Returning The Money To the people

[Damocles]

We haven't always had a privatized federal reserve and fiat curency. These are new. We have never second guessed the right of citizens to be afforded the protections of a border. That is new.

You can threaten and mock me all you like. Your ilk will never achieve their goals. they're just too nakedly self serving.

My goals of a strong border and security? I may never acheive them, but I won't be mocked because of them. I do believe that if people actually would vote their shares against those who spend company money in such a way that you could end the strong coin-operation bent of the politics in the nation. I don't think it will ever happen though, people are simply too short-sighted.

You really have no idea of my opinions on matters and just make an ass of yourself by assuming them.

You could read up on them, they are on the site. Often I have spoken against the open-border policy of the current administration and that of the one likely to replace it.

 

[Litmus]

My goals of a strong border and security? I may never acheive them, but I won't be mocked because of them. I do believe that if people actually would vote their shares against those who spend company money in such a way that you could end the strong coin-operation bent of the politics in the nation. I don't think it will ever happen though, people are simply too short-sighted.

You really have no idea of my opinions on matters and just make an ass of yourself by assuming them.

So you're vain, and propound an unworkable solution to global fascism. I know all I need to.

 

[Damocles]

So you're vain, and propound an unworkable solution to global fascism. I know all I need to.

Right. I guess we mirror each other. Your "solution" of changing the monetary system and running around in panic sure is "workable".

 

[Cancel7]

Right. I guess we mirror each other. Your "solution" of changing the monetary system and running around in panic sure is "workable".

Uh, trust me on this, you don't.

 

[Damocles]

Uh, trust me on this, you don't.

Oh, I know. But saying that a different tactic is "unworkable" as opposed to the current tactic that has acheived 100% failure for them so far is simply laughable.

 

[Litmus]

Right. I guess we mirror each other. Your "solution" of changing the monetary system and running around in panic sure is "workable".

It is workable. Your 'arguments' against changing the current trends are basically "Come on, that's just unpopular."

Admit you're for the New world order, then explain why.

 

[Litmus]

Oh, I know. But saying that a different tactic is "unworkable" as opposed to the current tactic that has acheived 100% failure for them so far is simply laughable.

empowering a global corporate hegemony solves no problems I'm aware of.

 

[Damocles]

It is workable. Your 'arguments' against changing the current trends are basically "Come on, that's just unpopular."

Admit you're for the New world order, then explain why.

Rubbish. My arguments are, "People have been doing exactly as you have for Centuries, and in every 'battle' have lost."

Your arument is, "We have to keep at it, it's going to suddenly start working any moment now!"

It isn't based in logic.

The tact you really should begin to take is find agreement and work toward reachable goals. Find the first step. In this case I would suggest the border. We can agree there. It is workable, it can be done in our lifetime and under current political climate. Then once you have successfully reached that step, work toward another and so forth.

Instead of just running around doing what hasn't worked for centuries you do what you can and think more long-term.

 

[Damocles]

empowering a global corporate hegemony solves no problems I'm aware of.

Taking power from them however is a workable tactic.

 

[Litmus]

Taking power from them however is a workable tactic.

So you think people voting their stock shares is the only thing that will stop them. I disagree. I believe reforming the money system and placing business needs inside a greater moral context is a better solution.

 

[Damocles]

So you think people voting their stock shares is the only thing that will stop them. I disagree. I believe reforming the money system and placing business needs inside a greater moral context is a better solution.

The problem with your reform is that it creates only a false security. A backed monetary system can be equally manipulated. Simply the government overbuying and stocking whatever backs it and creating a false scarcity would make it more valued, then when they needed to they simply release it to the market and create a crash. It isn't that hard to figure out.

Of course, it still would make no difference to the corporation who can spend the money regardless.

As for the "moral" context, how do you propose to do that? I prefer people voting shares rather than enforcing legislation on all those individuals who own that stock. Create an understanding of the responsibility people have with those shares, and a full understanding of shareholder rights, could more easily make such a change than legislation, especially that based on religous-based morality with the current political climate.

 

[Litmus]

The problem with your reform is that it creates only a false security. A backed monetary system can be equally manipulated. Simply the government overbuying and stocking whatever backs it and creating a false scarcity would make it more valued, then when they needed to they simply release it to the market and create a crash. It isn't that hard to figure out.

Of course, it still would make no difference to the corporation who can spend the money regardless.

As for the "moral" context, how do you propose to do that? I prefer people voting shares rather than enforcing legislation on all those individuals who own that stock. Create an understanding of the responsibility people have with those shares, and a full understanding of shareholder rights, could more easily make such a change than legislation, especially that based on religous-based morality with the current political climate.

I think the fiat system is worse. And putting business in a moral context is what we have always done. It was "working" fine. Laws against prison labor, child labor, excessive mandatory work hours etcetra, I considered to be good things. Now the corporations want to reverse all that to feed their greed and reduce the rest of humanity relative to themselves. You're "share voting" solution is good, but inadequate. It's insufficient.

 

[Damocles]

I think the fiat system is worse. And putting business in a moral context is what we have always done. It was "working" fine. Laws against prison labor, child labor, excessive mandatory work hours etcetra, I considered to be good things. Now the corporations want to reverse all that to feed their greed and reduce the rest of humanity relative to themselves. You're "share voting" solution is good, but inadequate. It's insufficient.

As is the idea of posting thousands of links blaming an ever-shrinking group of philanthropists for the ills of the world.

As I said, prioritize. Find the most important and pressing issue (I suggest the border) and work there. Find several actually workable solutions that can be implemented in the current climate and work toward them regardless of who you think are the "evil proponents" of such ideation. Each success will take from "them" power that "they" currently wield.

 

[Litmus]

As is the idea of posting thousands of links blaming an ever-shrinking group of philanthropists for the ills of the world.

As I said, prioritize. Find the most important and pressing issue (I suggest the border) and work there. Find several actually workable solutions that can be implemented in the current climate and work toward them regardless of who you think are the "evil proponents" of such ideation. Each success will take from "them" power that "they" currently wield.

the issues I've identified are the ones I'm sticking with. Money reform and moral erosion justified with business arguments taken out of a moral context.

 

[Damocles]

the issues I've identified are the ones I'm sticking with. Money reform and moral erosion justified with business arguments taken out of a moral context.

Stick with them. I'll stick with the border. It serves two purposes and has far more chance of success. Revamping the monetary system at this time has about as much chance as the survival rate of a naked infant in the frozen waste of the Antarctic.

 

[Litmus]

Stick with them. I'll stick with the border. It serves two purposes and has far more chance of success. Revamping the monetary system at this time has about as much chance as the survival rate of a naked infant in the frozen waste of the Antarctic.

My issues encompass yours. So, we're in agreement. Come closer to the flame, little moth.

 

[Damocles]

My issues encompass yours. So, we're in agreement. Come closer to the flame, little moth.

No, we are not "in agreement". That is preposterous. I have given you the reason that I won't attempt a "revamp of the monetary system". In fact I have given several.

Your issues may be the next step but are untenable as a current step. Do you understand the concept of prioritization? It doesn't seem as if you do.

 

[Litmus]

No, we are not "in agreement". That is preposterous. I have given you the reason that I won't attempt a "revamp of the monetary system". In fact I have given several.

Your issues may be the next step but are untenable as a current step. Do you understand the concept of prioritization? It doesn't seem as if you do.

I understand prioritization. Do you understand partial and ineffective measures? It doesn't seem as if you do.

 

[Damocles]

I understand prioritization. Do you understand partial and ineffective measures? It doesn't seem as if you do.

I do, however, do you understand that "partial" is only the first step in a long-term goal? That is prioritization. Your post made it even more clear that you ignore the reality and attempt to force "solutions" that are untenable.

It makes it so you can still run around pretending the world will cave tomorrow to the forces of "them"! OMGZ!@!!1!!!

I do not believe in your grand conspiracy of an ever-shrinking Fraternity to take over the entirety of the planet based on "noahidism".

I do believe that the gaping border allows myriad opportunities for a terrorist to take advantage, it devalues labor, and other issues. It is a good first step in bringing to heel those corporations who would take advantage of those people and are negligent of the safety of others.

I also understand that the monetary system isn't likely to change. I think that is a totally unreachable goal.

 

[Litmus]

I do, however, do you understand that "partial" is only the first step in a long-term goal? That is prioritization. Your post made it even more clear that you ignore the reality and attempt to force "solutions" that are untenable.

Im not "forcing" anything. What's needed is a massive expansion of awareness amongst the people in general. The approach of dealing with small facets of an issue, one at a time has obviously failed. Are you aware that continuing to do the same thing over and over and hoping for different results is a sign of insanity?

It makes it so you can still run around pretending the world will cave tomorrow to the forces of "them"! OMGZ!@!!1!!!

I'm not pretending.

I do not believe in your grand conspiracy of an ever-shrinking Fraternity to take over the entirety of the planet based on "noahidism".

Why not? It's happening right before our eyes, and is the documented goal of rabbinic judaism.

I do believe that the gaping border allows myriad opportunities for a terrorist to take advantage, it devalues labor, and other issues. It is a good first step in bringing to heel those corporations who would take advantage of those people and are negligent of the safety of others.

I also understand that the monetary system isn't likely to change. I think that is a totally unreachable goal.

Little people dream little dreams.