Tremulous Forum
Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: Mario on September 25, 2009, 08:09:09 pm
-
Greetings,
Yes, there's an actual political thread on this forum. I'm not trying to talk or preach to everyone about how bad or good the U.S. is, and I'm sorry if I leave your country out. If you dislike politics but have an honest opinion that doesn't involve attacking anyone else who posts on this thread, feel free to post here. If you're a person who wants to just attack people who post here, or the person who began the topic, please do not post in this thread.
I've noticed a trend on the internet that really surprises me. People avoid talking about politics after a major election in the U.S.
Here's my opinion about this: We've established documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to protect our nation from tyranny and corruption. U.S. citizens refuse to take part in politics because it is sometimes confusing just as economics is to a lot of us. I believe we as a citizen in our country have some what of an obligation to a role in politics. CNN, MSNBC and FOX do not help our political environment here in the U.S. I know terminology and meanings sometimes can be confusing as big numbers and mathematical equations, but we have one of the most powerful tools here to help us better understand and you're using it right now. I work in Broadcasting right now. I've see how people hate these shows but turn it on these channels to see what they're going to say. In which case it gives them ratings, which contributes to keeping them on the air. Don't like the media? Turn the station.
A lot of U.S. citizens wake up everyday and they don't even know the Constitution exists. I've met these people before and it's shocking to me. I am concerned about the future of our country. I didn't even learn a hint of the Constitution until my senior year in High School. I didn't realize how important these documents were to everyday American life. In my opinion, children should at least begin learning about our Constitution in middle school. We're moving further away from these documents because people believe they're too old or they have begun to fail. These statements are faulty and high inaccurate. We should modify our Constitution from time to time; our Constitution will last for 200 more years if we protect it. The first ten amendments have been under heavy attack for nearly the last nine years. People are being arrested for peaceful assembly, arrested and detained without trail. You ARE INNOCENT until proven guilty by a panel of your peers (a jury). You are able to go to court and defend yourself against a ticket. NEVER fight the officer who issues it.
People believe there will be chaos if we keep semi-automatic weapons; but since we already have semi-automatic weapons and there are over 80 million registered gun owners in the U.S, I see no chaos. What sense would it make to remove legal weapons and let criminals keep the illegal ones? How would you like it if you're sitting at the computer right now reading this and a thief was climbing into your window knowing that there will be no resistance because we have no weapons? We have a right to protect life, liberty, and property. 'A right to a well regulated militia' is to be used as last resort. NO, being a gun owner doesn't mean you're part of a militia. Defending your property does not make you a militia member. This piece of the second amendment is the only thing that makes your Constitution still valid to this day. People believe revolting against the government is foolish, because they will easily deal with you. You have to also understand that we have service men and women who go to war to fight for the love of our country. We have fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in the military. It is also their right to refuse orders that go against the Constitution, which they are sworn to protect from enemies, foreign and domestic. Patriots are everywhere.
Freedom of speech gives you the right to voice your respectable opinion, not the right to attack or slander someone, which I take responsibility for in some of my posts on other forums. Everyone should be given a chance to speak and address the issues. You should be able to debate, analyze and study the facts, concerns and details of ones argument and give an honest opinion back. I believe we've seen too much red and blue. Our representatives and elected officials believe it's in the best interest of either their party or the highest bidder (donator). If you serve the needs of your party or the highest bidder, you need to be removed from your position.
Freedom of assembly, as a peaceful or angry protester, you have the right to protest. Peaceful protesters should move out of the way of angry protesters to avoid being hit with teargas and rubber bullets. If you were removed from a protest and you're a law abiding citizen, then you should begin filing claims against the police department of which detained you. If your voice is not heard, then begin to demand the removal of your elected official through vote. It will get their attention. If you believe the courts are unjust, begin to remove the judges. All of this can be done by majority.
I urge you, take part in politics. It's not only for current events, but the future of our children who will be making the decisions for US later on in life.
Feel free to post your thoughts here.
"..there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it" - John F. Kennedy
p.s. Thank you for reading this long ass post all the way down to here :P
-
I enjoyed reading that, but my faveourite slightly off topic fact about US policy is that they refuse to offer aid to some African countries as they have been known to torture prisoners.
Ironic.
But apart from that, when I go to USA I do enjoy the freshness.
Guess I just haven't been around there long enough to see the sun go down.
-
I applaud you in your efforts, but not enough people care to be able to change the direction of things in this country. Not that it would matter anyways.
It's hard to be motivated about voting when my vote is meaningless.
-
I enjoyed reading that, but my faveourite slightly off topic fact about US policy is that they refuse to offer aid to some African countries as they have been known to torture prisoners.
Ironic.
But apart from that, when I go to USA I do enjoy the freshness.
Guess I just haven't been around there long enough to see the sun go down.
It's sad to see the rest of the world like this. It's also sad to be lied to by the people who you trust also.
I applaud you in your efforts, but not enough people care to be able to change the direction of things in this country. Not that it would matter anyways.
It's hard to be motivated about voting when my vote is meaningless.
I agree. Electoral colleges kinda kill our voting system. It sucks.
I've been everywhere talking about the decline of the U.S. Dollar. It seems like people would rather cast you out as a conspiracy theorist than actually listening to you. I've been labeled as a fear monger who does nothing but spit out 'the world is going to end' type information. I get cursed out even when telling people that you should prepare for the worst scenario. I guess a lot of us don't believe in a good saying "It's better to have it and don't need it, then to need it and don't have it". I fail to see why everyone believes it is a perfect society that cannot be touched as long as we have our Playstations and Televisions. I'm aware that through out human history, empires have risen and fallen due to different reasons, and just because it's 2009 doesn't make it any different from 476 A.D or the 1980's.
It's common sense to look at our own debt and deficits. We're now $11.7 trillion in national debt, $3.80 billion per day. $16.2 trillion by 2012. It's simple, you cannot pay off a loan that has interest, by taking out another loan with interest, and paying the first loan off with it; and then taking out a third loan with interest to pay off the 2nd loan that has interest also. Gold skyrocketed over $1000/oz and USD continues to decline. Telling people this is troubling for me, because they have a hard time not understanding it or they refuse to listen to the truth.
-
How come the U.S. is the only country on the planet in which the citizens feel the need to cram up their basement with automatic weapons and 10 000 rounds of ammunition?
-
How come the U.S. is the only country on the planet in which the citizens feel the need to cram up their basement with automatic weapons and 10 000 rounds of ammunition?
Ammo is available to us for around $120.00 USD on some sites for 1000 rounds of ammo. We're going to buy it, then shoot it or store it. People shoot off hundreds of rounds a day through different weapons, I know this because I own weapons myself. I'm not responsible for people going out on a rampage with illegal automatic weapons, but I'm not also not responsible for the guy going on a rampage with a chainsaw or a knife, or even the drunken driver behind the wheel of a car. People like to collect weapons, and it's in our Constitution to have weapons. It's good enough for me.
-
How come the U.S. is the only country on the planet in which the citizens feel the need to cram up their basement with automatic weapons and 10 000 rounds of ammunition?
I don't know, why?
-
How come the U.S. is the only country on the planet in which the citizens feel the need to cram up their basement with automatic weapons and 10 000 rounds of ammunition?
Because if we crammed up our basement with bolt action WWI era rifles we wouldn't stand a chance against the government.
The founding fathers of the United States understood the importance of the right for citizens to own guns (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed - 2nd amendment), not so the people could use their guns to hunt deer and take target practice, but so they could stand up should the US be invaded by a foreign military force, and just as important, be able to stand up against the US government should they decide not to keep their end of the bargain.
-
Correct sir! ;D
-
The general population stands absolutely no chance against a force such at the Army. Who controls that Army? The U.S. government. A few automatic rifles and submachine guns can't do much damage to armored vehicles, tanks, etc.
-
That's why you read Ragnar Benson's books. (http://www.blackrayne.net/index.html)
I torrented his collection, good stuff. :)
http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_p2.html
-
That's why you read Ragnar Benson's books. (http://www.blackrayne.net/index.html)
I torrented his collection, good stuff. :)
http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_p2.html
;) Who was it that showed you that again?
;)
-
<3
-
The general population stands absolutely no chance against a force such at the Army. Who controls that Army? The U.S. government. A few automatic rifles and submachine guns can't do much damage to armored vehicles, tanks, etc.
I'm not saying I agree with terrorism or anything like that, but on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Taliban have been putting up a pretty good fight with not much more than a few automatic rifles and submachine guns.
I read a statistic that there are 90 guns for every 100 people in the United States. Obviously all of those guns can't take down a tank, but that is still over 200million citizens who are armed. I just don't see how the government could militarily defeat the people of the United States considering they are having trouble on a narrow, mountainous border in Pakistan.
-
I just don't see how the government could militarily defeat the people of the United States considering they are having trouble on a narrow, mountainous border in Pakistan.
This might be diverging from the topic a bit, but I think there's a simple explanation for this particular logic: organization. Trying to get 200 million people to focus on one thing without a lot of training and order first is asking for defeat, even by a much smaller group. I'm not saying it would be a slam dunk, or even a given. But a trained military - or in the case of those folks in Pakistan, an indoctrinated paramilitary force - could do a lot of damage against a bunch of "ordinary folks".
-
this is alot of words to read :(
oh well, i got nothing better to do..
-
Once again guys, assuming that the soldiers manning all of this equipment will continue to follow government orders. We have to remember that armor takes a while to get to its target. I would be more worried about air strikes than anything. People will share tactics and knowledge if that time ever came. People will teach about explosives, evasion, recovery. Everything that was taught to a soldier can be taught to you.
-
Once again guys, assuming that the soldiers manning all of this equipment will continue to follow government orders. We have to remember that armor takes a while to get to its target. I would be more worried about air strikes than anything. People will share tactics and knowledge if that time ever came. People will teach about explosives, evasion, recovery. Everything that was taught to a soldier can be taught to you.
Yeah I'm not entirely convinced US soldiers will fire on their own citizens in the first place.
-
they are fed with nanobot pills that when activated control their body
-
Yeah I'm not entirely convinced US soldiers will fire on their own citizens in the first place.
26.34% (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088237/posts) would.
-
Yeah I'm not entirely convinced US soldiers will fire on their own citizens in the first place.
26.34% (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088237/posts) would.
That's disheartening :(
-
Yeah I'm not entirely convinced US soldiers will fire on their own citizens in the first place.
26.34% (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088237/posts) would.
That's disheartening :(
U.S. Soldiers are sworn to defend the constitution. It's not an easy choice by any means, but if U.S. citizens truly prove a threat to the U.S.A. you can bet they will be in trouble.
-
Yeah I'm not entirely convinced US soldiers will fire on their own citizens in the first place.
26.34% (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088237/posts) would.
That's disheartening :(
U.S. Soldiers are sworn to defend the constitution. It's not an easy choice by any means, but if U.S. citizens truly prove a threat to the U.S.A. you can bet they will be in trouble.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akwjAjcQnqM
I can't believe that happened in Pittsburgh.
-
But why would the U.S. Government want to shoot 200million of their own citizens?
After the dust settled, on the global stage they would have their arses kicked.
Both morally, socially, economically and physically perhaps.
A country is made of its own people, and that would be commiting suicide.
I reckon they would just assasinate any people who seem to be in command, so instead of killing 200000000 people, they just kill 200, and keep the worst of the rest in jail, some others under house arrest and the rest in their 'bad books'.
-
I reckon they would just assasinate any people who seem to be in command,
Been done before...
-
MSNBC and FOX do not help our political environment here in the U.S.
Hm, I would like to know your opinion on outside news sources, like BBC prehaps?
Is all media as corrupted as American media, or do we just live in a society that does not value the truth?
-
Naturally the following are just my opinions and your mileage may vary. Sorry in advance if my English is not the greatest and I ramble on a bit about some subjects. So without further ado lets talk politics, Yay!
Mario
There are quite a few people around the globe that share your concerns about US monetary and fiscal policies. Not least among them are the Chinese and Japanese who hold large sums of that (dollar denominated) debt you mentioned. And lets not even open the can of worms that is the demographics of western society and the unfunded liabilities they entail. Suffice to say that 11 trillion is just the tip of the iceberg and I don't blame you for being worried. :( The laws of supply and demand are just that. Opaque markets may cause some lag but there would seem to be some sort of correction coming along.
It would seem the only way to prevent the proverbial shit from hitting the fan from time to time is to elect responsible politicians but alas that is kind of a global oxymoron. If you are interested in the web of debt that has been spun over that last few decades people like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers and Nouriel Roubini have been talking about the problems for a while now even if folks tune out when the gloom and doomers speak.
About your constitution I am not really qualified to speak since I am not familiar with the document. I will however say, that from my limited experience, your education system seems lacking in creating a citizenry capable of making the right choices. Dumbing down the population with playstations and pop culture won't help people make informed decisions. Maybe you should not be pushing too hard for that democratic vote ;) j/k.
Your concerns about regulations on firearms seem justifiable since there are already so many firearms in circulation you will likely have to deal with that reality. You have to deal with the realities you face even if they are uncomfortable. I like to hold on to the idea, that dealing with the underlying social problems, as opposed to creating masses of expensive bureaucracy, is preferable.
On the subject of oppressive governments any leader is only as good as the men whose shoulders he stands on. If that base erodes they lose their power. Those soldiers are also part of the power base. The only way to stay in power against the will of the majority is to use fear tactics and smoke and mirrors to trick the majority into thinking they are a minority. The other factor is that most people would rather give up bits of their freedom gradually then give up the safeness and stability of a known (even if flawed) system. Oh well.
Maybe you should stop worrying about the macroeconomic perspective and head over to www.survivalblog.com and start worrying about _your_ microeconomic solution. ;)
Demolition
Who does that army consist of that you say is so much superior to citizens? Granted the disciplined and structured ways of military life raises the bar for dissent but do you really think a tanker will be keen to fire those 120mm HE shell into an apartment?
-
That "founding fathers militia blah blah" is about as convincing as creationism. It is 2009 now, not 1700-something. Did your guns stop the government from spying on all of you? Did the guns stop the market crash? Did the guns stop unconstitutional laws from being passed? Did your guns stop McCarthy?
The only thing up today that those guns provided is more deaths, more reasons for the government to train special forces and institute a "shoot first, ask later" policy throughout the police and the special forces. There are more cops in california shot down from motorcycles by citizens each year than the collective death toll in all of europes police forces.
Insanity seems to be an integral part of the personality of U.S. citizens.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/7313-3-california-police-officers-dead.html
http://www.aphf.org/lodstats.html
In Germany 6 (SIX!) police officers a year are getting killed while on duty.
-
MSNBC and FOX do not help our political environment here in the U.S.
Hm, I would like to know your opinion on outside news sources, like BBC prehaps?
Is all media as corrupted as American media, or do we just live in a society that does not value the truth?
The unfortunate truth is that most big name news sources (esp. Fox, but others CNN, MSNBC, etc) have switched their purposes from "telling their viewers what is happening in the world" to "telling their viewers what stories they think will get the most views." Now this does not mean that they are outright lying. (Which, in some cases however they are.) (You can also find many pictures of news sources that take images off google without bothering to check wherefrom, including that krispy kreme one with something like "suck dick" written underneath.) Pretty much everyone knows that the ultimate way for a tv show to make money (and therefor to succeed) is for a lot of people to watch it. To achive high ratings, they must create consumer intrest, and one of the best ways to do so is conflict. Commonly, news stations will exagerate the ammount of support for one reason (ex. birthers movement) the media played it up a lot more than it waS actually supported. Overall, the mainstream media mostly needs to start thinking of telling the real news and not just making a story.
P.S. I typed most of this and then didn't finish/post this for about 6 hours, so maybe it's not super relevent anymore, but hell I'm posting it anyways.
-
That "founding fathers militia blah blah" is about as convincing as creationism. It is 2009 now, not 1700-something. Did your guns stop the government from spying on all of you? Did the guns stop the market crash? Did the guns stop unconstitutional laws from being passed? Did your guns stop McCarthy?
I'm not really sure what to tell you other than say that you can't just pick and choose which parts of it you want to be law and which you don't. If there is a particular section that isn't popular, the constitution can always be amended with 3/4 of the states voting in favor of the change.
Just reading that first paragraph I can see you have a lot more trust in a government that spies on its people and passes unconstitutional laws then I do.
-
Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.
-
I don't like guns of any kind, but I'm about to oppose them. At least the U.S. is not doing things like England, where you're guaranteed going to prison for just defending yourself with a weapon or even with an object of any kind.
gg England.
-
***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***
Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.
Your logic seems quite faulty here.
First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?
Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership) As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/) Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate), the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?
Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187936/English-Civil-Wars/261392/Second-and-third-English-Civil-Wars-1648-51), (also seen here on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_English_Civil_War)) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war)
Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.
Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)
On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s (http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms.htm), and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil+war) which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, (http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/01591/world-t.html) it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.
You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading. (http://64.15.203.20/dictionary/scaremonger)
Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.
As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.
P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.
-
First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?
At the very least, it would take removing those guns from people. While in England they don't currently have them, in the US the guns are already in peoples' hands. Trying to take them away is asking for a fight, since there's no way to suddenly just make them disappear.
Regardless of the gun laws, my biggest problem with restricting gun ownership is that it does nothing to keep the criminals from using guns. "Harsher penalties!" is a BS argument - there's already harsh penalties, and severe ones for killing someone, but people still kill each other. These are not the kind of people who care about consequences, and frankly I think many criminals think twice about mugging someone in my current state when they don't know if any given person is carrying a concealed weapon (your permit to purchase a weapon is also a CCW permit == even that old lady with a walker could have a .38 special in her handbag).
-
First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?
At the very least, it would take removing those guns from people. While in England they don't currently have them, in the US the guns are already in peoples' hands. Trying to take them away is asking for a fight, since there's no way to suddenly just make them disappear.
Regardless of the gun laws, my biggest problem with restricting gun ownership is that it does nothing to keep the criminals from using guns. "Harsher penalties!" is a BS argument - there's already harsh penalties, and severe ones for killing someone, but people still kill each other. These are not the kind of people who care about consequences, and frankly I think many criminals think twice about mugging someone in my current state when they don't know if any given person is carrying a concealed weapon (your permit to purchase a weapon is also a CCW permit == even that old lady with a walker could have a .38 special in her handbag).
I agree completely with this post. It would be nice if we lived in a world where guns are not needed for defense, but obviously we don't.
Another thing to remember is that a gun is a tool. It can be used for hunting, murder, target practice, etc.
If a person is determined to murder someone else, lack of guns might make it somewhat harder, but they're going to find a way to do it, eventually.
As for hunting, I only oppose it if its for pure enjoyment (or just for the fur), where the animal is left to rot after being killed.
-
First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?
At the very least, it would take removing those guns from people. While in England they don't currently have them, in the US the guns are already in peoples' hands. Trying to take them away is asking for a fight, since there's no way to suddenly just make them disappear.
Regardless of the gun laws, my biggest problem with restricting gun ownership is that it does nothing to keep the criminals from using guns. "Harsher penalties!" is a BS argument - there's already harsh penalties, and severe ones for killing someone, but people still kill each other. These are not the kind of people who care about consequences, and frankly I think many criminals think twice about mugging someone in my current state when they don't know if any given person is carrying a concealed weapon (your permit to purchase a weapon is also a CCW permit == even that old lady with a walker could have a .38 special in her handbag).
Your right on the first point. I sort of imagined him to be saying if there were not guns than there suddenly would be a huge war. It is obvious that many people would not want to give up their guns, but a.) the odds of the government going in and taking guns away from everyone is very low, it is much more likely that they would just start with stricter laws. However his responce seems a bit non-sensical in this case, as that would mean he replied saying: "You think there is a lot of crime with the ammount of guns we have now? Just see what would happen if the government decided to steal all of ours." That, while probably true, has nothing to do with the previous discussion, which concerned the relationship between guns and crime. I assumed he was making a responce which actually fit what he was answering, and thus was misled.
As to your second paragraph, you seem a bit contradictory. You claim " These are not the kind of people who care about consequences, and frankly I think many criminals think twice about mugging someone..." Yes, you were speaking about laws, but studies (too lazy to link to those now) have shown that many people who commit crimes do not think about ANY possible repercusions from commiting them. And even if you do believe that they would worry about the fact that anyone can be armed (which I'm sure plenty do) that only seems to increase the chance that they would carry a gun themselves. If I were about to attempt to rob someone and I wasn't sure whether or not they had a gun, I would most certanitly arm myself.
-
I see what you mean there. In terms of not thinking of consequences, I meant specifically from getting caught by the authorities - but I don't doubt your comment that criminals don't think of any consequences at all. I'm sure many don't, but I'm willing to bet that there's at least some (say the ones who would think twice about robbing the Dunkin' Donuts where the cops hang out) who give pause in some neighborhoods when they know the average joe they're about to mug for his wallet and phone could be packing a bigger cannon than they are.
-
***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***
Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.
Your logic seems quite faulty here.
First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?
Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership) As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/) Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate), the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?
Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187936/English-Civil-Wars/261392/Second-and-third-English-Civil-Wars-1648-51), (also seen here on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_English_Civil_War)) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war)
Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.
Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)
On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s (http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms.htm), and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil+war) which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, (http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/01591/world-t.html) it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.
You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading. (http://64.15.203.20/dictionary/scaremonger)
Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.
As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.
P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.
Unless you're forgetting that people are ready to revolt if you attempt to take guns away. It's not random shit you hear on tv. The lower part of the U.S has 48 continental states and states would begin to go to into conflict with the federal government over major civil rights violations (hence civil war). States could begin taking orders from their individual governors and not the President. Succession or sovereignty could be declared by a state if a government attempts to do this. 80 million registered gun owners are aware of their rights to bare arms, and we are aware of the REST of the Constitution also. .."the right to bare arms shall NOT be infringed" is part of it. National Guardsmen and New Orleans Police took weapons from law abiding citizens in 2005; and you better believe without a doubt, it will happen again.
And I said I'm not getting MY ass stabbed or hacked for some $. You can carry a weapon or not, I don't really care.
Here's the truth, our financial system is crumbling, people don't want to believe it but it's true. Of course the U.S. didn't fail back then. People say it's fine, but they don't notice how every time the economy goes into another mess, we INCREASE the money that's needed to pull it out of a hole. What happens when the bailout funds run out? Will we print the USD into oblivion? We were actually producers, manufactures, and not lazy asses back then. We were once a symbol of more than just military might and our precious paper dollar.
Our debt clock wasn't 14 digits long either. A relationship is give and take, not take and consume consume consume. Eventually the rest of the world will get tired of it, and it sounds like we're getting pretty close to it happening. WROL means people also getting desperate, and crime will rise from this if the financial system does worsen.
Even if you didn't believe it, why would you want to risk not being prepared for a catastrophic event? I don't understand how telling people to simply buy food and water for an emergency is spreading fear and panic. Do you believe in waiting for the news to say a hurricane is on it's way to do this? Maybe your logic is what's flawed here, not mine. I guess we all don't tell our children how to get out of the house anymore if there's a fire in the living room either. I'm talking to everyone here as a concerned person, not someone who is trying to scare you to death. I'd rather for you to know than it to all of a sudden hit you in the face. I've spent nearly $1200 on this, not a big chunk of money but it wasn't blown on a new LCD monitor, or upgrading my computer. Im a giving person so I buy for the people around me also who are the same ones who will probably ignore me until that time comes. No money is worth anyones life.
And by the way, ALL of my information is researched, never random garbage just to say something.
-
***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***
Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.
Your logic seems quite faulty here.
First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?
Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership) As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/) Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate), the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?
Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187936/English-Civil-Wars/261392/Second-and-third-English-Civil-Wars-1648-51), (also seen here on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_English_Civil_War)) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war)
Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.
Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)
On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s (http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms.htm), and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil+war) which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, (http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/01591/world-t.html) it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.
You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading. (http://64.15.203.20/dictionary/scaremonger)
Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.
As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.
P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.
Unless you're forgetting that people are ready to revolt if you attempt to take guns away. It's not random shit you hear on tv. The lower part of the U.S has 48 continental states and states would begin to go to into conflict with the federal government over major civil rights violations (hence civil war). States could begin taking orders from their individual governors and not the President. Succession or sovereignty could be declared by a state if a government attempts to do this. 80 million registered gun owners are aware of their rights to bare arms, and we are aware of the REST of the Constitution also. .."the right to bare arms shall NOT be infringed" is part of it. National Guardsmen and New Orleans Police took weapons from law abiding citizens in 2005; and you better believe without a doubt, it will happen again.
Please read my responce to Rocinante to understand better why I said the things I did. I assumed you were responding to the person you quoted, and not going off on a tangent, so I misread what you were saying.
As for the rest, like I said, that's fine. I never said you shouldn't be prepared for something, and while I think there is a difference between having canned food and other earthquake supplies (for California) in my house, and having a piece of metal welded to my ass to make it harder for aliens to do anal probes (just in case I'm kidnapped) if you deem collapse of the US government a real enough possiblity that you should strongly prepare for it, go ahead. Like I said, I think people should be able to own guns if they want to, but I highly doubt there will be "the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country" in the near future in America.
And by the way, saying ALL your information is researched means nothing if you can't actually back it up. I'm not saying that you can't, but just saying you researched something holds no weight unless you provide proof.
-
Strange. I have been never attacked in my whole life (which should happen all the time according to Mario since all the criminals just wait around the corner to stab unsuspecting victims). And, additionally, murders happen mostly in affection, which means you are entirely controlled by emotions when that happens. That is also the reason why most of the murderers are getting caught: murders are mostly relationship based crimes.
Secondly I think Mario sounds exactly like a believer. Instead of believing in god, his main believe is his weaponry. It will "save him from all evil" etc..
No weapons is leading to peace, not swarming socities with them. Thats why after a civil war is over usually the cleaning up starts with getting the weapons back into governments hands and destroy them as it has happened in the Balkan countries and in Ruanda after the slayings.
Another flaw in Marios argumentation:
How come so many cops get killed in your country. Don't they wear weapons?
You have no valid arguments, just your believes. Which are contradicted by any scientific research that has been done and has not been funded by lobbyists like the NRA.
Columbia has one of the highest murder rates on this planet. Guess what.. they also have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in private hands.
Anyways, this is my last post here, since I am not wasting any more time in trying to convert a believer in weapons, war, hate and "an eye for an eye".
-
Anyways, this is my last post here, since I am not wasting any more time...
shows how serious you are about your debates ::)
-
***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***
Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.
Your logic seems quite faulty here.
First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?
Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership) As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/) Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate), the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?
Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187936/English-Civil-Wars/261392/Second-and-third-English-Civil-Wars-1648-51), (also seen here on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_English_Civil_War)) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war)
Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.
Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)
On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s (http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms.htm), and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil+war) which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, (http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/01591/world-t.html) it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.
You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading. (http://64.15.203.20/dictionary/scaremonger)
Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.
As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.
P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.
Unless you're forgetting that people are ready to revolt if you attempt to take guns away. It's not random shit you hear on tv. The lower part of the U.S has 48 continental states and states would begin to go to into conflict with the federal government over major civil rights violations (hence civil war). States could begin taking orders from their individual governors and not the President. Succession or sovereignty could be declared by a state if a government attempts to do this. 80 million registered gun owners are aware of their rights to bare arms, and we are aware of the REST of the Constitution also. .."the right to bare arms shall NOT be infringed" is part of it. National Guardsmen and New Orleans Police took weapons from law abiding citizens in 2005; and you better believe without a doubt, it will happen again.
Please read my responce to Rocinante to understand better why I said the things I did. I assumed you were responding to the person you quoted, and not going off on a tangent, so I misread what you were saying.
As for the rest, like I said, that's fine. I never said you shouldn't be prepared for something, and while I think there is a difference between having canned food and other earthquake supplies (for California) in my house, and having a piece of metal welded to my ass to make it harder for aliens to do anal probes (just in case I'm kidnapped) if you deem collapse of the US government a real enough possiblity that you should strongly prepare for it, go ahead. Like I said, I think people should be able to own guns if they want to, but I highly doubt there will be "the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country" in the near future in America.
And by the way, saying ALL your information is researched means nothing if you can't actually back it up. I'm not saying that you can't, but just saying you researched something holds no weight unless you provide proof.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/28/us-dollar-usurped-china-euro-world-bank (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/28/us-dollar-usurped-china-euro-world-bank) G20 President addresses U.S. dollar role
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qLp3h0opUdI/SgajmeiyfSI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/zbt4ybEmftQ/s1600-h/purchasing+power.gif (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qLp3h0opUdI/SgajmeiyfSI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/zbt4ybEmftQ/s1600-h/purchasing+power.gif) Dollars purchasing power
Now this is a government website with a government calculator. This is the end result of inflation. Select 1913 for the first amount, 2009 for the second. Enter '2000' for the amount and see what you get. Then reverse the two numbers, 2009 on top and 1913 on the bottom. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) I'm dubbed a god damn conspiracy theorist for saying this. That does make me upset. No one seems to care how serious this is. I apologize for not proving proof, I had this all open when I returned home so I didn't read any new posts.
Strange. I have been never attacked in my whole life (which should happen all the time according to Mario since all the criminals just wait around the corner to stab unsuspecting victims). And, additionally, murders happen mostly in affection, which means you are entirely controlled by emotions when that happens. That is also the reason why most of the murderers are getting caught: murders are mostly relationship based crimes.
Secondly I think Mario sounds exactly like a believer. Instead of believing in god, his main believe is his weaponry. It will "save him from all evil" etc..
No weapons is leading to peace, not swarming socities with them. Thats why after a civil war is over usually the cleaning up starts with getting the weapons back into governments hands and destroy them as it has happened in the Balkan countries and in Ruanda after the slayings.
Another flaw in Marios argumentation:
How come so many cops get killed in your country. Don't they wear weapons?
You have no valid arguments, just your believes. Which are contradicted by any scientific research that has been done and has not been funded by lobbyists like the NRA.
Columbia has one of the highest murder rates on this planet. Guess what.. they also have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in private hands.
Anyways, this is my last post here, since I am not wasting any more time in trying to convert a believer in weapons, war, hate and "an eye for an eye".
This is just great. Now I worship Satan. If no one had guns Bissig, then I would of never got mine. If people around me armed, so will I be. Just because you believe in god doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. I love life just as much as you do, but just because I believe in owning firearms doesn't mean I'm all about death and war. I didn't say that you would walk down the street and get stabbed, which in some cases DO happen in cities with high gang activity. I'm sure you've heard of gangs right? If you met me irl, I would shake your hand, and you would see the grip of a gun in a holster. Don't freak out now.
-
Mario I think you are freaking out far too much. If the police came to my door with a slip of paper that said I had to give them my 45, I'd hand it to them, grumble, complain to my friends, but I wouldn't go out and join some blind rebellion. Not everyone in the states is a redneck or a gangster who thinks taking on the united states army with nothing but "street experience" for training is a good idea.
Another thing, stop making dramatic sentences like this: "I would shake your hand, and you would see the grip of a gun in a holster." It doesn't make you look badass, credible, or anything other than childish and a bit paranoid. If you walk up to *me* on the streets, I would say "hey" and give that nod thing, and then you would see that I don't carry a gun, knife, or anything else, because I'm not afraid of everything all the time. Have some courage.
-
***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***
Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.
Your logic seems quite faulty here.
First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?
Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership) As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/) Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate), the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?
Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187936/English-Civil-Wars/261392/Second-and-third-English-Civil-Wars-1648-51), (also seen here on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_English_Civil_War)) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war)
Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.
Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)
On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s (http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms.htm), and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil+war) which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, (http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/01591/world-t.html) it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.
You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading. (http://64.15.203.20/dictionary/scaremonger)
Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.
As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.
P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.
Unless you're forgetting that people are ready to revolt if you attempt to take guns away. It's not random shit you hear on tv. The lower part of the U.S has 48 continental states and states would begin to go to into conflict with the federal government over major civil rights violations (hence civil war). States could begin taking orders from their individual governors and not the President. Succession or sovereignty could be declared by a state if a government attempts to do this. 80 million registered gun owners are aware of their rights to bare arms, and we are aware of the REST of the Constitution also. .."the right to bare arms shall NOT be infringed" is part of it. National Guardsmen and New Orleans Police took weapons from law abiding citizens in 2005; and you better believe without a doubt, it will happen again.
Please read my responce to Rocinante to understand better why I said the things I did. I assumed you were responding to the person you quoted, and not going off on a tangent, so I misread what you were saying.
As for the rest, like I said, that's fine. I never said you shouldn't be prepared for something, and while I think there is a difference between having canned food and other earthquake supplies (for California) in my house, and having a piece of metal welded to my ass to make it harder for aliens to do anal probes (just in case I'm kidnapped) if you deem collapse of the US government a real enough possiblity that you should strongly prepare for it, go ahead. Like I said, I think people should be able to own guns if they want to, but I highly doubt there will be "the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country" in the near future in America.
And by the way, saying ALL your information is researched means nothing if you can't actually back it up. I'm not saying that you can't, but just saying you researched something holds no weight unless you provide proof.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/28/us-dollar-usurped-china-euro-world-bank (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/28/us-dollar-usurped-china-euro-world-bank) G20 President addresses U.S. dollar role
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qLp3h0opUdI/SgajmeiyfSI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/zbt4ybEmftQ/s1600-h/purchasing+power.gif (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qLp3h0opUdI/SgajmeiyfSI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/zbt4ybEmftQ/s1600-h/purchasing+power.gif) Dollars purchasing power
Now this is a government website with a government calculator. This is the end result of inflation. Select 1913 for the first amount, 2009 for the second. Enter '2000' for the amount and see what you get. Then reverse the two numbers, 2009 on top and 1913 on the bottom. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) I'm dubbed a god damn conspiracy theorist for saying this. That does make me upset. No one seems to care how serious this is. I apologize for not proving proof, I had this all open when I returned home so I didn't read any new posts.
Well your first link is actually about the dollar, which while tied to your OP, is not what I was talking about. Interesting article though. Same with your picture, although, while I see that it is true, just a picure is not usually considered great evidence, since it is from blogspot, and thus could have easily been doctored. (I know that it is relativly truthful, I'm just pointing out that this is the case.)
As for your inflation calculator, it's correct, of course, but I'm sure you understand how inflation over time works, and how there are many different variables to consider when considering purchasing power. (Not to mention that inflation over 100 years is relativly irrelevant to people now.)
And towards your responce to Bissig, it's a bit ironic that you seem to freak out when someone says you are over reacting, and than state that you aren't. He never said you worship satan, he said the words you use imply a strong belief in the power of weapons. (And for the record, afaik, Bissig does not believe in God either [see his posts in "Not just a Theory."])
P.S. Ozzy said part of what I said, speech stealer. D:
-
Yours was too long to read lol
-
Yours was too long to read lol
I actually meant the part which I was about post, but than you said right before me:
...And towards your responce to Bissig, it's a bit ironic that you seem to freak out when someone says you are over reacting, and than state that you aren't...
Mario I think you are freaking out far too much...
;)
-
Greetings,
Yes, there's an actual political thread on this forum. I'm not trying to talk or preach to everyone about how bad or good the U.S. is, and I'm sorry if I leave your country out. If you dislike politics but have an honest opinion that doesn't involve attacking anyone else who posts on this thread, feel free to post here. If you're a person who wants to just attack people who post here, or the person who began the topic, please do not post in this thread.
I've noticed a trend on the internet that really surprises me. People avoid talking about politics after a major election in the U.S.
Here's my opinion about this: We've established documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to protect our nation from tyranny and corruption. U.S. citizens refuse to take part in politics because it is sometimes confusing just as economics is to a lot of us. I believe we as a citizen in our country have some what of an obligation to a role in politics. CNN, MSNBC and FOX do not help our political environment here in the U.S. I know terminology and meanings sometimes can be confusing as big numbers and mathematical equations, but we have one of the most powerful tools here to help us better understand and you're using it right now. I work in Broadcasting right now. I've see how people hate these shows but turn it on these channels to see what they're going to say. In which case it gives them ratings, which contributes to keeping them on the air. Don't like the media? Turn the station.
A lot of U.S. citizens wake up everyday and they don't even know the Constitution exists. I've met these people before and it's shocking to me. I am concerned about the future of our country. I didn't even learn a hint of the Constitution until my senior year in High School. I didn't realize how important these documents were to everyday American life. In my opinion, children should at least begin learning about our Constitution in middle school. We're moving further away from these documents because people believe they're too old or they have begun to fail. These statements are faulty and high inaccurate. We should modify our Constitution from time to time; our Constitution will last for 200 more years if we protect it. The first ten amendments have been under heavy attack for nearly the last nine years. People are being arrested for peaceful assembly, arrested and detained without trail. You ARE INNOCENT until proven guilty by a panel of your peers (a jury). You are able to go to court and defend yourself against a ticket. NEVER fight the officer who issues it.
People believe there will be chaos if we keep semi-automatic weapons; but since we already have semi-automatic weapons and there are over 80 million registered gun owners in the U.S, I see no chaos. What sense would it make to remove legal weapons and let criminals keep the illegal ones? How would you like it if you're sitting at the computer right now reading this and a thief was climbing into your window knowing that there will be no resistance because we have no weapons? We have a right to protect life, liberty, and property. 'A right to a well regulated militia' is to be used as last resort. NO, being a gun owner doesn't mean you're part of a militia. Defending your property does not make you a militia member. This piece of the second amendment is the only thing that makes your Constitution still valid to this day. People believe revolting against the government is foolish, because they will easily deal with you. You have to also understand that we have service men and women who go to war to fight for the love of our country. We have fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters in the military. It is also their right to refuse orders that go against the Constitution, which they are sworn to protect from enemies, foreign and domestic. Patriots are everywhere.
Freedom of speech gives you the right to voice your respectable opinion, not the right to attack or slander someone, which I take responsibility for in some of my posts on other forums. Everyone should be given a chance to speak and address the issues. You should be able to debate, analyze and study the facts, concerns and details of ones argument and give an honest opinion back. I believe we've seen too much red and blue. Our representatives and elected officials believe it's in the best interest of either their party or the highest bidder (donator). If you serve the needs of your party or the highest bidder, you need to be removed from your position.
Freedom of assembly, as a peaceful or angry protester, you have the right to protest. Peaceful protesters should move out of the way of angry protesters to avoid being hit with teargas and rubber bullets. If you were removed from a protest and you're a law abiding citizen, then you should begin filing claims against the police department of which detained you. If your voice is not heard, then begin to demand the removal of your elected official through vote. It will get their attention. If you believe the courts are unjust, begin to remove the judges. All of this can be done by majority.
I urge you, take part in politics. It's not only for current events, but the future of our children who will be making the decisions for US later on in life.
Feel free to post your thoughts here.
"..there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it" - John F. Kennedy
p.s. Thank you for reading this long ass post all the way down to here :P
Amen.
-
Mario I think you are freaking out far too much. If the police came to my door with a slip of paper that said I had to give them my 45, I'd hand it to them, grumble, complain to my friends, but I wouldn't go out and join some blind rebellion. Not everyone in the states is a redneck or a gangster who thinks taking on the united states army with nothing but "street experience" for training is a good idea.
Another thing, stop making dramatic sentences like this: "I would shake your hand, and you would see the grip of a gun in a holster." It doesn't make you look badass, credible, or anything other than childish and a bit paranoid. If you walk up to *me* on the streets, I would say "hey" and give that nod thing, and then you would see that I don't carry a gun, knife, or anything else, because I'm not afraid of everything all the time. Have some courage.
If you choose not to use your right to bare arms, then that's your choice. But once weapons are gone, the rest of your rights will probably be soon to follow. I'm not trying to look like a badass, I'm telling you what you'll see, which is normal here. Of course in Bissig's town it's probably not, this is the reason why I said it. And who says I would join a rebellion? I'm not a redneck nor a gangster. If I seen you in the street I would nod back at you and keep going. Once again, anything can happen to anyone at any given time, and if I was afraid I would sit at home. I'd rather have the option of being able to use a weapon than not being able to or being able to feed myself in a certain situation than starving.
***Disclaimer: I am not (neccesarily) for gun control, I believe people have the right to be able to defend themselves, but when I see something like this posted, it hits somewhere in my "person spouting random crap without any evidence" nerve"***
Think there's a lot of deaths? If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours. You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime. I keep my weapons, because I know society can break at any moment also for any given reason. WROL = Without rule of law. I carry a weapon, because I can't carry a cop. I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $. If I seen someone here being robbed, I would immediately move to defend them, no questions asked. We have cold blooded killers here, so it's our right to defend against them also.
Your logic seems quite faulty here.
First off: "If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours." Do you have any proof of how this could be?
Here is a list of gun ownership per capita by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership) As you can see, the USA is highest in civilian gun ownership by far. A country such as England only has 5.6 guns per 100 people, or about 16 times less than that of the USA. Not suprisingly while the USA has 11.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, England has only .038 total firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. This number seems pretty damn convincing to me. Regular police do not even carry firearms during standard patrols. (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/) Now, according to your statement, the fact that both (a.) most regular citizens do not own guns, and (b.) police do not regularly carry weapons, this would lead to a "civil war." If that were so, why is it that in the list of countries by intetentional homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate), the USA is 55 countries higher than England+Wales?
Therefore, unless I am somehow missing something really big, your claim that " If you attempt to take weapons away from citizens, this country would be at civil war within 24 hours" seems unlikely considering that England has not been in a civil war since the Third English civil war (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187936/English-Civil-Wars/261392/Second-and-third-English-Civil-Wars-1648-51), (also seen here on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_English_Civil_War)) This civil war ended in the year 1651, or 234 years before the American Civil war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war)
Now, I am using England as a comparison because Both the USA and England Have been strong Allies for over 100 years and share much in the way of culture and other similarities. If you are still not convinced on this point, I suggest you use the links I provided (that have all countries) and do some more research yourself.
Your second statement, "You will witness the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country will take place in your lifetime." is mostly wild speculation, so there isn't much I can offer you in the way of facts about this. (I say wild because I see no reason how this could possibly happen, unless you care to explain.) You can look at what I said about your first point however, to realize that gun ownership in countries usually has a strong correlation to death by guns (makes sence, doesn't it.)
On the logic side however, your statement just seems absurd. Claiming that taking away people's guns will lead to "...the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country..." just makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say I have a group of 20,000 people who want to overthrow the government, but we have no guns, now compare this same situation to 20,000 people who DO have guns, and see how your logic is flawed at best. People have used guns almost exclusivly (meaning not much more archaic technologies such as swords or spears) to fight wars since the 1700s (http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms.htm), and an attempt to fight a war in the current day and age without guns would be extremly foolish. Also, while by definition Civil war means: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civil+war) which does not neccesarily include the government, looking at a list of civil wars, (http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/01591/world-t.html) it is evident that most of these conflicts took place between the current government and a group of unsatisfied citizens. It is unlikely that there would be a conflict between the USA and its citizens on such a large scale as you claim.
You claim that society "can break at any moment also for any given reason." This seems extremly paranoid to me. In the history of the USA, never has society "totally broken" since the American civil war, which ended 144 years ago. (See link above if you don't know about the civil war.) Now, it is fine for one to take extra procedures against possible disasters, but to claim that society can break at any moment has a ring of large paranoia and/or fear spreading. (http://64.15.203.20/dictionary/scaremonger)
Lastly, you say "I'm not getting my ass hacked or stabbed to death by someone who wants a few $." Please tell me how many times this has happened to you before in your life. While it is your choice to own a gun for this reason, please consider the implications if every person in the world thought and acted this way.
As per the above disclaimer, I believe people who have not commited crimes involving weapons have a right to purchase guns in case they should need to defend themselves, but when people make such outrages claims like this with 0 evidence, I feel the need to respond.
P.S. I kind of feel like a loser for actually posting this much, but I figured this threat deserved some actual researched posts, instead of the rambling on by people who heard stuff on tv that you usually see online.
Unless you're forgetting that people are ready to revolt if you attempt to take guns away. It's not random shit you hear on tv. The lower part of the U.S has 48 continental states and states would begin to go to into conflict with the federal government over major civil rights violations (hence civil war). States could begin taking orders from their individual governors and not the President. Succession or sovereignty could be declared by a state if a government attempts to do this. 80 million registered gun owners are aware of their rights to bare arms, and we are aware of the REST of the Constitution also. .."the right to bare arms shall NOT be infringed" is part of it. National Guardsmen and New Orleans Police took weapons from law abiding citizens in 2005; and you better believe without a doubt, it will happen again.
Please read my responce to Rocinante to understand better why I said the things I did. I assumed you were responding to the person you quoted, and not going off on a tangent, so I misread what you were saying.
As for the rest, like I said, that's fine. I never said you shouldn't be prepared for something, and while I think there is a difference between having canned food and other earthquake supplies (for California) in my house, and having a piece of metal welded to my ass to make it harder for aliens to do anal probes (just in case I'm kidnapped) if you deem collapse of the US government a real enough possiblity that you should strongly prepare for it, go ahead. Like I said, I think people should be able to own guns if they want to, but I highly doubt there will be "the biggest wave of death and violence that you've ever seen in a 1st world country" in the near future in America.
And by the way, saying ALL your information is researched means nothing if you can't actually back it up. I'm not saying that you can't, but just saying you researched something holds no weight unless you provide proof.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/28/us-dollar-usurped-china-euro-world-bank (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/28/us-dollar-usurped-china-euro-world-bank) G20 President addresses U.S. dollar role
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qLp3h0opUdI/SgajmeiyfSI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/zbt4ybEmftQ/s1600-h/purchasing+power.gif (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qLp3h0opUdI/SgajmeiyfSI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/zbt4ybEmftQ/s1600-h/purchasing+power.gif) Dollars purchasing power
Now this is a government website with a government calculator. This is the end result of inflation. Select 1913 for the first amount, 2009 for the second. Enter '2000' for the amount and see what you get. Then reverse the two numbers, 2009 on top and 1913 on the bottom. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) I'm dubbed a god damn conspiracy theorist for saying this. That does make me upset. No one seems to care how serious this is. I apologize for not proving proof, I had this all open when I returned home so I didn't read any new posts.
Well your first link is actually about the dollar, which while tied to your OP, is not what I was talking about. Interesting article though. Same with your picture, although, while I see that it is true, just a picure is not usually considered great evidence, since it is from blogspot, and thus could have easily been doctored. (I know that it is relativly truthful, I'm just pointing out that this is the case.)
As for your inflation calculator, it's correct, of course, but I'm sure you understand how inflation over time works, and how there are many different variables to consider when considering purchasing power. (Not to mention that inflation over 100 years is relativly irrelevant to people now.)
And towards your responce to Bissig, it's a bit ironic that you seem to freak out when someone says you are over reacting, and than state that you aren't. He never said you worship satan, he said the words you use imply a strong belief in the power of weapons. (And for the record, afaik, Bissig does not believe in God either [see his posts in "Not just a Theory."])
P.S. Ozzy said part of what I said, speech stealer. D:
If you specified previously which you'd like me to provide you evidence for, go ahead and list it. It's already common sense for the first thing I said about people rebelling. But I don't see how inflation is irrelevant. You used to be able to afford a lot more than you do now. Our currency is devaluating and metals are rising.
But.. you're reading text. I'm using periods not exclamations, lowercase words and not all caps. I'm sitting here at the computer reading what you're saying and typing as I do it, not over reacting. Bissig says I'm a believer in war and hate witch is not true. I'm a Christian and I do not encourage hate. You all have the right to live, yet I'm being painted as a person who wants to take life away. I'm not going to blindly kill someone. I'd rather be able to save someone than to watch them die. Protect your life, liberty and your property is what I'm trying to say.
-
Do you also carry around an inhaler, a snake venom antidote, and a tin-foil hat? Anything can happen to anyone but that doesn't mean we have to assume that it will. I'm all for having a gun, as I alluded to earlier I keep a 45 in my home, but I don't carry it around with me. I also have a 12-gauge and a .22, as does just about everyone here, so I'm not trying to say that guns should be illegal for law-abiding citizens. All I'm saying is all this "full scale riot" business is bullshit. "People are ready to revolt" is bullshit. In fact I don't think many of us are at all challenging your right to guns, what we're challenging is the extravagant scenarios you're stating will happen if the government did decide to outlaw such weaponry, and paranoia about other things that can happen, such as a total financial collapse or whatever.
What strikes a nerve with me personally is how you try and make formal-sounding writing but say things like "the right to bare arms" (I also support your right to go sleeveless), and say things like "you would see the grip of a gun in a holster" as if to shock the people in this topic. It's no sin to do it like you do, but god damn I can't read this topic anymore.
Edit: I'm a dick, I shouldn't have posted this.
-
Alright folks - we had a good run here. But before things get too far out of hand, let's put it to rest. Maybe politics was a bad idea to start things, but I was glad to see that the comments were mostly civil all around. Kudos for not making this thread a race to the trash pile :>
-
How about if we get off the guns, inflation and imminent collapse scenarios for a minute, and hear what you all think might be some of the ways we could make the US a slightly less polarized, paranoid, and politicized place in which to live.
Anybody else heard of Pattern Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language) or New Urbanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism)? Those are fancy terms that describe spaces built for people and neighborhoods built for walking, two things that lots of places in the US don't really have. Which is why we enjoy cars, guns, liquor, and cautious chin lift greetings, from across the street. Also, we could really do with a less industrial relationship to our food. Might be less trigger happy, who knows? Have you heard of forest gardening (http://www.amazon.com/Forest-Gardening-Cultivating-Edible-Landscape/dp/0930031849)? It's going to be that or Stalking the Wild Asparagus (http://www.amazon.com/Stalking-Wild-Asparagus-Euell-Gibbons/dp/0911469036). The America we see in A Field Guide to Sprawl (http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Sprawl-Dolores-Hayden/dp/0393731251) is causing, and becoming, the world we see in Planet of Slums (http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Slums-Mike-Davis/dp/1844670228).
I heartily recommend the works of Christopher Alexander, James Howard Kunstler, and Michael Pollan to the interested reader. Also, Ron Paul on economics.
By the way, it never hurts to have a sidearm, a rifle, a shotgun, and a medkit (water and rations are good too). Just sayin'. ;)
-
How about if we get off the guns, inflation and imminent collapse scenarios for a minute, and hear what you all think might be some of the ways we could make the US a slightly less polarized, paranoid, and politicized place in which to live.
Anybody else heard of Pattern Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language) or New Urbanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism)? Those are fancy terms that describe spaces built for people and neighborhoods built for walking, two things that lots of places in the US don't really have. Which is why we enjoy cars, guns, liquor, and cautious chin lift greetings, from across the street. Also, we could really do with a less industrial relationship to our food. Might be less trigger happy, who knows? Have you heard of forest gardening (http://www.amazon.com/Forest-Gardening-Cultivating-Edible-Landscape/dp/0930031849)? It's going to be that or Stalking the Wild Asparagus (http://www.amazon.com/Stalking-Wild-Asparagus-Euell-Gibbons/dp/0911469036). The America we see in A Field Guide to Sprawl (http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Sprawl-Dolores-Hayden/dp/0393731251) is causing, and becoming, the world we see in Planet of Slums (http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Slums-Mike-Davis/dp/1844670228).
I heartily recommend the works of Christopher Alexander, James Howard Kunstler, and Michael Pollan to the interested reader. Also, Ron Paul on economics.
By the way, it never hurts to have a sidearm, a rifle, a shotgun, and a medkit (water and rations are good too). Just sayin'. ;)
I believe if we went more green we'd all live a little better. We are strong enough to end our dependance on oil and start with the future. Everyone has the ability to learn how to garden and grow their own vegetables also. Communities should grow and ration the vegetables, rice, etc.. just enough to make everyone eat but not starve everyone for the rest of the season, or just let the community decide. We'd become less dependent on stores as the main source of our food. People would lose weight by going greener too. Burning corn for fuel is not an option in my opinion. We have so many ears of corn to give out to people, it's ridiculous to just burn it for fuel.
I know if would cost a pretty penny, but if we all were able to put solar panels on our homes it would do better on the wallets also in the long run :) Giving out a helping hand would be nice. Let's build our own shelters for our homeless in our communities instead of waiting for it to be done by a company. I know it's impossible to shelter them all around the country, but if everyone got involved, it would be an amazing sight to see. If the shelter is small or big, it's much more better than having them living out on the street. We would be able to pass out job flyers to them also to get them back on their feet. End government dependency, and become more self-reliant.
btw, great links posted there :)
-
Hmmm a tricky question player1
For starters no I had not heard the fancy names for those concepts but it's pretty much how things are developing in parts of Europe at the moment. Many of the old cities still have the infrastructure that makes walking places possible and capitalism allows folks to make the choice to choose(to consume less because of the cost) organically/locally grown food. Lots of people are making that choice. Damn hippies ;D
Beyond scaling back I suppose any society would benefit from less lawyers, bureaucrats and career politicians worrying about how the collective fruits of society are distributed. Suppose that extra capacity produced something of value, I am not talking about excess paperwork to heat your home with. I highly doubt there is poverty in the world because the planet lacks the potential to provide for everybody there is just not the political will to make it happen. Anyways, the point is with less wasted capacity comes more production.
This might be up your alley if you are interested in gardening and sustainability.
Dervaes family growing insane amounts on a small lot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCPEBM5ol0Q)
No they are not ganja farmers but I am sure they would be damn good at it if they tried.
If everyone had something like this going on(yes, i know... it does not utilize economies of scale and is thus wasteful) you at least would have food security and a powerful instrument for democracy.. The current massively interdependent supply-chain for food could be easily disrupted, produces poorer results and provides massive leverage over the average Joe(Subject for study the Monsanto corporation). That might also strike a cord for the bible-thumping/gun-toting/tinfoil-hat/rugged individualism types since with the power to grow your own food comes the power to tell anyone to go fuck you ;D
How any of this helps make a slightly less polarized, paranoid, and politicized place in which to live.
I will let you decide since I used the extractus et anum method for a lot of this info and you can have it for exactly what you paid for it.
-
Thanks for the considered replies, dudes. Nice link, janev. Very inspiring. We plan to move all of our ornamentals into one area, reduce or remove our front lawn, replace it with wildflowers and/or native grasses, and stop watering (except for food production, which is what we hope to convert our backyard into). We already grow fruit, but we're definitely adding vegetables next year. Don't have time for a real long reply right now, except to say that:
Passive Solar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar)
Three Sisters Agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture))
and
Hemp Food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Food)
are all ideas that need to be pursued further. Cheers!
-
Actually I was not kidding when I posted that link to http://www.survivalblog.com/ (http://www.survivalblog.com/) even if the survivalists are a little quirky they have done lots of legwork on different subjects and are a great resource. If you were to have extra time just browse through the archives and you will be surprised what you may find. It is not all about aliens toting anal-probes or black helicopters. That site is actually pretty sane all things considered. /end of shameless advertisement./
Some other things you might be interested in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass)
If you get the calculations done right you get a house that requires very little extra power to heat and cool. First of course you need to get the money :<
Upgrading lighting low energy bulbs / LEDS and making use of daylight whenever possible
I don't know what part of the states you live in so I can't really say anything else. Florida and Wisconsin will lead to different requirements but invariably the tinfoil hat boys will have war-gamed it and found a decent solution. :>
-
Actually I was not kidding when I posted that link to http://www.survivalblog.com/ (http://www.survivalblog.com/) even if the survivalists are a little quirky they have done lots of legwork on different subjects and are a great resource. If you were to have extra time just browse through the archives and you will be surprised what you may find. It is not all about aliens toting anal-probes or black helicopters. That site is actually pretty sane all things considered. /end of shameless advertisement./
Some other things you might be interested in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass)
If you get the calculations done right you get a house that requires very little extra power to heat and cool. First of course you need to get the money :<
Upgrading lighting low energy bulbs / LEDS and making use of daylight whenever possible
I don't know what part of the states you live in so I can't really say anything else. Florida and Wisconsin will lead to different requirements but invariably the tinfoil hat boys will have war-gamed it and found a decent solution. :>
In Germany new houses already have to be built to certain energy conserving standards and old houses have to have their old central heating units replaced by modern, energy saving ones. Many new houses built in high density areas are "low energy" or even "zero energy" which means they (almost) need no outside supply for heating. A few "plus energy" houses exist too I believe, which overall produce more energy than they consume. I think that is they way to go.
The U.S. will have to get off the cheap thin walled wooden houses though to achieve this and also get rid off the pointless ACs. ACs may work for skyscrapers but they are very inefficient to heat flats and single houses.
Futuristic:
http://www.plusenergiehaus.de/index.php?noflash=true&pageID=25
Passive house:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house
Zero energy building:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_building
-
Nice links Bissig. Yeah those triple pane windows are nice and make a big difference for a minimal investment(provided the rest of the insulation in the house is up to spec). That first link is interesting for those who understand german, how many of those have been made and when will they be in mass-production?
I will have to disagree about the no A/C thing though. Just produce the energy using renewables and use efficient A/C systems so you do not have to give up on comfort in older buildings. I found the Germans to be pretty anal about the A/C thing but on other subjects they are seemingly lax/ignorant (plastic bottles, big cars and vacations to exotic places come to mind). It was really no fun for this Finn to be in Baden-Württemberg without A/C this summer >:(.
Geothermal heat pumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump)
Heh, how did we get here from US politics again?
-
Hopefully we won't be afraid to learn from other cultures, and maybe in the future we'll heat our homes more efficiently, like with underfloor heating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underfloor_heating#Korean_ondol_technology) and russian ovens (http://www.grannysstore.com/Do-It-Yourself/masonry_stoves.htm).
-
Well, Nr.1 and this is my experience from the place I work at: ACs make the air very dry and uncomfortable. I wear contact lenses and I am glad it is getting colder outside again so we can turn off that damn AC. ACs are not energy efficient and in the summer I WANT heat else I would move to the polar circle. Also, in the U.S. they turn the temperature far lower on average. Europeans get colds when they visit the U.S. in summer, because the difference between the temperature outside and the temperature inside of buildings is so big.
Nr2.: Well, plastic bottles get recycled. We now have bottle deposit on anything from beer to whine bottle. People collect those and give them back and they are getting recycled. And we still have glas. The usage of glas bottles has dropped, but beer is almost always sold in glas bottles aswell as whine and many fruit drinks and sparkling water.
Nr.3:
No, the first design is very radical and needs lots of space. You can't build it in a densly populated city because it turns with the sun and needs an environment that does not block sunlight. It also is some sort of a prototype and object of research. It is like the solution that has almost perfect efficiency, but is also a bit expensive.
Many people already use small geothermal heat pumps to increase the efficiency of the central heating system.
The thing people in this country are anal about is sorting the trash into metals, plastic, paper and waste. And the cars. You are totally right about that. Gas price isn't high enough yet, it seems.
-
Don't forget - plastic ends up here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch)!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3590/3426913845_1c2038898d.jpg)
so glad we didn't make that stuff out of something biodegradable like hemp or corn starch
yay, oil companies (now synthesize some fake hormones so frogs can take estrogen)
-
like with underfloor heating
Yeah!
I've installed a lot of these suckers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underfloor_heating#Technologies) and from feedback I've received, they work really well.
-
Unless you have nukes, don't make US angry. Because they have.
Also if you don't have any nukes, they won't allow you to make. Because it is against freedom and world peace.
-
Also, Ron Paul on economics.
I'd go with a Ron Paul on everything and call it a day :D
Unless you have nukes, don't make US angry. Because they have.
Also if you don't have any nukes, they won't allow you to make. Because it is against freedom and world peace.
Yeah I live in the US and it seems like bullshit that no one new to the game can make nuclear weapons. The rest of the world should really start standing up for themselves with things like that and take care of the problems in their own regions and keep the US out, although I'm not sure how willing the US would be to sit on the sidelines...
-
I'd go with a Ron Paul on everything and call it a day :D
Agreed. This is why I was turned on to our economic situation and our monetary policy. I would of never paid attention to it if it weren't for him. He's concerned, so am I
-
Unless you have nukes, don't make US angry. Because they have.
Also if you don't have any nukes, they won't allow you to make. Because it is against freedom and world peace.
Yeah I live in the US and it seems like bullshit that no one new to the game can make nuclear weapons. The rest of the world should really start standing up for themselves with things like that and take care of the problems in their own regions and keep the US out, although I'm not sure how willing the US would be to sit on the sidelines...
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you actually advocating that more countries in the world should have nukes? Clearly you do not remember/ have not learned anything about the period commonly known as the cold war.
While it may be hypocritical of the USA to do such a thing, I can not believe anyone would say we should allow other countries to create nuclear weapons.
As for the energy efficency in houses, god you don't even want to know how much I know about that stuff. I grew up in a household filled with nothing but energy efficency. Currently I'm working on a house in California getting it down to insulation levels of a passive house (mostly covering the seams with this compound and installing additional insallation.(see Bissig's link) I've been inside the first passive house built in the USA (In Minnesota, if you're curious) The house I grew up in now has solar panels and often generates negative electric bills. AC's, while I think they can be nice, really are an inefficient way to cool buildings. While growing your own crops can be good, don't expect (nor should you want) everyone to do so. (This is the thing hummanity took thousands of years to grow out of.)
I think energy efficency is just the way it's going to have to be from now on, not only should everyone have it, 10 to 15 years in the future, the costs of having an un-efficient house will just be awful. Not to mention the (hopeful) social ostrazism that will occour in the 20 or so years from driving a hummer and owning a really in efficent house. (Like saying you still eat other humans, kind of ;P )
I'd be interested as to what other people think of this. Sorry if it's derailed a bit from the original topic, but there are certainly correlations, and I find this whole discussion to have been very interesting thus far.
-
I'm just saying everyone has a right to have nuclear weapons if one country can have them.
-
I dunno. I don't think anyone should have nukes, including the US, but I sure as hell don't want North Korea to have them.
-
I dunno. I don't think anyone should have nukes, including the US, but I sure as hell don't want North Korea to have them.
Yeah now that I think about it I don't trust the nine or so countries that have the nukes now. I guess I just don't like how there is one set of rules for the US, France, UK, etc., and another for everyone else.
-
As for the energy efficency in houses, god you don't even want to know how much I know about that stuff. I grew up in a household filled with nothing but energy efficency. Currently I'm working on a house in California getting it down to insulation levels of a passive house (mostly covering the seams with this compound and installing additional insallation.(see Bissig's link) I've been inside the first passive house built in the USA (In Minnesota, if you're curious) The house I grew up in now has solar panels and often generates negative electric bills. AC's, while I think they can be nice, really are an inefficient way to cool buildings.
Being a homeowner myself now (and watching energy bills climb up during the hot and cold parts of the year) I'd love to hear your thoughts on passive buildings. Google has yielded some interesting results, but you seem to work "in the field" so I'd be interested in your ideas. Since some areas of the country have more temperature fluctuations than others, some ideas don't work as well (such as heat pumps or wet cooling); Is it feasible to try to get a building to be passive or close to it in the Northeast?
-
To go off on a different subject what do you all think about the tax system in the states?
From the people I have spoken to I've heard that there is a great deal that could be improved in the American tax system. The predominant point among pundits has been that the poor get fleeced with a flat-rate tax to pay for the excesses of the rich who through bookkeeping wizardry reduce their taxes to zero. I do not advocate adopting the taxes we have up here in Scandinavia I am just curious as to what you all think.
Rocinante
Northeast is still a large area.. Are we talking Coastal damp climate with a lesser degree of temperature variation but with strong winds or the colder than hell part near the Canadian border(great lakes) fluctuating between - 50 C and + 40 C?
My assumptions are that you are working with a ready house and that you are somewhere in the great lakes area. You could look into:
a) massive fireplaces that burn big logs and store the heat for days. Player1 posted a link to something along those lines but there are many good designs. The key is to get one that is more about the functional heating ability than being a centrepiece. That does not mean it has to be ugly. reference a finnish manufacturer of heat-retaining fireplaces (http://www.tulikivi.com/www/TLTuoteU.nsf/MallistoEN!OpenForm&id=takkaleivinuunit&id2=TA3) Those trees will grow back after all and the only cost is to harvest them which if done correctly can be affordable. You gotta love low-tech! If you do go ahead make sure you find a competent person to build it since it is a large investment and you don't want one that is not functional or looks like shit.
b) Windows and insulation. Choose the right kind of windows and insulation for your climate. I don't really know that much about it but you can harvest quite a bit of heat even in winter with skylight style windows. Could you add something here mooseberry?
c) Energy efficient appliances and using what you have efficiently. As you probably already know anything plugged in is leaching a little power that adds up over time.
d) The French use shutters on their windows insulate from the cold and to shade the windows to prevent the heat coming in.
If you are building from scratch you get more options. I am no expert but a good fireplace that stores heat for a few days inside a well insulated house should go a long way for the winter months.
-
I dunno. I don't think anyone should have nukes, including the US, but I sure as hell don't want North Korea to have them.
Yeah now that I think about it I don't trust the nine or so countries that have the nukes now. I guess I just don't like how there is one set of rules for the US, France, UK, etc., and another for everyone else.
You also have to consider, that if our country just started using nukes for no reason, our people would get pissed, the current president would be ripped out of office, and unelss they started going after us, which I really doubt the military would, we'd completely revolutionize very fast. The majority of the other countries out there trying to get nukes are under dictatorship, and would use them for whatever the hell they want without their people having any say. Then its not a country having nuclear power, its a small selective group of proven psychopaths. If Iran finishes up what they're doing, you can probably expect World War 3. Because Isreal is going to go in there and blow up all their plants to save their own asses and everyone else is telling Isreal they can't even though Iran has publically announced several times that they hate the rest of the world and want them dead. Personally, I think we should work towards having no nuclear weapons in the whole world, but unfortunately we have to start with everyone else. Because we are more forward for peace and no one having nuclear weapons and places like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and others are more for only them having nuclear bombs so they can blow up everyone else without reprecussions.
You don't let someone with a DUI drive a car, why should you let war mongerers have nukes? International policies and interference have to occur at some level or we will bash ourselves into a world war again within the matter of 10-15 years. If we go into another world war with the amount of nuclear weapons that the world has right now, we won't come out of it. You can expect half to two thirds the population of the world to die in the war or be death of the after cause. The US alone holds more nuclear power than it'd take to light the entire face of land of the entire planet. I'd rather not have everyone using bombs that kill tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands instantly with terrible after effects and mass suffering in a petty fight over who's dog could beat up who's. Right now our dog could beat up everyone else's dog so we need to use that to our advantage to avoid world war. It sounds bad, but what choice do we have? It's been proven over and over that peace does not work itself out, peace has to be founded and made happen. Sometimes, there are necessary steps that go against morals in order to establish peace, but this is not utopia and getting blood on your hand for the greater good unfortunately is one of the only options we have left.
-
Ok, I'm going to try and cover some ground in this post. :P
I dunno. I don't think anyone should have nukes, including the US, but I sure as hell don't want North Korea to have them.
Yeah now that I think about it I don't trust the nine or so countries that have the nukes now. I guess I just don't like how there is one set of rules for the US, France, UK, etc., and another for everyone else.
Sure, I too would rather live in a world where nuclear weapons did not exist. However, we have them for the same reason we started working on improving our nuclear weapons right after WWII. (If someone has nukes, and we don't, or have much better nukes we may possibly be screwed.) And most people don't want to risk the lives of millions of people on Russia/China/France/whoever who has nukes to not nuke us. It's sad, but that's just how it is.
As for the energy efficency in houses, god you don't even want to know how much I know about that stuff. I grew up in a household filled with nothing but energy efficency. Currently I'm working on a house in California getting it down to insulation levels of a passive house (mostly covering the seams with this compound and installing additional insallation.(see Bissig's link) I've been inside the first passive house built in the USA (In Minnesota, if you're curious) The house I grew up in now has solar panels and often generates negative electric bills. AC's, while I think they can be nice, really are an inefficient way to cool buildings.
Being a homeowner myself now (and watching energy bills climb up during the hot and cold parts of the year) I'd love to hear your thoughts on passive buildings. Google has yielded some interesting results, but you seem to work "in the field" so I'd be interested in your ideas. Since some areas of the country have more temperature fluctuations than others, some ideas don't work as well (such as heat pumps or wet cooling); Is it feasible to try to get a building to be passive or close to it in the Northeast?
Well, like janev said, there is difference in temperature in different areas of the "Northeast," however, you should be fine. The real temperature challenge in building "passive" houses and similar in the USA, isn't the actual heat/cold of the area, it's the fact that because passive houses are a relatively new concept (especially in the USA) that there isn't much actually known about how to construct it for the area. For example, it's a real challenge out here in California, because there really hasn't been anything done in the field in this area. Where you live however, the climate will likely be closer to that of Germany's, and thus there will be examples to draw on. In California we're having to do a lot of guesswork as to the proper amounts of things for this climate, however if done right a passive-style house can work just about anywhere.
Something can be very helpful for many people, especially in cold areas where you live is the insulation, similar to what we're doing here. In California here it rarely gets under 40 during the day and ~25-30 during the night, so you will likely need a bit more in terms of heating, however if our calculations are correct, we expect the house to be able to use their heat for 30 min in the morning, and 30 min at night, and the whole house will be warm for the entire day.
I'm not sure what you mean by my "thoughts." If you have any other specific questions I'll do my best to answer them.
Solar panels are a great way to save electricity costs, and the environment at the same time, but if you plan on moving in less than 8 years I wouldn't bother, anything over 10 years and you'll start to see profit for sure. And that's just buying solar panels yourself, there are now many government programs/corporate options to help pay for the cost. You can get loans with 0 down payment and very low interest from places which can help with the cost.
@Janev and Rocinante too: Those fireplaces sure are a better choice than your standard fireplace, but when it comes down to it, a fireplace in a standard house really isn't that great. (It get exponentially less helpful if your house was built before around 1990.) Because of the typically poor insulation in most American houses, any heat you send into the room from the fireplace is usually all going to be sucked outside in a matter of an hour or so, minutes if you have an older house. What this means is that all you are doing from burning your wood is heating a space +-15 feet around the fireplace. This is no help if you are 40 feet away in your bedroom or wherever. As I'm sure you know, the way a modern thermostat works is it regulates the temperature in your house by measuring the temperature and then if it is colder than your set level, increasing heat. When it has reached your desired temperature it shuts off, and waits until the temperature drops again, thus saving energy. The problem is again with leaks, if your heat is constantly escaping outside you need to have the heat going all the time just to keep the house warm. With proper insulation, you can have the heater on for only about an hour a day, as I mentioned earlier. Another important thing in saving heat and energy and money is mechanical ventilation. (Not the life saving technique you'll likely find if you search Wikipedia :P ) What this mostly does is channels your old stale air outside, and transfers all the heat to the intake valves, thereby warming a lot of the incoming air without needing extra heat from the thermostat.
On another side of electricity saving is CFLs, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp) or Compact Fluorescent Lighting. This is one thing which I can not understand why more people aren't using it. I can understand people's hesitation to use solar, (long term investments + a lot of hassle to set up) but CFLs are instant money savers. Here is a quote from Wikipedia: "While the purchase price of an integrated CFL is typically 3 to 10 times greater than that of an equivalent incandescent lamp, the extended lifetime and lower energy use will more than compensate for the higher initial cost.[19] A US article stated "A household that invested $90 in changing 30 fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity. Look at your utility bill and imagine a 12% discount to estimate the savings."[20]"
Next... Ah yes windows. These are a big way to lower your energy bill as they are the source of a lot leaking. If you can afford it, triple pane windows are the way to go, they allow pretty much 0 air to leak through, and will help keep your house warm/cool. (You would likely be very surprised at how much old windows leak.) If you ever see blower-door testing of a house (closing all windows and doors in a house, and than opening one door and covering it with a tarp with a hole in it for a fan, thus allowing you to blow air into the house to find where it escapes) you'll find that hundreds of square feet of air per min (typical measuring unit for this) escape through windows. I would advise to look around for places to buy good insulated windows (and doors too if you can) to see what you can afford. Speaking of doors, if you have any older rolling doors, those often leak a lot, tri-fold doors are the best way to go.
OH EDIT: I think this was briefly mentioned somewhere in the thread previously, but unpluging various electronics can save a lot of energy. I used to think this wasn't much of a big deal, but if you look it up you'll see "vampire electronics" can end up using quite a bit of electricity (and thus costing you more money.) The best way to deal with this is to buy a few 6 (or so) plug outlet strips, and plug them in in various places where you have a lot of electronics plugged in. (Office, kitchen, etc.) Switch all your various devices to be plugged into outlets, and then when you leave home, or go to sleep, flip the power switch to shut it all down. Turn the power switch back on when you come home, or wake up, and you are easily saving youself money.
Doing my best to explain the technology and such that we have been discussing. If anyone has questions feel free to ask. I don't claim to be any super expert, but I do know a lot about this, and I'll do my best to help. Rocinante, I'm sure you didn't mean this much info :P and I know you probably aren't going to be running off to do a bunch of changes, but what I mentioned are some of the best ideas/ways for saving energy and money that I know of.
@Silver: The USA (I assume that is what "our country" is) is not going to just go nuking people (I really hope) but there's something called MAD, which is, thus far the best defensive strategy we (or anyone) have for nukes. Of course, if some crazy dictator or some such person got his hands on such a device, I would certainetly be worried.
-
I dunno. I don't think anyone should have nukes, including the US, but I sure as hell don't want North Korea to have them.
Yeah now that I think about it I don't trust the nine or so countries that have the nukes now. I guess I just don't like how there is one set of rules for the US, France, UK, etc., and another for everyone else.
You also have to consider, that if our country just started using nukes for no reason, our people would get pissed, the current president would be ripped out of office, and unelss they started going after us, which I really doubt the military would, we'd completely revolutionize very fast. The majority of the other countries out there trying to get nukes are under dictatorship, and would use them for whatever the hell they want without their people having any say. Then its not a country having nuclear power, its a small selective group of proven psychopaths. If Iran finishes up what they're doing, you can probably expect World War 3. Because Isreal is going to go in there and blow up all their plants to save their own asses and everyone else is telling Isreal they can't even though Iran has publically announced several times that they hate the rest of the world and want them dead. Personally, I think we should work towards having no nuclear weapons in the whole world, but unfortunately we have to start with everyone else. Because we are more forward for peace and no one having nuclear weapons and places like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and others are more for only them having nuclear bombs so they can blow up everyone else without reprecussions.
You don't let someone with a DUI drive a car, why should you let war mongerers have nukes? International policies and interference have to occur at some level or we will bash ourselves into a world war again within the matter of 10-15 years. If we go into another world war with the amount of nuclear weapons that the world has right now, we won't come out of it. You can expect half to two thirds the population of the world to die in the war or be death of the after cause. The US alone holds more nuclear power than it'd take to light the entire face of land of the entire planet. I'd rather not have everyone using bombs that kill tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands instantly with terrible after effects and mass suffering in a petty fight over who's dog could beat up who's. Right now our dog could beat up everyone else's dog so we need to use that to our advantage to avoid world war. It sounds bad, but what choice do we have? It's been proven over and over that peace does not work itself out, peace has to be founded and made happen. Sometimes, there are necessary steps that go against morals in order to establish peace, but this is not utopia and getting blood on your hand for the greater good unfortunately is one of the only options we have left.
You bring up some good points except for the part where you think the people of the US, UK, and France actually have a say when nukes should be used. It's not like we had a vote before the US bombed Japan.
-
I dunno. I don't think anyone should have nukes, including the US, but I sure as hell don't want North Korea to have them.
Yeah now that I think about it I don't trust the nine or so countries that have the nukes now. I guess I just don't like how there is one set of rules for the US, France, UK, etc., and another for everyone else.
You also have to consider, that if our country just started using nukes for no reason, our people would get pissed, the current president would be ripped out of office, and unelss they started going after us, which I really doubt the military would, we'd completely revolutionize very fast. The majority of the other countries out there trying to get nukes are under dictatorship, and would use them for whatever the hell they want without their people having any say. Then its not a country having nuclear power, its a small selective group of proven psychopaths. If Iran finishes up what they're doing, you can probably expect World War 3. Because Isreal is going to go in there and blow up all their plants to save their own asses and everyone else is telling Isreal they can't even though Iran has publically announced several times that they hate the rest of the world and want them dead. Personally, I think we should work towards having no nuclear weapons in the whole world, but unfortunately we have to start with everyone else. Because we are more forward for peace and no one having nuclear weapons and places like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and others are more for only them having nuclear bombs so they can blow up everyone else without reprecussions.
You don't let someone with a DUI drive a car, why should you let war mongerers have nukes? International policies and interference have to occur at some level or we will bash ourselves into a world war again within the matter of 10-15 years. If we go into another world war with the amount of nuclear weapons that the world has right now, we won't come out of it. You can expect half to two thirds the population of the world to die in the war or be death of the after cause. The US alone holds more nuclear power than it'd take to light the entire face of land of the entire planet. I'd rather not have everyone using bombs that kill tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands instantly with terrible after effects and mass suffering in a petty fight over who's dog could beat up who's. Right now our dog could beat up everyone else's dog so we need to use that to our advantage to avoid world war. It sounds bad, but what choice do we have? It's been proven over and over that peace does not work itself out, peace has to be founded and made happen. Sometimes, there are necessary steps that go against morals in order to establish peace, but this is not utopia and getting blood on your hand for the greater good unfortunately is one of the only options we have left.
You bring up some good points except for the part where you think the people of the US, UK, and France actually have a say when nukes should be used. It's not like we had a vote before the US bombed Japan.
Well see, we have this thing called democracy... (That means we don't vote on every little thing, but we vote on leaders who vote on things.)
-
I dunno. I don't think anyone should have nukes, including the US, but I sure as hell don't want North Korea to have them.
Yeah now that I think about it I don't trust the nine or so countries that have the nukes now. I guess I just don't like how there is one set of rules for the US, France, UK, etc., and another for everyone else.
You also have to consider, that if our country just started using nukes for no reason, our people would get pissed, the current president would be ripped out of office, and unelss they started going after us, which I really doubt the military would, we'd completely revolutionize very fast. The majority of the other countries out there trying to get nukes are under dictatorship, and would use them for whatever the hell they want without their people having any say. Then its not a country having nuclear power, its a small selective group of proven psychopaths. If Iran finishes up what they're doing, you can probably expect World War 3. Because Isreal is going to go in there and blow up all their plants to save their own asses and everyone else is telling Isreal they can't even though Iran has publically announced several times that they hate the rest of the world and want them dead. Personally, I think we should work towards having no nuclear weapons in the whole world, but unfortunately we have to start with everyone else. Because we are more forward for peace and no one having nuclear weapons and places like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and others are more for only them having nuclear bombs so they can blow up everyone else without reprecussions.
You don't let someone with a DUI drive a car, why should you let war mongerers have nukes? International policies and interference have to occur at some level or we will bash ourselves into a world war again within the matter of 10-15 years. If we go into another world war with the amount of nuclear weapons that the world has right now, we won't come out of it. You can expect half to two thirds the population of the world to die in the war or be death of the after cause. The US alone holds more nuclear power than it'd take to light the entire face of land of the entire planet. I'd rather not have everyone using bombs that kill tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands instantly with terrible after effects and mass suffering in a petty fight over who's dog could beat up who's. Right now our dog could beat up everyone else's dog so we need to use that to our advantage to avoid world war. It sounds bad, but what choice do we have? It's been proven over and over that peace does not work itself out, peace has to be founded and made happen. Sometimes, there are necessary steps that go against morals in order to establish peace, but this is not utopia and getting blood on your hand for the greater good unfortunately is one of the only options we have left.
You bring up some good points except for the part where you think the people of the US, UK, and France actually have a say when nukes should be used. It's not like we had a vote before the US bombed Japan.
Well see, we have this thing called democracy... (That means we don't vote on every little thing, but we vote on leaders who vote on things.)
Also, the decision was made with us in mind, we realized we were in war, and the American people were upset with pearl harbor. It was the only way to end the war and if we hadn't done it, think of how many more lives would of been lost on all sides? I'm saying the people wouldn't stand for it if we started nuking people for *no* reason. Iran and other countries people wouldn't have a say or a chance to stand up against it if/when they start doing that, since their leaders have complete control of all actions/media and hate the rest of the world for no apparent reason other than hate istelf.
-
I dunno. I don't think anyone should have nukes, including the US, but I sure as hell don't want North Korea to have them.
Yeah now that I think about it I don't trust the nine or so countries that have the nukes now. I guess I just don't like how there is one set of rules for the US, France, UK, etc., and another for everyone else.
You also have to consider, that if our country just started using nukes for no reason, our people would get pissed, the current president would be ripped out of office, and unelss they started going after us, which I really doubt the military would, we'd completely revolutionize very fast. The majority of the other countries out there trying to get nukes are under dictatorship, and would use them for whatever the hell they want without their people having any say. Then its not a country having nuclear power, its a small selective group of proven psychopaths. If Iran finishes up what they're doing, you can probably expect World War 3. Because Isreal is going to go in there and blow up all their plants to save their own asses and everyone else is telling Isreal they can't even though Iran has publically announced several times that they hate the rest of the world and want them dead. Personally, I think we should work towards having no nuclear weapons in the whole world, but unfortunately we have to start with everyone else. Because we are more forward for peace and no one having nuclear weapons and places like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and others are more for only them having nuclear bombs so they can blow up everyone else without reprecussions.
You don't let someone with a DUI drive a car, why should you let war mongerers have nukes? International policies and interference have to occur at some level or we will bash ourselves into a world war again within the matter of 10-15 years. If we go into another world war with the amount of nuclear weapons that the world has right now, we won't come out of it. You can expect half to two thirds the population of the world to die in the war or be death of the after cause. The US alone holds more nuclear power than it'd take to light the entire face of land of the entire planet. I'd rather not have everyone using bombs that kill tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands instantly with terrible after effects and mass suffering in a petty fight over who's dog could beat up who's. Right now our dog could beat up everyone else's dog so we need to use that to our advantage to avoid world war. It sounds bad, but what choice do we have? It's been proven over and over that peace does not work itself out, peace has to be founded and made happen. Sometimes, there are necessary steps that go against morals in order to establish peace, but this is not utopia and getting blood on your hand for the greater good unfortunately is one of the only options we have left.
You bring up some good points except for the part where you think the people of the US, UK, and France actually have a say when nukes should be used. It's not like we had a vote before the US bombed Japan.
Well see, we have this thing called democracy... (That means we don't vote on every little thing, but we vote on leaders who vote on things.)
Also, the decision was made with us in mind, we realized we were in war, and the American people were upset with pearl harbor. It was the only way to end the war and if we hadn't done it, think of how many more lives would of been lost on all sides? I'm saying the people wouldn't stand for it if we started nuking people for *no* reason. Iran and other countries people wouldn't have a say or a chance to stand up against it if/when they start doing that, since their leaders have complete control of all actions/media and hate the rest of the world for no apparent reason other than hate istelf.
I don't want to argue or anything but I thought we had a Republic hahahaha its all good though I get what you mean.
But with the Media, from what I understand Corporations own the media, and corporations own the politicians, so is it really any different is it?
-
I dunno. I don't think anyone should have nukes, including the US, but I sure as hell don't want North Korea to have them.
Yeah now that I think about it I don't trust the nine or so countries that have the nukes now. I guess I just don't like how there is one set of rules for the US, France, UK, etc., and another for everyone else.
You also have to consider, that if our country just started using nukes for no reason, our people would get pissed, the current president would be ripped out of office, and unelss they started going after us, which I really doubt the military would, we'd completely revolutionize very fast. The majority of the other countries out there trying to get nukes are under dictatorship, and would use them for whatever the hell they want without their people having any say. Then its not a country having nuclear power, its a small selective group of proven psychopaths. If Iran finishes up what they're doing, you can probably expect World War 3. Because Isreal is going to go in there and blow up all their plants to save their own asses and everyone else is telling Isreal they can't even though Iran has publically announced several times that they hate the rest of the world and want them dead. Personally, I think we should work towards having no nuclear weapons in the whole world, but unfortunately we have to start with everyone else. Because we are more forward for peace and no one having nuclear weapons and places like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and others are more for only them having nuclear bombs so they can blow up everyone else without reprecussions.
You don't let someone with a DUI drive a car, why should you let war mongerers have nukes? International policies and interference have to occur at some level or we will bash ourselves into a world war again within the matter of 10-15 years. If we go into another world war with the amount of nuclear weapons that the world has right now, we won't come out of it. You can expect half to two thirds the population of the world to die in the war or be death of the after cause. The US alone holds more nuclear power than it'd take to light the entire face of land of the entire planet. I'd rather not have everyone using bombs that kill tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands instantly with terrible after effects and mass suffering in a petty fight over who's dog could beat up who's. Right now our dog could beat up everyone else's dog so we need to use that to our advantage to avoid world war. It sounds bad, but what choice do we have? It's been proven over and over that peace does not work itself out, peace has to be founded and made happen. Sometimes, there are necessary steps that go against morals in order to establish peace, but this is not utopia and getting blood on your hand for the greater good unfortunately is one of the only options we have left.
You bring up some good points except for the part where you think the people of the US, UK, and France actually have a say when nukes should be used. It's not like we had a vote before the US bombed Japan.
Well see, we have this thing called democracy... (That means we don't vote on every little thing, but we vote on leaders who vote on things.)
Also, the decision was made with us in mind, we realized we were in war, and the American people were upset with pearl harbor. It was the only way to end the war and if we hadn't done it, think of how many more lives would of been lost on all sides? I'm saying the people wouldn't stand for it if we started nuking people for *no* reason. Iran and other countries people wouldn't have a say or a chance to stand up against it if/when they start doing that, since their leaders have complete control of all actions/media and hate the rest of the world for no apparent reason other than hate istelf.
I don't want to argue or anything but I thought we had a Republic hahahaha its all good though I get what you mean.
But with the Media, from what I understand Corporations own the media, and corporations own the politicians, so is it really any different is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3qgiNPVpSM
Also, we have a republican democracy and albeit the corporations own the media, there is such a variety of them we're bound to get the whole story in one way or another, even if its a biased view. In those countries they get told what they are to be told and nothing else, nothing more, and nothing less. In Iran they even put a firewall on all sharing sites such as blogging sites, youtube, twitter, and facebook. Even ask Amanieu why he can't watch Youtube videos when he goes to China(Albeit china is improving a lot compared to places like Iran or North Korea).
You honestly can't even consider comparing our level of control from our government to their level of control from their government. There is no comparison, its Night and Day.
-
Since I don't want this thread to die and nobody answered my question earlier I'll ask it again:
- Who foots the bill? Q: Is tax reform necessary and if so what would it entail?
It is fine to want "change we can believe in" but when it comes down to who pays the bill things get a little sticky... so... ideas?
If you say taxes should be raised please state what you think should be done with that extra revenue
pay off debt? improve health care? improve education? Subsidies for Industry and the financial sector?
alternatively if you think taxes should be lowered what would you save on?
armed forces? health care? education?
//off topic nukes: I read somewhere that even if there was a nuke war as far away as the Korean peninsula the dust it threw up would have major effects on the world climate. I have no clue if that was scientifically verified though so take it with a grain of salt. Regardless the mushrooms up here still "glow" from the meltdown at Chernobyl so lets not go releasing any more radioactive particles. Even if we reeeeaaallly don't like somebody//
-
I don't like guns of any kind, but I'm about to oppose them. At least the U.S. is not doing things like England, where you're guaranteed going to prison for just defending yourself with a weapon or even with an object of any kind.
gg England.
Quite true, I'm afraid. But then again, our prisons are overcrowded as it is, so they'll just let you out after about a month or so.
-
Since this is my thread I take the responsibility of bringing it back to life. In past conversations in this thread I've voiced my opinion, as you can see, it makes people upset. That's fine with me; that's how it is.
Despite what you believe about weapons, war, religion or global warming I have one more thing to talk with you all about. I've said it before, so I'll say it here again.
http://www.usdebtclock.org
Anything else you've read about on this thread or the internet, you could of easily blown off and kept surfing. But this.. this is something that people still refuse to pay attention to. When addressing this problem I say what could happen and what you should do to try and protect yourself. I guess people don't pay attention to this, because it makes them paranoid to think otherwise. This isn't right..
Anyone with a brain and some sort of intelligence can see where we're going here. We cannot pay this back. I don't see how anyone can sit there and say our dollar isn't going to suffer some sort of way in the near (NEAR) future. Gold prices are now at record highs due to a weakened dollar. Metals mainly rise when the value of paper currency decreases.
Gold:
Dec. 1995: $387
Oct. 2009: $1060
The world isn't going to keep sitting by idle either. It's a matter of time before we default. If you would like to continue to label me a fear monger, please continue, after you've looked at these numbers. Correct me if i'm wrong here..
Printing money for war vs printing money for economy. How can we spend money to save the economy if spending money is what got us this way in the first place. You give $1000 to your low life son, and $5000 to your responsible daughter. Doesn't matter what they spend it on or what they need it for. In the end, you'll look at your wallet and you'll suddenly realize you've just lost $6000. Comments pls.
-
yes they need to stop printing money from thin air and burn some instead!
-
Mario,
ohai again
I believe the previous administration thought that they could shoot their way out of a real reckoning, while this administration is attempting to buy its way out. Certainly, some of the money is actually reaching the local level, and some working families are being helped, at least from my very limited perspective. However, the energy consortiums, insurance and finance houses, and globalist monetary regulatory agencies seem firmly in command. Still, I fear a much more abrupt "market equalization" may occur, with the taxpayers again paying off the speculators for over-inflating the value of tulips, houses, high-fructose corn syrup, or the index value of overnight foreign currency transactions as played off against the loss on bundled bad loans. As always, certain players have hedged their bets, and human misery, the price of food, and the cost of a calorie can all be influenced. And if it all turns violent and war breaks out? That, too, as Smedley Butler tried to remind us, is just another racket.
Cheers
George Carlin (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8hwxu_who-owns-you_fun) knew what the fuck was up
Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8) knows what the fuck is up
Smedley Butler (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm) knew what the fuck was up
Danny Casalaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Casolaro) got too close
One of the tenets of modern crisis management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_management) is that an organization is more resilient in the face of crisis if it is maintained in a state of constant crisis. Think about organizing a government around that idea.
-
Mario,
ohai again
I believe the previous administration thought that they could shoot their way out of a real reckoning, while this administration is attempting to buy its way out. Certainly, some of the money is actually reaching the local level, and some working families are being helped, at least from my very limited perspective. However, the energy consortiums, insurance and finance houses, and globalist monetary regulatory agencies seem firmly in command. Still, I fear a much more abrupt "market equalization" may occur, with the taxpayers again paying off the speculators for over-inflating the value of tulips, houses, high-fructose corn syrup, or the index value of overnight foreign currency transactions as played off against the loss on bundled bad loans. As always, certain players have hedged their bets, and human misery, the price of food, and the cost of a calorie can all be influenced. And if it all turns violent and war breaks out? That, too, as Smedley Butler tried to remind us, is just another racket.
Cheers
George Carlin (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8hwxu_who-owns-you_fun) knew what the fuck was up
Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8) knows what the fuck is up
Smedley Butler (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm) knew what the fuck was up
Danny Casalaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Casolaro) got too close
One of the tenets of modern crisis management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_management) is that an organization is more resilient in the face of crisis if it is maintained in a state of constant crisis. Think about organizing a government around that idea.
Thank you sir :) I hope we can really find a solution for this. I voted Ron Paul in this election. Even my g/f who also was an Obama supporter before I explained to her our situation. She also voted Paul. I feel pretty bad he didn't get into office. We're supposed to be limiting the power of banks imo; never granting them more authority.. I see that as a mistake.
-
I don't like guns of any kind, but I'm about to oppose them. At least the U.S. is not doing things like England, where you're guaranteed going to prison for just defending yourself with a weapon or even with an object of any kind.
gg England.
Quite true, I'm afraid. But then again, our prisons are overcrowded as it is, so they'll just let you out after about a month or so.
If everyone had a gun there would be much less crime! believe me thiefs and murders dont expect the average person to have a weapon of defense and they can always get a gun no problem(black market,also it not hard make something very explosive).
they have tested this down in Georgia and the results? almost no crime at all!
-
If everyone had a Gun there would be much less crime! believe me thiefs and murders dont expect the average person to have a weapon of defense and they can always get a Gun no problem(black market,also it not hard make something very explosive).
they have tested this down in Georgia and the results? almost no crime at all!
Oh God...
-
If everyone had a Gun there would be much less crime! believe me thiefs and murders dont expect the average person to have a weapon of defense and they can always get a Gun no problem(black market,also it not hard make something very explosive).
they have tested this down in Georgia and the results? almost no crime at all!
Oh God...
Is Repatition even for real?
@Mario
Now suddenly banker friendly analysts and other people close to economic circles start talking about splitting up big banks into smaller units. Flip-Flop.
-
Is Repatition even for real?
and what does that mean?
-
We've already said our peace on weapons here. Let's focus on one topic at a time, we'll move from one to another gradually.
For some people I listen to on economics if you enjoy youtube vids and have the time for them:
Ron Paul
Gerald Celente - http://www.youtube.com/user/geraldcelentechannel?blend=1&ob=4
Peter Schiff - http://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel?blend=2&ob=1
Other youtubers:
http://www.youtube.com/user/myspacesecrets
http://www.youtube.com/user/endlessmountain
http://www.youtube.com/user/visionvictory
http://www.youtube.com/user/demcad?blend=1&ob=4
http://www.youtube.com/user/feveriam?blend=1&ob=4
http://www.youtube.com/user/walstreetpro2?blend=1&ob=4 <-- guy is crazy lol
-
I don't like guns of any kind, but I'm about to oppose them. At least the U.S. is not doing things like England, where you're guaranteed going to prison for just defending yourself with a weapon or even with an object of any kind.
gg England.
Quite true, I'm afraid. But then again, our prisons are overcrowded as it is, so they'll just let you out after about a month or so.
If everyone had a Gun there would be much less crime! believe me thiefs and murders dont expect the average person to have a weapon of defense and they can always get a Gun no problem(black market,also it not hard make something very explosive).
they have tested this down in Georgia and the results? almost no crime at all!
That quote was from a long while ago. There was plenty of time to discuss it.
Also, you can't "test" it like that. Just giving people guns and seeing if they run into crime or not doesn't prove anything.
P.S. The word "gun" is not capatilized like the word "God" would be. Interesting view into your head there.
-
I have to say that this has been one of the most interesting and engaging topics in a long time. Congrats to all. :)
@ Moose: Thy holy Gun? :P
-
P.S. The word "gun" is not capatilized like the word "God" would be. Interesting view into your head there.
o sorry i wasn't thinking and agree with you
-
Some thoughts on gold:
20 year chart of gold prices (http://goldprice.org/charts/history/gold_20_year_o_usd.png)
36 year chart (http://goldprice.org/charts/history/gold_all_data_o_usd.png)
How you can look at any single asset class and say "aha we are fucked!" is beyond me. Gold like any other investment class is not immune to speculation. Even though that is a nice increase from 1995 to 2009, what is to say this is not just another speculative bubble? Those numbers also ignore inflation. If you factor out inflation using for example the CPI-index it will show a lower gain. Yes, as far as I can tell, gold beat inflation during that period but did it beat other asset classes? For a more dramatic effect you could probably find better indicators, than gold, that the shit is going to hit the fan. Try official statistics on the size of the money supply or data on currency trades.
Some thoughts on debt:
Anyway this is not about gold as an investment. This is about debt... Spiralling national debt is a bitch isn't it... Interest slavery(more taxes), more to eventually pay off(more taxes), the threat to currency stability(inflation & buying power). It all adds up to a rather unsavoury situation but it cuts both ways. Creditors are exposed to greater default risk and debtors to an unsustainable whole in their collective bucket. No matter how you spin it there will be pain for both sides when things get out of balance and the correction comes. You could increase taxes or use inflation (the buzz word being "quantitative easing") to ease the load but nobody will ever be voted in on a promise of many lean years to come. That is probably why the proverbial whole in the bucket got so big in the first place. Another option which came up recently, which the Chinese would like, is to transfer ownership of national natural resources. Also not very popular.
An outright default is unlikely in my opinion. The damage will probably come as an erosion of purchasing power through a triple-whammy-combination of inflation, increased taxes and the dollar tanking against other currencies over a longer period of time. But hey shit like this doesn't happen overnight... Chances are you will wake up one morning and realise you got shafted by irresponsible monetary and fiscal policy and that the monumental shift has already taken place. This realisation may be accompanied by a feeling of being violated and the terrible realisation that there is fuck all you can do about it now. Alternatively you could be kicking back in Canada, more on that later.
I like this quote from an evil genius: "Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws". This is what it boils down to. Don't let the evil genius guard your money no matter which way he spins it. To understand why you may want to have a closer look at the definition of money supply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply). It may seem like a stupid question but try to define money then have a look at the link. As new money enters the economy it dilutes the value of all the money in circulation. If we modify your example and throw in a doubling of the money supply with real world purchasing power denoted in strippers(yes I am tired and horny today) we get:
You give $1000 to your low life son, and $5000 to your responsible daughter. Furthermore the money supply doubles. Now you realise you are 6000$ out of pocket(when you earned it you could buy a 6000$ stripper), your son and daughter have 1000$ and 5000$ respectively but now they can only buy a 500$ stripper and 2500$ stripper respectively. The difference is whoever got their hands on that new 6000$ first gets a damn fine lap dance on you.
Actually if the strippers didn't know the monetary supply was increased they might still give 1000$ and 5000$ worth of lapdances. In the end it might be the strippers that pay the price. :'( Which brings us to the fact that inflation is a bitch too. If the powers that be inflate away the debt it means crappier strippers for the average Joe. I wonder if I went offtopic there a little... damn strippers messing with my cognitive thought processes.
My conclusions:
Rather than try to prevent it, for which it might be too late anyway, how do you like the weather in Canada? It's not too late to start rolling your R's and dressing like a lumberjack.;) Debt and inflation are both bitches. This still gets nobody closer to a solution for the problem though. Kinda annoys me nobody answered my question about tax reform :D Oh well.
-
Gold is fundamentally strong. It's enjoying a secular bull market as a response to the housing bubble and everything else that's broken into the U.S. economy. The billions of dollars that the fed is printing to prolong the inevitable de-leveraging of the financial markets is the strength of gold moving forward. The only way to end the gold bull we would need to have a meaningful reversal in the dollar. Market should of corrected itself with minimal interference from our government. €100 Euros = $149.97 USD, not a SHTF dramatic effect but it's proof besides gold that the USD is decreasing in its value. I didn't give this an exact time but I'm sure it's not too far off.
I would still put some sort of wealth into metals. Doesn't the risk of investing in metals far out weigh the losses if the dollar collapsed tomorrow anyway? We have paper backed by nothing but hopes and promises. I hope people aren't believing that money can just be printed out of thin air and nothing happens. Deflation has been here, inflation is coming.
I was using my example as a way of saying printing is still printing no matter what it's for btw. We have to return to some sort of sound money system because this bs is a scheme. We both know how this is going to end up if we continue.
Tried using the quote from Rothschild, ended up getting labeled a conspiracy theorist for that one too. Don't live in Canada so I have no clue how the weather is :P
p.s. If everything is corrected by the end of 2010, I'll come have a couple of big bottles of liquor with you in celebration, whatever you want :D
-
Don't live in Canada so I have no clue how the weather is :P
The weather there is always wonderful. (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS333US333&resnum=0&q=canadian%20snow%20storm&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)
Also, this country has some wonderful amnemeties and security too! (http://www.sixfivepony.com/gifs/canadian_navy.jpg)
The only thing on topic I have to contribute, (mostly because I don't consider myself extremely well educated in financial policy) is to say that it isn't all finacial factors to this. There are many political factors, and different things inside of the broad term of finances. Countries who have money owed to them by the USA won't neccesarily be so brave/bold/brash as to demand their money upfront any time soon I don't think.
-
Gold is fundamentally strong. It's enjoying a secular bull market as a response to the housing bubble and everything else that's broken into the U.S. economy. The billions of dollars that the fed is printing to prolong the inevitable de-leveraging of the financial markets is the strength of gold moving forward. The only way to end the gold bull we would need to have a meaningful reversal in the dollar. Market should of corrected itself with minimal interference from our government. €100 Euros = $149.97 USD, not a SHTF dramatic effect but it's proof besides gold that the USD is decreasing in its value. I didn't give this an exact time but I'm sure it's not too far off.
I would still put some sort of wealth into metals. Doesn't the risk of investing in metals far out weigh the losses if the dollar collapsed tomorrow anyway? We have paper backed by nothing but hopes and promises. I hope people aren't believing that money can just be printed out of thin air and nothing happens. Deflation has been here, inflation is coming.
I was using my example as a way of saying printing is still printing no matter what it's for btw. We have to return to some sort of sound money system because this bs is a scheme. We both know how this is going to end up if we continue.
Tried using the quote from Rothschild, ended up getting labeled a conspiracy theorist for that one too. Don't live in Canada so I have no clue how the weather is :P
p.s. If everything is corrected by the end of 2010, I'll come have a couple of big bottles of liquor with you in celebration, whatever you want :D
I still have a hard time seeing what is fundamentally strong about a shiny piece of metal that costs over 1000$ per ounce. What intrinsic value does it have? It can be used in manufacturing and it can't be duplicated but beyond that it's price is whatever people are willing to pay for it. Sure gold has always had some value but that value fluctuates a lot, my point is buying into an asset where prices have risen so far so fast should be cause for pause. It is your call and if you want to hedge against dollar collapse go ahead... But for the love of god don't do it with a large portion of your wealth or with money you will be forced to use in the near future. If the dollar were to outright collapse (which I doubt) you would have bigger problems than worrying about your investments. A better hedge for that would probably be the much(/or little depending on where you spend your time) touted beans, bullets and band-aids. For hedging against inflation maybe some diversification out of the dollar would do the trick? Gold is not the only option you know... Whether the dollar will go up or down I really don̈́t know since all the prices are set by collective fear and greed.
The reason I think it's unlikely to collapse outright, is the political aspects mooseberry hinted at. If china were to demand payment on their dollar reserves it would plunge both countries into chaos. For one, China has geared it's industrial system to facilitate foreign demand. When that demand stops the factories go quiet and people start to riot(afaik, this is already going on). Also any sizeable withdrawal by any of the large foreign holders of the dollar would trigger a massive flight from the dollar and cause the value of the dollar they still hold to drop like a stone. I can't imagine the Japanese would enjoy their dollar savings being redeemable with yen on par with the dollar. That would be a pretty hefty haircut ;D
But yeah... I am by no means an expert on stuff like this and a voice over the internet should always be weighted with a healthy degree of distrust. Just like the folks selling gold and spinning tales of collapse I could be a charlatan. I will say this for sure though, I am in no way qualified to predict the future. Anyone who thinks they are should be regarded with an even healthier degree of scepticism. If it turns out things pick up by the end of 2010 I will be happy to have that drink with you.
@ mooseberry: Nice links, brings back memories.
-
What Are We Bid for American Justice? (http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/3010)
-
American politics is headed in a good direction. Sure, you guys had an idiot running your country for eight years, but I really like where it's headed nowadays. I really like the fact that Obama actually realizes the immense power American citizens hold as consumers. I mean, as soon as USA went: "Woah, we're consuming too much, lets slow down a little", the economic crisis happened. Obama really recognizes this, and is careful about where he goes sticking his boots. The USA has been at war, every year sine WWII, and I think that pulling some peeps out of war-zones, and kind of just not really involving the USA in any of those shooty-uppy-business. Politics quite frankly, bores me to tears. Politicians should be awesome, like Kevin Rudd. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlMeYvJ9Ehw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlMeYvJ9Ehw). Bloody awesome dude.
In Summary: USA's gettin better, Kevin Rudd is sikk as, and tits.
-
The title is making me lol.
-
no, usa is headed for imminent failure im afraid
-
no, usa is headed for imminent failure im afraid
Eventually, yes, but Obama is postponing the inevitable.
-
no, usa is headed for imminent failure im afraid
Eventually, yes, but Obama is postponing the inevitable.
I smell a heated debate comin.
IMO Usa was doomed the moment the first mcdonalds was opened on its shores.
-
More like, since the first international bank opened.
-
I can't comment with any authority on your judicial system since I don't know enough about it. If that source is credible, my uneducated opinion would be that it sounds a bit fubar_ish...
I'm curious... What is this magical power consumers, who are up to their eyeballs in debt, have? I wouldn't say they cut back so much as daddy took the t-bird away. Are you saying the american comsumer decided there was going to be a crisis and unadjusted unemployment would shoot up to the 15-20 percent range? Surely other things played a role... Consider for example:
- easy credit complements of a prolonged expansive monetary policy and the housing bubble
- securitization of debt, sub-prime lending and incorrect pricing of risks
- over-leveraging for households and financial institutions
- liquidity, trust and financial contagion
Well that kinda opens up a whole new can of worms and derails the topic. Anyway... It's February 22 2010 and little has changed from my point of view. The west is still massively indebted but it seems a fair amount of the panic is out of the markets... The next hurdles will be the aging demographics and that mountain of debt we've accumulated. Lets also not forget about the mess in the PIGS countries. Looks to me like the baby-boom generation is about to get a pretty raw deal.
-
from reading the ropic all I have to say is
FUCK THE POLICE
yap police suck they hate me for some reason O:
-
janev,
Here's a video of the interview:
Bill Moyers sits down with legal analyst and journalist Jeffrey Toobin to talk about the relationship between big money and judicial elections today. (http://vodpod.com/watch/3086773-bill-moyers-sits-down-with-legal-analyst-and-journalist-jeffrey-toobin-to-talk-about-the-relationship-between-big-money-and-judicial-elections-today-)
Listen to what Toobin says at around 6:30 about conservative activism (it takes him a full minute to say it). Sorry it's such a long clip. It's well worth watching the whole thing, if only to get a better perspective on the current Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts). Listen to the question Moyers asks at around 10:30, Toobin's reply, and the follow-up questions and answers.
Who these guys are:
Bill Moyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moyers)
Jeffrey Toobin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Toobin)
What they're talking about:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission)
Cheers.
-
Just like to add that I changed the topic name to 'World Politics'.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csQjo6iInIU
-
Player1:
Well I guess it comes down to everything being bigger in Texas. There is action behind the scenes everywhere, you just do it on a grander scale on that side of the pond. I wouldn't say it's a solely conservative or democrat phenomenon but more a group-of-thugs mentality in people, where people always try to change the rulebook to suit them. It could even be argued that in a competitive society, where everybody is looking out for number one, it is a natural and beneficial phenomenon. A court is only fair if the competition for control of that court is stiff enough. Jefferson described it aptly when he said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Or in other words "That shit will only fly for as long as you allow it to".
Without taking a stance on how much support for elections is too much, it would seem prudent to remove the opaque smoke and mirrors so voters can follow the money and make informed decisions.
All:
Here are some interesting macroeconomic clips:
http://www.ft.com/cms/bfba2c48-5588-11dc-b971-0000779fd2ac.html?_i_referralObject=14730941&fromSearch=n (http://www.ft.com/cms/bfba2c48-5588-11dc-b971-0000779fd2ac.html?_i_referralObject=14730941&fromSearch=n)
http://www.ft.com/cms/893ac9c8-757e-11dc-b7cb-0000779fd2ac.html?_i_referralObject=14719641&fromSearch=n (http://www.ft.com/cms/893ac9c8-757e-11dc-b7cb-0000779fd2ac.html?_i_referralObject=14719641&fromSearch=n)
http://www.ft.com/cms/8a38c684-2a26-11dc-9208-000b5df10621.html?_i_referralObject=14613442&fromSearch=n (http://www.ft.com/cms/8a38c684-2a26-11dc-9208-000b5df10621.html?_i_referralObject=14613442&fromSearch=n)
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
and to quote myself a third time since I like taxes:
- Who foots the bill? Q: Is tax reform necessary and if so what would it entail?
Inflation = Savers/pensioners get shafted
The agony of low inflation, massive debts and higher taxes = The workforce gets shafted
-
Private financed elections = the bigger show wins
Public financed elections = the currently most popular idea/least crappy bullshit wins
It is both bad, but due to its nature, private financed elections are the worst in my oppinion.
-
(http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/bush-cat-on-the-cob.jpg)
-
To everyone posting spam in this thread: It started out well, a few people on these forums proved that they could use enough brainpower to use facts, let's try to keep it that way, no spamming stupid pictures or links which your favorite comedian told you to use. Thank you.
-
I can't comment with any authority on your judicial system since I don't know enough about it. If that source is credible, my uneducated opinion would be that it sounds a bit fubar_ish...
I'm curious... What is this magical power consumers, who are up to their eyeballs in debt, have? I wouldn't say they cut back so much as daddy took the t-bird away. Are you saying the american comsumer decided there was going to be a crisis and unadjusted unemployment would shoot up to the 15-20 percent range? Surely other things played a role... Consider for example:
- easy credit complements of a prolonged expansive monetary policy and the housing bubble
- securitization of debt, sub-prime lending and incorrect pricing of risks
- over-leveraging for households and financial institutions
- liquidity, trust and financial contagion
Well that kinda opens up a whole new can of worms and derails the topic. Anyway... It's February 22 2010 and little has changed from my point of view. The west is still massively indebted but it seems a fair amount of the panic is out of the markets... The next hurdles will be the aging demographics and that mountain of debt we've accumulated. Lets also not forget about the mess in the PIGS countries. Looks to me like the baby-boom generation is about to get a pretty raw deal.
tl;dr. Well, mainly too complicated. I don't really think the USA will ever 'succeed', but as far as Americans go, they're doing alright, and I like what The Big-O's doin with them financial handouts. G!
-
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/22/autos/gm_fritz_henderson.fortune/?section=magazines_fortune
-
That's just rediculous though. 700,000 dollars a year is insane. But, two things, one is I don't think this has too much to do with world politics, and two, while outrageous, if the company wants to pay him that much, they can pay him that much... As long as he isn't forcing money out of other places.
-
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeah I know.. I posted it just because
-
http://www.ft.com/cms/bfba2c48-5588-11dc-b971-0000779fd2ac.html?_i_referralObject=14822259&fromSearch=n (http://www.ft.com/cms/bfba2c48-5588-11dc-b971-0000779fd2ac.html?_i_referralObject=14822259&fromSearch=n)
Interesting video clip concerning the Greek problems. Feel free to comment.
-
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1967057,00.html
beat that for failure.
-
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1967057,00.html
beat that for failure.
lol, who says natural selection is dead.... Don't change the labels.
-
Wow, and such an uproar about 100 dead kids A YEAR. How many die due to the crappy health system/no insurance or because of 17 yr olds who think they can drive a car?
-
Yeah, the first thing a kid will want to do is read the safety label!
-
Wow, and such an uproar about 100 dead kids A YEAR. How many die due to the crappy health system/no insurance or because of 17 yr olds who think they can drive a car?
Outdated sure, but I think it can be assumed the numbers aren't too different now. --> http://www.lifesaving.com/issues/articles/13swimming_pool_drownings.html (http://www.lifesaving.com/issues/articles/13swimming_pool_drownings.html)
-
Holy shit:
Reason: Swimming pool chemicals, death toll: 4,060
Drinking too much water with clorine?
-
Holy shit:
Reason: Swimming pool chemicals, death toll injuries: 4,060
Drinking too much water with clorine?
These causes of injuries
It can't be from drinking too much water with chlorine or fluoride, as Americans ought to be quite used to that by now.
from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation#Statements_against):
In addition, over 1,730 health industry professionals, including one Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson), doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling for an end to water fluoridation in an online petition to Congress.[34] The petition signers express concern for vulnerable groups like "small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, and people with poor kidney function," who they believe may already be overdosing on fluoride.[34] Another concern that the petition signers share is, "The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion."[34] The petition was sponsored by the Fluoride Action Network of Canton, New York, the most active anti-fluoridation organization in North America.
-
Marc Faber on partial US debt default (http://www.ft.com/cms/893ac9c8-757e-11dc-b7cb-0000779fd2ac.html?_i_referralObject=14719641&fromSearch=n)
-
Holy shit:
Reason: Swimming pool chemicals, death toll injuries: 4,060
Drinking too much water with clorine?
These causes of injuries
It can't be from drinking too much water with chlorine or fluoride, as Americans ought to be quite used to that by now.
from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation#Statements_against):
In addition, over 1,730 health industry professionals, including one Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson), doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling for an end to water fluoridation in an online petition to Congress.[34] The petition signers express concern for vulnerable groups like "small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, and people with poor kidney function," who they believe may already be overdosing on fluoride.[34] Another concern that the petition signers share is, "The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion."[34] The petition was sponsored by the Fluoride Action Network of Canton, New York, the most active anti-fluoridation organization in North America.
People kicking up a fuss because they have to pay taxes. If you brush your teeth, you're using fluoride.
-
Holy shit:
Reason: Swimming pool chemicals, death toll injuries: 4,060
Drinking too much water with clorine?
These causes of injuries
It can't be from drinking too much water with chlorine or fluoride, as Americans ought to be quite used to that by now.
from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation#Statements_against):
In addition, over 1,730 health industry professionals, including one Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson), doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling for an end to water fluoridation in an online petition to Congress.[34] The petition signers express concern for vulnerable groups like "small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, and people with poor kidney function," who they believe may already be overdosing on fluoride.[34] Another concern that the petition signers share is, "The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion."[34] The petition was sponsored by the Fluoride Action Network of Canton, New York, the most active anti-fluoridation organization in North America.
People kicking up a fuss because they have to pay taxes. If you brush your teeth, you're using fluoride.
If you drink your tooth paste.. you are stupid. If you don't, then there is a difference between drinking fluorid enhanced water and using fluorid enhanced tooth paste.
-
Some global economic news I surfed by today:
the “Zimbabweisation (http://www.news-to-use.com/2010/05/the-zimbabweisation-of-the-global-equity-market.html)” of the global equity market
Note that when Jim Cramer (http://terencereilly.wordpress.com/) tries to tell the hoi polloi to bet on a horse, the oi oligoi already knows that horse's racing days are over. It means the big money is moving out and starting to place bets on how many suckers can still be found. As the barker outside the snake-oil tent, it's Cramer's job to get those people to step inside and watch the big roulette wheel spin.
The market seems to be grasping at the same trade. The inflation trade. The world is awash in easy money. That money can and will find its way into the financial markets. The easy money is already finding its way into the equity market, bond markets and the new safe haven currency - gold. Dennis Gartman calls it the Zimbabwe-ization of the global markets.
Turnaround Tuesday is here as we look for a turnaround in the fortunes of oil, gold and the U.S. Dollar. All are due for a reversal of their latest trend. Oil is massively oversold and due for a rally. Gold and the U.S. Dollar have become a page one item and even Jim Cramer from CNBC is recommending people to buy gold. Both are due for a setback. When Jim Cramer finally gets around to a trend it has probably run its course. Always a good contrarian signal.
Dennis Gartman says moving to sidelines on gold (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1837861720100518)
"Zimbabwe-ization" of the capital markets in Europe (http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/andros/2009/0605.html)
Gold Investors Should 'Rush to the Exits': Dennis Gartman (http://www.cnbc.com/id/37209570)
At $1,200/oz gold is a risky investment (http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?s=5414b6692d1431ff23ba7e0cc6bf9ab6&t=110861)
sent from my bunker
:P
-
Interesting links... The last one probably came closest to not having an agenda. The tone in Financialsense has always struck a raw nerve for me, i.e. the Marxism and Communism references designed to incense his tea-party audience. I can almost see the free market fanboys getting all hot and sweaty at their office chairs. ;) ;D
Here are a few more:
Live gold data. (http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.html) When I see a gold price above the cost to mine it I think of speculation and tulips. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania)
bbc stuff about the eurofag mess (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/05/a_time_for_calmpanic_delete_as.html)
/me goes off on a rant
Never forget though that the experts make their money by talking and statistics lie. In reality they don't have any more information* than you or I. If they did, they would be putting their money where their mouths are and be out there earning the big bucks. It's easier to make a profit spouting shit about market movements to a desperate audience than it is to actually make money trading. As far as I know they(media) have no fiduciary duty (http://www.capitaldynamics.com.sg/files/q_yacht.gif) to you. This means their analysis are quite often biased or more often just plain incorrect to the point of being a worthless.
*Unless of course they are plugged into the HFT network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frequency_trading). Not to worry though, since you need to be a big fish to get into that game.
Off topic: How is you bunker coming along, do you have your 1 years worth of stored food, independent water source, off-grid power, bug-out and defensive gear as well as multiple layers if redundancy for all of the aforementioned necessities all squared away? Even if the world doesn't end (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XTwWqzKeXc) it could still come in handy.
-
What's up..
I'm sure everyone is aware of what's happening now with our financial situation. I stopped posting so you could see this for yourselves if you weren't already convinced. I'd like your opinions on what's going to happen about the U.S. debt ceiling, about the situation and riots in Europe and also the war in Libya.
If this wasn't a big deal then we wouldn't have to vote on to raise it, nor would it receive this much public attention around the world.The choice is simple..
National debt: $14.5 Trillion.
Interest on debt: $3.6 Trillion.
National deficit: $1.3 Trillion.
Raise the debt ceiling: The U.S. continues on its spending spree. Devaluation of the USD continues. The country begins to bury itself even deeper in debt. Social security will begin to pay out more than it receives in the future; but over all the machine keeps rolling (for now).
Don't raise the debt ceiling: The U.S. defaults on its obligations and student loans, social security along with any grants and welfare checks will not go out (in fact Obama guarantees they wont http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6Mm7RgwS0). Soldiers overseas and others working for the federal government will start seeing their checks either be delayed, or stop coming at all.
Both ways lead off of the side of a mountain. I believe that It's only a matter time.
It's common sense to look at our own debt and deficits. We're now $11.7 trillion in national debt, $3.80 billion per day. $16.2 trillion by 2012. It's simple, you cannot pay off a loan that has interest, by taking out another loan with interest, and paying the first loan off with it; and then taking out a third loan with interest to pay off the 2nd loan that has interest also. Gold skyrocketed over $1000/oz and USD continues to decline. Telling people this is troubling for me, because they have a hard time not understanding it or they refuse to listen to the truth.
-
World ends 2012, so just keep raising the debt ceiling until the Mayans prediction comes true.
-
What's up..
I'm sure everyone is aware of what's happening now with our financial situation. I stopped posting so you could see this for yourselves if you weren't already convinced. I'd like your opinions on what's going to happen about the U.S. debt ceiling, about the situation and riots in Europe and also the war in Libya.
If this wasn't a big deal then we wouldn't have to vote on to raise it, nor would it receive this much public attention around the world.The choice is simple..
National debt: $14.5 Trillion.
Interest on debt: $3.6 Trillion.
National deficit: $1.3 Trillion.
Raise the debt ceiling: The U.S. continues on its spending spree. Devaluation of the USD continues. The country begins to bury itself even deeper in debt. Social security will begin to pay out more than it receives in the future; but over all the machine keeps rolling (for now).
Don't raise the debt ceiling: The U.S. defaults on its obligations and student loans, social security along with any grants and welfare checks will not go out (in fact Obama guarantees they wont http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6Mm7RgwS0). Soldiers overseas and others working for the federal government will start seeing their checks either be delayed, or stop coming at all.
Both ways lead off of the side of a mountain. I believe that It's only a matter time.
It's common sense to look at our own debt and deficits. We're now $11.7 trillion in national debt, $3.80 billion per day. $16.2 trillion by 2012. It's simple, you cannot pay off a loan that has interest, by taking out another loan with interest, and paying the first loan off with it; and then taking out a third loan with interest to pay off the 2nd loan that has interest also. Gold skyrocketed over $1000/oz and USD continues to decline. Telling people this is troubling for me, because they have a hard time not understanding it or they refuse to listen to the truth.
The thing is, we can start to make a recovery if we can cut spending significantly. Raising the Debt Ceiling is the only foothold we have at current times. We need to use it as a means to re-structure and re-confine our spending though, not as an excuse to keep ourselves from failing. The majority of military personal and almost all military funding needs to be cut. We have to have troops ready because world war could possibly be on brink of happening, but we should not be out looking for ways to waste money in the war. Large companies need to handle their own problems and not receive bail outs. The money should come out of the top dogs pockets, not the lower level employees and standard us citizens. We need a re-structured taxing system that pays more attention to the difference between lower class, middles class, high class, and rich. 85-90% of government aid and funding programs need to be removed, in turn taxes need to be re-bracketed into an e system. It should start at 0% and raise up to a maximum of 45% on an e-scale. Right now, once middle class but now poor class people who make barely enough to get by are taxed 35% and up. The government should recognize that taking away that 35% from your low end income families only hurts them and the economy. It increases need and usage of government programs such as food stamps, WIC, unemployment, free health care facilities, and etc. Those programs cost significantly more money than we receive in taxes from the poor-scale members of society. Allowing them to keep a higher % of their paychecks would instead allow them avoid the use of funding, lowering the need to pay for not only employees but building costs, supply costs, and other misc useless expenses that come with government aid programs.
To me a good system would be something along the lines of
$0-$8,500 0%
$8,500-$24,500 5%
$24,500-$40,000 12%
$40,000-$74,400 22%
$74,400-$150,150 34%
$150,150-$350,00 38%
$350,000 - $1,000,000 42%
$1,000,000 - $2,500,000 45%
$2,500,000+ 48%
Of course that is rough %'s to get a general idea. It would need to be scaled properly so that a 2,500,001 dollar gross income would still take home slightly more than a 2,499,999 dollar gross income.
Bump up the rich slightly more but re-define rich as 6 digits and not as 250,000. Then greatly bump down the lower-tier incomes tax rates. Between state and federal most standard family incomes get taxed 30-35%. When the economy is in it's current state and cost of living is so ridiculous a $40,000 income can not afford to be taxed $14,000 of it away. It would put more money into the hands of people who stimulate the economy by shopping inside our country. The rich members of society do a lot of spending outside of the country and they also buy things that don't really provide any beneficiary to the economy.
That's what I think anyway. I'm all for raising the Debt Ceiling one last time if it means actually taking huge forward progress towards fixing what needs to be fixed. If they're just raising it to raise it, however, and leave the country in it's continued downward spiral, are they would be doing is making the inevitable crash worse while slightly delayed.
-
Pretty good response there silver. Agreed that spending needs to be cut or at the very least shifted into better projects than smartbombing deserts. A tax hike is also necessary and the reasonable place to start would be with high income/ high wealth individuals and by unwinding the web of tax exemptions/subsidies/perks high power interests have been lobbying for for the last decades. It's a good start.
Let the dollar value go down and start exporting stuff again (besides war and promises). Inflate away some of that debt (sorry pensioners)
The problem is it's easier said than done. The people in the top wealth bracket have nothing to do all day but guard their incomes and they are not going to take that kind of a shift lying down. It will probably lead to a massive flight of wealth (just like it recently did in greece) and some pretty nasty tactics to hold onto perks gained.
I'd go the other way though with social security and the like. I'd boost them and get the bottom tier of society back into the system and not so they are just a drain on society. It's a wealth transfer but at the same time it stimulates demand. Get people back into work producing stuff people actually need (not just what the top tier wants) and you will see a positive boost in the economy. The idea henry ford had with his t-ford was to have an automobile that the workers in his plant could afford. That turned out rather well for him. :)
-
I think this is a pretty nice, short, and clear video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Q52PwFVgE&feature=youtu.be) of some ideas which mostly I agree with. While its said in simplistic terms and may be a bit optimistic, overall these are definitely general ideas I am behind. I'll just say I'm not a huge fan of the America-penis stroking at the end either but it doesn't detract from the ideas.
Along with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would also strongly support ending, or at least seriously limiting the scope of the so-called "War on Drugs". Besides the fact that I believe marijuana should not be illegal (different topic) all it does is fill the jails full of people who otherwise would have no quibble with the government or law but for the fact that they commit "victimless "crimes"". The drug war has been a great success.. for the prison industry (Can I also just point out for-profit prisons have to be one of the worst ideas of all time, any system which benefits strictly from more people being sent to jail is an inherently dangerous setup) but for many lower class members (how many rich white people do you really think go to jail for smoking weed) it alienates the whole society against the government (and who can blame them if an african american man has something like a 1 in 5 (higher?) chance of imprisonment in his lifetime, mostly for petty drug crimes). Around 70 billion a year is spent in the prison system.
But a huge part of fixing our economic trouble is creating revenue for paying off the debt, which means more taxes, definitely more (or changed relationship anyways) on the wealthy. For many people outside the US this probably seems like a no brainer, especially if they understand the situation fully, but the wealthy have done a great job of getting the middle class to defend the wealthy at the expense of... wait for it... the middle class themselves.
This is why "Joe" the "Plumber" exists as a media figure.
In his mind, he's not shifting the tax burden from the wealthy onto the shrinking middle class. Although he doesn't have anything like realistic earnings projections or a business plan to support the notion, he sees himself as a millionaire on hard times, just waiting for that lucky lottery-style windfall to come his way.
And when it does, he sure won't want to pay taxes on those millions.
A lot of these are long term moves, which are inevitable, but things need to happen _fast_, which, unfortunetly, given the current political climate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mccain-erupts-conservatives-are-lying-to-america/2011/03/03/gIQAUm2HdI_blog.html), (yeah ok inevitable bias in choice, but important story I think) it is not easy to accomplish anything quickly and well.
Moves need to be made ASAP though. If we hit the debt ceiling and still can't pay off, our credit rating will get dropped from AAA to _minimum_ AA, which means, among many not good things, we get higher interest rates, and some banks have covenants that certain brackets have to be AAA, which means they will have to sell it and tank the prices of our debt.
So yea, troubles.
-
It should be noted that I've very little knowledge of the specifics of corporate law and the state of word economics today (the devil is in the detail), but it seems like we've created a system that breeds corporate monsters that on close inspection look like groups of people but on the large scale are doing things to survive that none of the individuals ever imagined. My point is, never forget that you yourself are a creature made up of millions of smaller creatures each of which has the inclination to survive, but some of which are designed to die. At least we humans have the benifit of being able to move location and function (even if we rarely do).
-
yes nux, by definition, a corporation is a cybernetic life form, with humans and machines and buildings making up its "organs".
this is why i hate them so much. they exist solely to make a profit, by any means necessary. they even self destruct in doing so, sometimes. somehow, somewhere along the line the laws binding corporations have gotten skewed. originally, a corporation were a group of people forming some sort of company for a specific purpose. once this purpose was accomplished, the corporation was disbanded.
traces of this are seen in "mission statements". you'll notice that these are never able to be "completed". for example:
"We aspire to be the most admired and valuable company in the world. Our goal is to enrich our customers' personal lives and to make their businesses more successful by bringing to market exciting and useful communications services, building shareowner value in the process."
"We save people money so they can live better."
"To experience the emotion of competition, winning and crushing competitors"
"To be the most admired bank"
"To inspire and nurture the human spirit— one person, one cup, and one neighbourhood at a time"
"Our Vision To become the world's leading consumer company for automotive products and services"
"to be the most successful computer company in the world at delivering the best customer experience in markets we serve"
these are all goals that are really unattainable. they can never be completed. or, in some cases, they CAN be completed, but they cannot be maintained.
i dont have the facts right in front of me at the moment, but i believe these fundamental changes to how corporations work are a direct result of the lobbying industry, AKA - legalized bribery.
and again, the sheer proportion of people in the tremulous community that have a fair grasp of what's really going on in the world today staggers me. nowhere else not associated with a particular ideology have i seen so many.
-
What are we talking about here? I'm tl;dr'ing it. But from RAK's last post: I'm surprised I agree with you politically. I hate corporations. Did you know that Apple officially has more money than the US gov't? Maybe they should start selling iPads.. This is what pisses me off. You need taxes on the rich, otherwise everywhere else goes broke. Do we not remember what happened in france? I think we should revolt, js.
-
The riots will come when the states starts to really shaft the middle class peoples. Until then, the people getting the worst of it are the lower class and the vast majority isn't passionate enough to do anything about it. The more time that goes on, the more the middle class gets fucked out of their money, and the more pissed off they are. I give the states another generation or two of kids before the SHTF. I think that the 20 year olds today are less like sheeple than the 20 year olds of 30-50 years ago, and I think their kids are going to be even smarter. The time will come.
-
You need taxes on the rich, otherwise everywhere else goes broke.
rofl.
just curious, what is so funny about the statement?
-
How would you define the global financial system? My definition would go something like this:
Global Financial System: "A complete house of cards."
The jig is up, the debt ceiling is exactly what it is, a ceiling, that means on principle that it was created to say enough is enough with borrowing. This house of cards was built by the same people who intend to knock it down. Unified currency; also created by the ones who engineered everything that's happening now. That is the future and I'm sure everyone here knows it.
-
cool rhetoric, bro
-
The global financial system (GFS) is the financial system consisting of institutions and regulators that act on the international level, as opposed to those that act on a national or regional level. The main players are the global institutions, such as International Monetary Fund and Bank for International Settlements, national agencies and government departments, e.g., central banks and finance ministries, private institutions acting on the global scale, e.g., banks and hedge funds, and regional institutions, e.g., the Eurozone.
Or as you so eloquently put it:
"Complete house of cards"
In a word. Yes. But lets hope it doesn't come crumbling down.
All money is debt and all debt is money. That paycheck is a claim to some part of the web of debt. The web transcends national boundaries and if you unravel one thread it echoes throughout the system. Without the debt there is no medium of exchange. Money allows you to purchase what you need.
When the liquidity dries up so does trade and investments. People stop producing, buying and everything spirals down from there. You enter a recession where the bad debt is purged from the system, one bankruptcy at a time. Things readjust with people generally depressed about life. Go too fast and things spiral into oblivion. Go too slow and you exacerbate the cycle.
Who owns the debt? Everyone and noone. Ask a CDO broker and they may give you a theoretical answer. In practice the financial system has become so complex and interwoven that it's difficult to make heads or tails of it. Everyone in the sense that the biggest holders of debt are pension funds. Noone in the sense that nobody controls it fully (here is where the conspiracy theories about the Bilderburg group stumble IMHO). Where does China end and the US begin? No clue, it works as long as people have faith in it. For better or worse our fates are interwoven. Greek debt is owned by German pensioners, for the greeks to default the germans have to take a haircut. For the greeks to stay afloat the germans have to provide the liquidity.
If people completely lose faith you have a scene from a bad zombie movie. To insist on such an adjustment is rather extreme and stinks of an agenda. Most people can not afford to let it get that bad. They need to work from check to check to feed and clothe themselves. With so few of us producing the food and the distribution system relying on credit to grease the wheels it can not be allowed to go so far. The ceiling will rise, it must rise. To not pay ones short term obligations is a recipe for disaster. The disaster is just as great as allowing your long term obligations to run amok. The bad debt must be purged or shifted but it is irresponsible to assume it can happen overnight.
Can the debt be paid off? Not without severely damaging the real economy (you know the work-a-day stuff that actually produce the real stuff that keeps the power on and everyone fed). And that is the whole point of the financial system. Something that has been forgotten in the days of casino capitalism. The function of the financial system is to facilitate trade between people.
Going back to the gold standard is no better than what we have now. IMHO
-
You need taxes on the rich, otherwise everywhere else goes broke.
rofl.
just curious, what is so funny about the statement?
that's working great so far... all the rich are just wrapping up and going to Swtizerland. :P
-
You need taxes on the rich, otherwise everywhere else goes broke.
rofl.
just curious, what is so funny about the statement?
that's working great so far... all the rich are just wrapping up and going to Swtizerland. :P
just like they took all the jobs they make to china?