society. (PDF of the book)

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, the Libertarian Party is another matter entirely. . .I don't consider myself affiliated, actually.

I find different strains of libertarians all over the place, from self-proclaimed "libertarians" along the lines of Chomsky and crazyhorse (and I hope he doesn't take offense at that), to the dudes with long hair who just want to smoke pot, to libertarian/conservative republicans like Boortz, to some really radical people like Murray Rothbard.

A great book to get a rise out of people is Walter Block's 'Defending the Undefendable' (with an introduction by Rothbard): a book that makes the free market case for drug users and pushers, prostitutes, loan sharks, and other untouchables in our society. (PDF of the book)

When you say Boortz is libertarian/conservative Republican I'd agree on defense, but in general he's for legal abortion, prostitution, ... Do you mean defense or are you thinking of other areas as well?

I don't think I'll ever get any brand of libertarian who wouldn't support the Fair Tax. When you think of the government power, control, invasion of privacy and atrocities that are committed in the name of the war on drugs that libertarians oppose and then square that you have the IRS. How can any libertarian not support any way to end that abuse, power and control? Particularly any libertarian who would ever raise the word "privacy" as an issue?

If we had paid any attention to Debs all those years ago, we would not have a need to discuss the "Fair Tax" proposal now.

Debs calculated that a flat 10% tax across the board, without tax deductions or AMT, would have resulted in more revenue than the voluminous and confusing IRS tax code.

Any true libertarian would include money in a discussion on free trade. Is money not a commodity like any other? Goods are worth money. Services are worth money. Precious metals and gems are worth money. All are set by current market value based upon supply and demand. Why should currency be any different under a true free trade system?

True Libertarianism would call for complete deregulation of currency on this basis alone.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:When you say Boortz is libertarian/conservative Republican I'd agree on defense, but in general he's for legal abortion, prostitution, ... Do you mean defense or are you thinking of other areas as well?

Defense, immigration, monetary policy, views on police. Not every area, though, as you point out. I'm not calling him a conservative republican outright, but that's the flavor of libertarian that we're dealing with.

Kazoo wrote:I don't think I'll ever get any brand of libertarian who wouldn't support the Fair Tax. When you think of the government power, control, invasion of privacy and atrocities that are committed in the name of the war on drugs that libertarians oppose and then square that you have the IRS. How can any libertarian not support any way to end that abuse, power and control? Particularly any libertarian who would ever raise the word "privacy" as an issue?

I'd say that it's fair not to support it:

* when it isn't outright abolishment, but replacement (whatever the projected benefits)
* when it grants the federal government new powers
* when it suffers from the multi-phase strategy that I think the FT does

When those conditions are met, I can understand why someone wouldn't support it. Of course, we've been over that one before. . .

Irn-Bru wrote:Damn, RayNAustin. I don't buy the conspiracy theories, but I am 100% with you on war and the Federal Reserve (well. . .as much as I've read, anyway).

Do you consider yourself a part of the Austrian school?

To some degree that is probably as accurate a description as the next, though even that has many interpretations. Laissez-faire, is related and close. But I'm no economist, and have never studied the subject to great extent.

I just know that it's a complex matter with no strict and easy answers. But I'm dead set against either supply side or demand side modes of thinking because both have their faults and drawbacks. Supply side being an unfair benefit to the privileged class, while the demand side being impractical and less innovative.

Call me crazy....I think am when it comes to this topic, but the ideal (if such a thing can ever be achieved) would be free market, with a touch of regulation to keep crooks honest....rewarding those that honestly participate and contribute, while giving extra incentive (though not excessive and at the expense of others) to the most talented and productive and innovative types.

A sound monetary system based on gold and silver, and a sound social system that ensures everyone the basic needs to support life....food, shelter....all of the other luxuries would have to be earned, but no one should have to work themselves to death in order to meet survival needs.

That covers a bit more than just economics...but I don't believe any system can function without meeting the social needs of the whole.

And don't worry about not buying the conspiracy thing....you seem to be very intelligent, and I'm not finished with you yet in fact, I'm just gettin started.

For the uninitiated, I understand what a giant leap it is....the ones I find difficult to tolerate are those that attack the idea rather than investigate the information.

I think you're on the right path, and that path will lead you to the truth. and it really is the only way to go about it....it's a personal education thing that takes a lot of study, and rightfully so.

As a side note Irn-Bru, (told you I wasn't finished with ya )

I'm somewhat of a pragmatist, and realist, and truth seeker. And I'm also very open minded but grounded with healthy skepticism. I don't make rash decisions or judgments about important matters, and I'm generally prepared with well researched facts before I go out on a limb voicing a strong position. Until then, I keep my opinions low key.

Even though it may seem like it ...I really don't have an ego investment in convincing anyone that I'm right or that they are wrong, though with some individuals that can be rather entertaining at times. My motive for debating and discussing sensitive or controversial issues is simple.....if what I have to say convinces one person to refuse to vaccinate their child, or stop consuming Nutrasweet or stop smearing SPF 32 all over themselves....then it was all worth it....and it might not be the person I'm directly debating....but an onlooker just observing who benefits. And I take that very seriously, which is why I won't voice a strong position on anything until I'm dead certain that what I say is true, not because I'm afraid of being wrong, but to avoid giving someone else a bum steer. OK

So that's the deal. No politics here tonight...instead, I'm going to demonstrate to you mind control...how it works....how we are all constant victims of it, and just how dastardly and damaging it really is to so many. OK curious? Let's get started....

Tell me what comes to mind when I say........Irn-Bru, you are going to the beach this weekend, and it's going to be very hot, and very sunny....don't forget to put on that .... FILL IN THE BLANK

Did you think SUNSCREEN ? Probably 99 out of a hundred would say that and the other one said a case of bud light (another mind control marketing miracle)

We have been conditioned...brainwashed. Everywhere you go, put on that sunscreen...the ozone layer is thin....don't want to get burned...and don't want to get skin cancer!! Skin cancer is on the rise...protect yourself....even the weather man on TV says don't forget that SPF 32 today, it's going to be a scorcher out there. Am I right?

Guess what, nothing I say gets more strange looks (like I'm a nut or a space alien) than what I'm about to say to you....but sunscreen doesn't prevent skin cancer....it causes it. OK stop laughing. I know it sounds crazy because you have been told a gazillion times that it's good for you. You get the same message subliminally too....billboards, advertisements, or just walking through the grocery store and see the display of suntan lotions with those prominent big SPF 33 numbers that you can read from a mile away with bad eyes. So yes...I'm a knucklehead....an idiot, because everybody knows that sunscreen keeps you from burning and getting all that UV radiation damage, right? Wrong. And once I tell you why, you may still not believe me...but you may not think I'm as much of a lunatic as you first thought.

Chemical sunscreen (not sunblock, that's OK) that clear crap in lotions contains chemicals that absorb UV radiation. That's why you can stay out longer without burning because the chemicals literally absorb that UV that might otherwise burn you (it also prevents tanning which is your body's natural UV protection). But another thing also is prevented from happening, and that is the production of vitamin D which predominantly comes from the sun and is a natural defense to cancer...but that lack of vitamin D production alone is not the problem. The problem is that those chemicals that have absorbed all of that UV are suspended in lotions that absorb into several skin layers taking that UV along for the ride, reaching more sensitive layers that do not have any natural protection like the surface layers of the skin which if burned will peal off, and if tanned will shield you.

So even after you get out of the sun, take a shower, that UV is still inside working on those unprotected skin cells for hours afterward. Coupled with the lack of vitamin D that was also blocked by the sunscreen creates the ideal environment for cancer.

What you haven't been told is that microbiologists use those very same chemicals that is in the sunscreen in the various laboratories that support cancer research to actually grow cancer cells on tissue samples. That's right, the same chemicals you are smearing all over yourself is what they use to grow cancer. Common bloody sense would tell you not to take the same chemicals used to grow cancer and smear it all over your body before going out in the sun. But that doesn't matter, because you were never told that, so you can't make a common sense decision. So you do as you are told...as you are programmed to do.

There have been several scientific studies done and data collected that shows a direct correlation between the increases of sunscreen usage and the increases in skin cancer rates from the late 1970's to today. The mainstream science says the skin cancer increases are because of the thinning of the OZONE layer and higher UV exposure, so the logical answer is USE MORE SUNSCREEN. How insidious the whole thing is.

Now with that information to place things in proper context, my initial comment that sounded so crazy doesn't sound quite as crazy now...does it?

Ok, don't believe me. Do the research. But don't be fooled by the fact that for everyone that says watch out...there will be ten that says those guys are nuts, and put on that sunscreen. Some have a vested interest, and others are just programmed like the rest.

But it takes a complete shift in consciousness to get this. What most people will do is check with the American Cancer Society to see what they say....or read dermatologist's opinions, or their doctor.

But that is like going into a Ford dealer and asking them what is the best truck to buy....think they are going to say Chevy or Dodge or Ford?

The sad truth is that The American cancer Society and the entire cancer industry has little interest in curing cancer, but even less interest in preventing it. If they found a single pill that would prevent all forms of cancer, you'd never hear about it. cancer is a multi-billion dollar industry, 100's of Billions. They are here to manage cancer and provide cancer treatments, not cures.

enough ranting. you get the idea. There is much more to the story, but that is the quick and dirty truth.

I can tell you though, that when I'm at the beach or near water and I see a thoughtful young mother literally bathing her children in sunscreen, I am screaming inside as though someone was stabbing me in the heart. But I know that if I say anything at all, the best thing that will happen is that I'll be ignored, but just as likely, I'll get an angry response....because my information will be viewed as critical of her mothering skills, and she's convinced she's doing the right thing. So there I am, suffering in silence, watching a future disaster being created because of a lie.

Ray,
Wow. You're either a conspiracy nut or very well informed. I'll do some digging before I come to a conclusion on SF and the link to cancer, so in that case I guess you reached your objective.

What are your feelings on fluoride in water and toothpaste?

On topic. I don't like the whole idea of the "Fed". I don't like the idea that foreign banks (a significant portion of the Fed) having such an impact on the US economy.

That being said. I not about to go of the deep end like a few people that I have met that say the Illuminati (or a group of very rich and powerful people - whatever you want to call them) have been behind every war from the beginning of our nation and that WWI was started to form the "League of Nations" and when the league was deemed ineffective WWII was created to develop the UN. And in the mean time those same people were laying the ground work for the "Fed".

These people that I met believe that the US never truly became independent of the UK and the UN and Fed were created to establish economic control over the world. Much like the Catholic church created the Crusades to maintain control over feudal Europe.

LIFE IS A CHESS GAME AND WE'RE ALL PAWNS is what they wanted me to believe and to some extent I do believe that.

I wish someone could do research on things to inform themself, but all the information out there was tainted by the people that wrote the "fact" and you never know what is truly a fact and what is manipulated data to present the "facts" that someone wanted out there. If you read a book about WWII that was written by "historians" in Russia, the US, Japan, and Germany you would get four distinctly different stories and they would all be "facts".

Don't get me started on the Bible....

if what I have to say convinces one person to refuse to vaccinate their child

How irresponsible. You've never seen an Iron Lung, have you? Ahhh, but, what do you care? It's not like it's your kid. Besides, you have a ludicrous point to make.

Nothing more dangerous than a selectively informed conspiracy advocate.

Countertrey wrote:

if what I have to say convinces one person to refuse to vaccinate their child

How irresponsible. You've never seen an Iron Lung, have you? Ahhh, but, what do you care? It's not like it's your kid. Besides, you have a ludicrous point to make.

Nothing more dangerous than a selectively informed conspiracy advocate.

Vaccinations all but eliminated several diseases from the face of the earth.
Smallpox was last witnessed in a human case in 1977.
The mumps were all but gone until a recent strain reappeared.

Innoculations may very well be dangerous. Vaccinations have done far more good than harm. A human body cannot build or produce anti-bodies for a disease to which it has never been exposed.

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820

two peas in a pod you two. At least you are consistent. You may follow along with the conversation .....maybe you'll learn....nope, never mind..

Countertrey wrote:

if what I have to say convinces one person to refuse to vaccinate their child

How irresponsible. You've never seen an Iron Lung, have you? Ahhh, but, what do you care? It's not like it's your kid. Besides, you have a ludicrous point to make.

Nothing more dangerous than a selectively informed conspiracy advocate.

No, it is irresponsible to talk like an authority on all subjects when you are clearly uniformed on most of them.

But it is off topic, so I'll post a thread on vaccines specifically, so we can address it there.

I have a wonderful idea....let's post it in smack? Yes.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Ray,
Wow. You're either a conspiracy nut or very well informed. I'll do some digging before I come to a conclusion on SF and the link to cancer, so in that case I guess you reached your objective.

What are your feelings on fluoride in water and toothpaste?

On topic. I don't like the whole idea of the "Fed". I don't like the idea that foreign banks (a significant portion of the Fed) having such an impact on the US economy.

That being said. I not about to go of the deep end like a few people that I have met that say the Illuminati (or a group of very rich and powerful people - whatever you want to call them) have been behind every war from the beginning of our nation and that WWI was started to form the "League of Nations" and when the league was deemed ineffective WWII was created to develop the UN. And in the mean time those same people were laying the ground work for the "Fed".

These people that I met believe that the US never truly became independent of the UK and the UN and Fed were created to establish economic control over the world. Much like the Catholic church created the Crusades to maintain control over feudal Europe.

LIFE IS A CHESS GAME AND WE'RE ALL PAWNS is what they wanted me to believe and to some extent I do believe that.

I wish someone could do research on things to inform themself, but all the information out there was tainted by the people that wrote the "fact" and you never know what is truly a fact and what is manipulated data to present the "facts" that someone wanted out there. If you read a book about WWII that was written by "historians" in Russia, the US, Japan, and Germany you would get four distinctly different stories and they would all be "facts".

Don't get me started on the Bible....

Yes, that sums it up nicely...one or the other..a real nut or well informed

As for fluoride....it's poison, plain and simple. Worse yet, it's not even good for your teeth (causes fluorosis, a discoloration) and eats holes in the enamel of your teeth, as well as your brain. A very large topic....deserving of it's own thread, so to stick on topic about money:

The federal reserve: best documentation: creature from jekyll island
a book by G. Edward Griffin, and also on video at Google Video. The entire history of the FED from creation to now.

Just to clarify my position in short, the deep end is the only place you'll find the truth.....and once you understand the true nature and origins of the Federal Reserve, the deep end is where you'll find yourself whether you intended to or not. I'll see you there.

GSPODS wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

if what I have to say convinces one person to refuse to vaccinate their child

How irresponsible. You've never seen an Iron Lung, have you? Ahhh, but, what do you care? It's not like it's your kid. Besides, you have a ludicrous point to make.

Nothing more dangerous than a selectively informed conspiracy advocate.

Vaccinations all but eliminated several diseases from the face of the earth.
Smallpox was last witnessed in a human case in 1977.
The mumps were all but gone until a recent strain reappeared.

Innoculations may very well be dangerous. Vaccinations have done far more good than harm. A human body cannot build or produce anti-bodies for a disease to which it has never been exposed.

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820

This is why I have such a hard time with your posts. You speak like such an authority, when I am absolutely certain you haven't a clue of what you are talking about. We do need to start a new thread for this, but in short, there is no unbiased scientific evidence that shows that any vaccine has ever eliminated a single solitary disease...but there are long held beliefs and a lot of lies claiming otherwise, and a lot of woefully misinformed followers too lazy to investigate otherwise.

A vast subject, with many facets. But chew on this little bite:

Infants are now receiving hepatitis b vaccinations, among the many other mandatory vaccinations (which really aren't mandatory at all, but people have been led to believe they have no choice)

And what does the CDC say: Scientific data show that hepatitis B vaccines are very safe for infants, children, and adults.

Problem is, Hepatitis B is only contracted by intravenous drug use and sexual activity, neither of which an infant is likely to engage in, and therefore totally and positively unnecessary. So why is it now a required in the general course of vaccination schedules? There is only one answer....Billions of dollars in profit for pharmaceutical companies. Period.

Why is this basic level of common sense ignored? Good question. Maybe because there are so many out there who will not take the time to think for themselves, and do a bit of personal research.

We are not taught how to think....we are taught what to think. That's the problem.

So spare me your opinion on such matters until you chose to research the issues yourself. Because until you do, you are not giving me your opinion, because you really don't have one of your own. You're just giving me someone else's opinion, and I've already heard them.

In addition, no need to bombard me with all of the CDC reports and AMA documents talking about mothers passing Hepatitis B to their infants as the reason for the vaccination. That is just more mind control nonsense used to defend the Hep B vaccinations of infants.

First, a minute and minuscule number of pregnant women may have Hep B, and it is easily discovered through blood tests that pregnant women routinely have. So that justifies vaccinating 10,000 babies each day......365 days a year?

Hardly. We are quite possibly the most supremely stupid society in the history of humankind....with certain exceptions of course.

RayNAustin wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

if what I have to say convinces one person to refuse to vaccinate their child

How irresponsible. You've never seen an Iron Lung, have you? Ahhh, but, what do you care? It's not like it's your kid. Besides, you have a ludicrous point to make.

Nothing more dangerous than a selectively informed conspiracy advocate.

No, it is irresponsible to talk like an authority on all subjects when you are clearly uniformed on most of them.

But it is off topic, so I'll post a thread on vaccines specifically, so we can address it there.

I have a wonderful idea....let's post it in smack? Yes.

I know what my qualifications are. You do not. I guarantee, I have forgotten more about vaccination, immunotherapy and immunology than you have even conceived.

I repeat my question. Have you ever seen an iron lung?

I will conclude (since you seem determined to avoid responding) that the answer is "no".

Why is that?

How many worldwide deaths has smallpox caused since 2000?

In the United States, how many infants born in 2005 suffered the teratrogenic effects of exposure to maternal Rubella infection?

Well?

Countertrey wrote:I know what my qualifications are. You do not. I guarantee, I have forgotten more about vaccination, immunotherapy and immunology than you have even conceived.

I repeat my question. Have you ever seen an iron lung?

I will conclude (since you seem determined to avoid responding) that the answer is "no".

Why is that?

How many worldwide deaths has smallpox caused since 2000?

In the United States, how many infants born in 2005 suffered the teratrogenic effects of exposure to maternal Rubella infection?

Well?

Let me guess, CT: you're an electrical engineer?