A quick word on blocking ads
It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
ScaredwhiteboyNope, Democrats are far more stupid.
**This post was edited on May 11th 2020 at 1:24:43pm
BedBugDougI don't think there is any disagreement between politicians. I think the Dems and GOP are running a massive pretend fight to keep the people at each other's throats and distracted. This seems to fit with the rest of what you are saying, but what are your thoughts on it?
LonelyHey remember when your profile picture is literally the symbol of treason, traitors, and hate for the U.S.?Pepperidge farms remembers
ScaredwhiteboyIf you think it was mere coincidence that the US declared war on Japan exactly one day after Pearl Harbor, you're even dumber than I thought.
ScaredwhiteboyNope, Democrats are far more stupid.
**This post was edited on May 11th 2020 at 1:24:43pm
BedBugDougI don't think there is any disagreement between politicians. I think the Dems and GOP are running a massive pretend fight to keep the people at each other's throats and distracted. This seems to fit with the rest of what you are saying, but what are your thoughts on it?
greaterisraelRadical ndividualism or "what's right for me, at the expense of others" will eventually destroy the US. Radical Individualism and greed destroyed Rome, a subversion that allowed invaders to more easily conquer her.
Radical individualism is here, in "New Rome," which is the US. Made of Iron but its foundation is of clay, which will eventually crack and destroy itself. All empires fall.
#selfiegeneration
#consumerismforthefatherland
Alexander Solzhenitsyn was certainly right regarding the wests moral compass.
ski.loonYou're right. Racism is so cool. Gotta love that flag - It's bad enough to be racist, but even worse to not even be able to admit that you're a terrible person.
**This post was edited on May 11th 2020 at 3:23:47pm
roddy116All of western civilization is based off of the lifestyle that the industrial revolution created, this includes America, when it comes to consumer practices, excess correlates with access, such as china's economic boom and their increase in private real estate ownership, cars, and personal computers. Economies only die when societies cant adapt to their physical and economical environment.
For example our huge move away from coal, and the ghost towns that you see around the west, these towns provided no supply or meeting of a demand by a source of value, and of course was abandoned. There was nothing about individuality, or we versus me culture, there was just a lack of cash.
Your trying to point out how a cultural aspect of america will lead to its downfall, by providing over-arching examples of people in a country that has always embraced individualism, that is not applicable to a globalized world, especially with how deadly it could be if say we just stopped refining oil, or just stopped making food, if one goes down, it all goes down.
greaterisraelIndeed. Yes, a far-reaching cultural aspect; neo-liberalisms hate for farmers is also causing tremendous hardship in rural areas. But the Frankfurt school's idea of "radical individualism" is far different in its moral depravity than individualism.
A communal approah and a new order of rightful living and morality must be retaught in schools because we certainly are not teaching kids these sort of ethics and principles. Instead, they hire war-criminal PNACers like Bill Kristol. Why? Because geopolitics and unipolarism Trumps ethics and isolationism.
Globalism and neo-liberalism is seeping into the localities and rural areas which is gutting them dry.
But I agree that there has to be a balance between internationalism and the decentralized local community.
roddy116dude just say sharing economy... philosophy and ethics have no place when your basing everything off of theory, actually most of what your saying is just reworded statements of easily understandable economic themes if you take it out of the douchy philosophical rhetoric, because abstract will never be as effective as actual observation, I don't really understand your approach, its just pretentious.
But, if you want to look at this we can apply it, there is no such thing as isolationism in the western world anymore, at all, it is legitimately impossible to not be affected by international entities in your every day life if you have access to any modern amenities, its not even something a developed nation could do as an actual practice.
Second: communal approach or the sharing economy as normal people call it, is abstract, inevitable, and something that does not need to be taught. It happens naturally every day, its just any exchange that does not involve legal tender, that is all there is to the idea of communal living, its stupid when you realize that the only thing your taking away is just physical currency, but everything will still have a set level of wealth by that community.
The problem with moving towards this however on a large scale, is that my milk will never be worth the same as the milk in a different states grocery store, there are different ways that the milk got to me then the grocery store, it might make it worth more or less.
The biggest flaw in what your saying is that you cant apply your ideas to actual practice, because you dont grasp how currency actually works, and also how inherently a belief in a currency doesnt matter because again, wealth is relative.
SnowshoeThompsonNot all republicans are stupid racists like how not all democrats are violent social justice warriors.
People that relate a political belief with assumptions of negativity are the real problem with this country.
ski.loonHis icon is the Confederate flag..don't care if he's a republican or not.
greaterisraelA sharing economy with less looting of the treasury and an isolationist geopolitical stance based on national self-sustainability could work; if US manufacturing found its way back in the US. There is no such thing in the western world as isolationism, concerning preemptive warfare, largely due to geopolitical agendas. The government cares very little about the constitution. Isolationism, nevertheless, can imply free-trade, isolating the countryfrom the politics of other nations.
All I'm saying is that corporatist personhood is seeping its ways into localities, slowly monopolizing and running small businesses and the agricultural industry bankrupt.
The communal approach does not imply the taking away of a medium of exchange nor does it imply a lack of currency, though it can. Rather, the money you use; those Federal Reserve notes "blood money" as I call them, is unsound currency based on Hamilton's permanent public debt approach. We need to try to save at the expense of the credit market and bring in a currency worth tangible value. Silver certificates is an option. They would NOT be backed by government bonds, would be issued by indepedent treasuries and thus fiscal policy would not be given to a corporation which is unconstitutional. A medium of exchange could be anything but the worst of its kind is paper, and even worst, paper backed by government bonds. Like England, Swiss and Frankfurt bankers, some having not applied for citizenship, came to America to monopolize the money supply, they were successful in 1863 and then restructured the system with the Federal Reserve Act, thus mortgaging the country and future unborn generations.
I'm merely saying that the current system errected; a government incorporated and a currency based on permanent public debt, is not constitutional, and for that reason the government has failed the people for 150 years, if not, longer.
If only the people did what the Indians did when colonists came over trying to issue paper currency to the Indians. They were like what the fuck is this shit. I'm merely implying that there is a far better way to due currency which would not create 7 year boom and bust cycles.
**This post was edited on May 11th 2020 at 11:13:15pm
roddy116Literally the gas prices, food, cars, are affected by politics every day. Modern trading systems and production lines make it inevitable that you will be affected as a consumer by prices.
Yes corporations are ruining small businesses, but at the same time its getting better every year, its a natural part of large economic growth like we did have in the 80's, same as japan, and same as china today, people eventually gain enough money to start businesses, then they grow and then the cycle starts again with small businesses growing.
Native americans did have a currency and it was recognized by colonists, and it was adjusted with inflation to the other currencies as well, like a real currency, only problem was it was harvestable from the ocean, so i dont know what you are referring to. And resources were used as currency as well on a bartering system, but that was much better for nomadic tribes that were interested in trade in the first place. But your talking about 100 people maybe at the most per tribe in a generally undeveloped part of the world, logistically a bartering was better, now its not because you cant run a bartering system on the scale of what you would need for just about anything.
A seperate treasury would still be a corporate entity because it would basically be a bank? So you want to logistically dismantle an entire continent wide countries currency system because its too central, even though those treasuries could set there value making different regions have a different level of wealth. Still having the same issues that a centralized backing would have but just in multiple different areas. Plus these places would be corporations anyway, and would have a level of control, so either way nothing would really change, just the location of where this would be backed. Also creating competition of what these backings would be, and competition to get certain companies to only accept that form of currency or whatever kind of abstract set of wealth you are referring to.
Your saying that you want to dismantle the financial system that the whole global economy has built its value on, in order to create competition for it, thus just creating more of the exact same issues, but on multiple smaller scales.
And when you refer to public debt, thats just the national trade ownership but these debts are owed to different things and corporations, its a mixture of public and private sector obligations on what they owe, thats not a destructive aspect to the economy, if we really were all in debt by that much we would not have a country.
Also any level of backing of a currency is going to require it to be a "corporation" any type of organized asset that handles a lot of money whether its a bank or finance, or a government is on some level a corporation. There is no way that a currency cant be handled on some level with upper management or control.
roddy116Literally the gas prices, food, cars, are affected by politics every day. Modern trading systems and production lines make it inevitable that you will be affected as a consumer by prices.
Yes corporations are ruining small businesses, but at the same time its getting better every year, its a natural part of large economic growth like we did have in the 80's, same as japan, and same as china today, people eventually gain enough money to start businesses, then they grow and then the cycle starts again with small businesses growing.
Native americans did have a currency and it was recognized by colonists, and it was adjusted with inflation to the other currencies as well, like a real currency, only problem was it was harvestable from the ocean, so i dont know what you are referring to. And resources were used as currency as well on a bartering system, but that was much better for nomadic tribes that were interested in trade in the first place. But your talking about 100 people maybe at the most per tribe in a generally undeveloped part of the world, logistically a bartering was better, now its not because you cant run a bartering system on the scale of what you would need for just about anything.
A seperate treasury would still be a corporate entity because it would basically be a bank? So you want to logistically dismantle an entire continent wide countries currency system because its too central, even though those treasuries could set there value making different regions have a different level of wealth. Still having the same issues that a centralized backing would have but just in multiple different areas. Plus these places would be corporations anyway, and would have a level of control, so either way nothing would really change, just the location of where this would be backed. Also creating competition of what these backings would be, and competition to get certain companies to only accept that form of currency or whatever kind of abstract set of wealth you are referring to.
Your saying that you want to dismantle the financial system that the whole global economy has built its value on, in order to create competition for it, thus just creating more of the exact same issues, but on multiple smaller scales.
And when you refer to public debt, thats just the national trade ownership but these debts are owed to different things and corporations, its a mixture of public and private sector obligations on what they owe, thats not a destructive aspect to the economy, if we really were all in debt by that much we would not have a country.
Also any level of backing of a currency is going to require it to be a "corporation" any type of organized asset that handles a lot of money whether its a bank or finance, or a government is on some level a corporation. There is no way that a currency cant be handled on some level with upper management or control.
SnowshoeThompsonNo. It’s a rebel flag. There’s a bunch of states in the south whose flags still have similar resemblance to it. When I was in Louisiana people, black and white, were running it in front of their houses and stickered on their cars
Govygen_gourmetThe US Population is significantly under armed and under prepared for a civil war.. even the Taliban (who fought long enough to Defeat the U.S.) have more arms than the american people.. the over regulation of arms has left Us defenseless should war ever break out among opposing sides; the Government would have no trouble at all in keeping the peace.
mystery3Says the man that thinks each event happens in a vacuum.
Trollboy is very troll.
ski.loonHis icon is the Confederate flag..don't care if he's a republican or not.
ScaredwhiteboyThe Union started a war that killed roughly 2% of the US population; it was unequivocally the bloodiest war in American history. If you support the actions of the north in the lead-up to the Civil War, you're implicitly saying that you think killing 650 thousand people is worth allowing the federal government impose its laws on the states. Something tells me that if Trump were to sign an executive order banning state lockdowns right now, you wouldn't be singing the same tune.
Also, before you try to whine about how the south fired the first shot, look at a map and note that Fort Sumter is located smack dab in the middle of South Carolina. The Confederacy had every right to evict to the north from Fort Sumter.
ScaredwhiteboyThe Union started a war that killed roughly 2% of the US population; it was unequivocally the bloodiest war in American history. If you support the actions of the north in the lead-up to the Civil War, you're implicitly saying that you think killing 650 thousand people is worth allowing the federal government impose its laws on the states. Something tells me that if Trump were to sign an executive order banning state lockdowns right now, you wouldn't be singing the same tune.
Also, before you try to whine about how the south fired the first shot, look at a map and note that Fort Sumter is located smack dab in the middle of South Carolina. The Confederacy had every right to evict to the north from Fort Sumter.
little1337Haven't checked in on this thread for awhile, glad to see it's just as nuts
LonelyThe good old " the civil war was about the states rights! Rights should not be infringed upon! Unless you're not white. Then it's our right to take away all of your rights" argument. From someone who probably lives in a northern state and didn't have any family in the U.S. at the time.
To follow your line of reasoning we shouldn't have touched the Nazis. They didn't attack us directly and it was their right to commit atrocities. By saying that supporting us attacking the Nazis was good, you are implicitly saying that you support the death of almost 230,000 U.S. troops in the European theatre just to impose our opinion of what is "right"
geez louis
greaterisraelResearch the history of US banking
and you might see another reason why the war was waged on the South. It's history starts even before the revolurionary war.
The National Socialist comparision is a red herring. The South was not comprised of just hooligan slave holders; which the union had its fair share too; even after the war, but was comprised of hundreds of thousands of innocents and southeners who did not want to have a centralized currency owned by British interests. Look up who helped Lincoln, it was the Tsar. One always needs to keep in mind that Lincoln was an authoritarian and would imprision dissenters. As a whig he was behind the errection of an unconstitutional central bank backed by permanent public debt via government bonds.
Rather ingenious that the banks would side with Lincoln, knowing that eventually the slave trade would faphase out due to technological modernization. There goal was to incorporate all personhoods including former slave holders. Then to issue this worthless debt backed paper to the South.
Now I understand why Lincoln and Hamilton are considered heroes today. Heroes for the oligarchs in a time of convenience.
**This post was edited on May 12th 2020 at 10:42:14pm
greaterisraelResearch the history of US banking
and you might see another reason why the war was waged on the South. It's history starts even before the revolurionary war.
The National Socialist comparision is a red herring. The South was not comprised of just hooligan slave holders; which the union had its fair share too; even after the war, but was comprised of hundreds of thousands of innocents and southeners who did not want to have a centralized currency owned by British interests. Look up who helped Lincoln, it was the Tsar. One always needs to keep in mind that Lincoln was an authoritarian and would imprision dissenters. As a whig he was behind the errection of an unconstitutional central bank backed by permanent public debt via government bonds.
Rather ingenious that the banks would side with Lincoln, knowing that eventually the slave trade would faphase out due to technological modernization. There goal was to incorporate all personhoods including former slave holders. Then to issue this worthless debt backed paper to the South.
Now I understand why Lincoln and Hamilton are considered heroes today. Heroes for the oligarchs in a time of convenience.
**This post was edited on May 12th 2020 at 10:42:14pm
greaterisraelResearch the history of US banking
and you might see another reason why the war was waged on the South. It's history starts even before the revolurionary war.
The National Socialist comparision is a red herring. The South was not comprised of just hooligan slave holders; which the union had its fair share too; even after the war, but was comprised of hundreds of thousands of innocents and southeners who did not want to have a centralized currency owned by British interests. Look up who helped Lincoln, it was the Tsar. One always needs to keep in mind that Lincoln was an authoritarian and would imprision dissenters. As a whig he was behind the errection of an unconstitutional central bank backed by permanent public debt via government bonds.
Rather ingenious that the banks would side with Lincoln, knowing that eventually the slave trade would faphase out due to technological modernization. There goal was to incorporate all personhoods including former slave holders. Then to issue this worthless debt backed paper to the South.
Now I understand why Lincoln and Hamilton are considered heroes today. Heroes for the oligarchs in a time of convenience.
**This post was edited on May 12th 2020 at 10:42:14pm
LonelyWhen did patriotism in this country become questioning whether or not evil people are evil and taking away the rights of your countrymen? I see this the most from people who call themselves patriots and I find this upsetting.
LonelySo you don't have a credit card, bank account or purchase from large corporations right? Or do you just spew conspiracy theories and play the devils advocate to feel superior to everyone else while still supporting the things you say are bad to the same degree as everyone else?
ronders_“Patriotism” hasn’t been about the good of the people of the United States for a long time, but especially since 9/11 (which, by the way, was just confirmed through a leak to be orchestrated and funded by the Saudi government- probably with the full knowledge of the US gov) it has been blind nationalism and cults of personality surrounding specific politicians, and authoritarianism (“The Patriot Act”). Any real Patriot abandoned all hope long ago.
LonelyThe moon doesn't actually exist. It just exists as a way for large centralized banks to funnel their money secretly through telescope and space exploration companys and organizations to secretly control the world. If you don't believe that you need to do some research.
People who try to justify evil are usually like people who do evil things. I'm sure the family members of the deceased and the deceased would love to hear about your opinions that the holocaust and killing of 6 million jews was okay because of
the banks in ww2. Why do people feel the need to defend evil people with long and unproven conspiracy theories? IDK maybe you can answer that question for me.
Let me ask you this, what is the downside to not defending the confederacy or nazis? Can you give me a reason? This question applies to the somewhat timid guy @Scaredwhiteboy as well.
Why do people spend such a great portion of their life trying to justify evil acts? Once again the answer eludes me.
greaterisraelMy stance wasn't to defend confederates; I was only illustrating that history has far more nuisances and causes.
Your first sentence is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy; I'm sure as a troll you know them well. You're also using false analogy and a straw man throughout. In fact, the entire premise of your post is based off a false premise fallacy, and reductio ad absurdums. Honestly, you mind as well add reductio ad Hitlerum in your next post being an ignoramus and all. The moral equivalence fallacy and attacking my character with ad hominems also makes you look ignorant. And what about me "supporting the banks and evil to murder people?"You did some sort of fallacy bewitchery there. Sad; it makes you look quite idiotic.
LonelyYeah fallacies are great an all. Still haven't answered my question. Good troll nonetheless
GrandThingsRace War - Potentially
T.L.I'd rather we didn't boog but I fully anticipate things to heat up again as the weather does. This lockdown has people going crazy.
Seems like Soros and Styer have dialed back a little on funding commies so that's good at least. Guess we'll have to see what the next few weeks and months bring.
ScaredwhiteboyIt only takes one to start a war (see Japan 1941), and Democrats certainly are stupid enough to kill and die for leftism.
**This post was edited on May 5th 2020 at 3:59:31pm
FruitBootProWhat the fuck would we even have a war over? Unless the democratic socialists start rioting because they're not getting their way and the gun-toting rednecks shoot back, we have nothing to have a war over.
Idk when this ideological polarizaiton is gonna end in the USA though...smdh
ronders_you predicted the future. congratulations
