It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A simple question for our liberal friends

page: 8
33
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant


So basically, you're saying that inflation is a symptom of socialism and not capitalism?


Inflation is caused 100% by the gov decreed national bank.

Money is a natural phenomenon, like language or clothing or tool making.

The gov confiscated the money supply, which is socialistic. Socialistic money is created to pay for governmental vote buying campaigns. All debt is vote buying and all debt is socialist or at least collectivist. Alexander Hamilton wanted a national debt so as to keep the richest class connected to the gov by that class'es investments into the debt. Hamilton gave the national gov to the rich. Socialism is a con job whereby the rich folks lock in what they have got and give public media lip service to equality.

Capitalistic money would evolve into the best type of money, by competition among the money's consumers. Capitalistic money would directly represent real wealth, it would not represent the power of a tyrant to tax, conscript, and confiscate. Capitalistic money would keep its value or increase in value over time, because it would never be issued faster than new wealth was created to back it.




posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

In other words, you think central banking, fiat money, legal tender, fractional reserve banking, and inflation are all forms of socialism? And for some reason, you still think debt has something to do with socialism as well, even though debt can & will occur in every type of economic, political, and social system.

You might not know this, but nearly all of the world's central banks are actually privately owned by collections of banks, not by their host governments. That's actually advertised as a good thing and not a flaw, because they say it keeps the money supply isolated from the whims of the populace & politics. That's why national governments have to borrow money from their affiliated central banks and pay interest to their central banks for getting to use its currency..

And that's also why central bankers like Mayer Rothschild said "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws". And that's also why there were so many calls to audit the Federal Reserve (which is privately owned) during the TARP bailouts. Even though our financial sector got American & Canadian citizens to "bail them out" through taxpayer funded programs, the Federal Reserve also secretly sent trillions of dollars to its affiliated banks & institutions around the world. The US taxpayers had no say in it & it's literally why a "run on the banks" will only work against financial institutions that aren't a part of the Federal Reserve system. Because Federal Reserve affiliates have access to an unlimited supply of emergency cash that's created out of thin air.

So if the literal money supply of a country is owned by a collection of private individuals, how is that a system of socialism? It's not! It's literally the peak of capitalism, which is based on the exploitation of labor & "perceived value".

Central bankers created value out of thin air & name it a currency. Their govt cronies legislate that currency into being the only form of accepted currency (aka "legal tender") then force taxpayers to pay interest just to use that currency (aka, the "issuing of new govt debt"). Their affiliated banks multiply that currency through fractional reserve banking, then lend the multiplied amounts throughout the economy. And finally, those same taxpayers now have to compete over the currency that's only backed by perception. Oh yeah, and the central bankers can call in their loans whenever they want, which is the biggest cause of our constant cycle of recessions & booms (it's literally called "the business cycle"). There's nothing socialist about that.
edit on 20-3-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I can't get whining dirty self entitled hippie out of my head when I think of liberals now. I mean just look how they're acting.
edit on 20-3-2016 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant


You might not know this, but nearly all of the world's central banks are actually privately owned by collections of banks, not by their host governments.


Banks and government are the ruling class. Banks are allowed to loan money that they don't have because of the government. The government then takes loans of counterfeit money to pay for votes by way of Welfare. It is counterfeit money because it has no wealth backing it, it is backed by the government's ability to tax and confiscate if necessary. Socilaism needs that phony money to pay for the "equality" it promises.

The problem with that is that over time inflation will make personal ownership of anything impossible, because the debt will be so high that a lifetime of work by the entire country wont be enough to pay it off. Then the gov will own everything and all products will be specifically ordered by the gov and rationed to all citizens.


Their govt cronies legislate that currency into being the only form of accepted currency


That is the Socialist part, the use of government.


edit on 20-3-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I'm not really sure the connection here. What do you mean we "want to make this country more like the countries illegal immigrants are coming from?" Are you referring to liberal policies? That seems like a problematic assertion, that we want that or that our policies lead to that. Basically it's a bad argument.

Also, for your information the US has been interfering in Latin America for over 100 years, disrupting their political, economic, and social systems whenever those systems threatened our geo-political.

In fact, the US very specifically undermined left-wing governments in Latin America, regime changed them when necessary, and installed right wing dictators that were friendly to US corporations. This is PART of the reason LA has struggled a lot: basically neo-colonialism.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
OK, here's the map for those interested:



Yeah, I see ONE South American country. . . Premise for the the thread is off-base. I don't see Americans complaining about being inundated with Russian illegal immigrants.



Also, the US has supported RIGHT WING dictators in Latin America for over a century, and suppressed left-leaning or anti-American governments.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

LOL Socialism is not "using government". Governing is "using government". By your logic, even fascism, kingdoms, theocracies, and plutocracies are immediately "socialism" since they also use governments. Inflation and debt have nothing to do with socialism. They can exist in any economic and social system.

Pretend we have an old school bartering system. If a merchant decided one bushel of tomatoes was no longer enough to exchange for a chicken, and a customer agreed to this new higher "price", we have the conditions for inflation. And if the other merchants agreed with this new valuation, the new exchange rate for a chicken would have officially "inflated". That's inflation in its rawest form and it literally has nothing to do with socialism, as different forms of it will exist in any system of trade and currency.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I'm guessing he doesn't know about the "Monroe Doctrine" and the "School of the Americas".



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Semicollegiate

LOL Socialism is not "using government". Governing is "using government". By your logic, even fascism, kingdoms, theocracies, and plutocracies are immediately "socialism" since they also use governments. Inflation and debt have nothing to do with socialism. They can exist in any economic and social system.

Pretend we have an old school bartering system. If a merchant decided one bushel of tomatoes was no longer enough to exchange for a chicken, and a customer agreed to this new higher "price", we have the conditions for inflation. And if the other merchants agreed with this new valuation, the new exchange rate for a chicken would have officially "inflated". That's inflation in its rawest form and it literally has nothing to do with socialism, as different forms of it will exist in any system of trade and currency.


Remember how a fish thinks that the water is space, not water?

Government protects the status quo. If it is used for anything other than protecting property and individual rights, which is the status quo that the American Revolution was fought to achieve, then it is using government.

Conservatism uses government to protect individual rights, and nothing else. The gov is never considered to be competent in any decision making or rulership. The gov is only an impartial defender of property and individual rights. Basically crime is its only concern.

All other use of government is socialistic and totalitarian because the attitude necessary to use government for solving problems requires believing that the government can take control of anything. Totalitarian means nothing is beyond the reach of the state, if the state wants it.

Socialism is the current theocracy and monarchy. The majority is divinely right when it votes itself more money, every time. The cronies prefer democracy because they know how to lie to it through media and farce.

The more that things change, the more they stay the same.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Wrong again. It's obvious that I'm wasting my time w/you. I'll just agree to disagree with you because I'm beginning to think you're either trolling, allergic to the concept of socialism, or simply don't want to know the truth here. Saying that "Socialism is the current theocracy and monarchy" is so ridiculous that it doesn't even require a response.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Wrong again. It's obvious that I'm wasting my time w/you. I'll just agree to disagree with you because I'm beginning to think you're either trolling, allergic to the concept of socialism, or simply don't want to know the truth here. Saying that "Socialism is the current theocracy and monarchy" is so ridiculous that it doesn't even require a response.


You seem to be oblivious to any system other than socialism.

First there was socialism, about mid 1800's, then there big government promising socialism. Coincidence?

Socialism is foolish. It assumes folks will work for others better than they will work for themselves.

and

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

No, you just aren't wrapping your head around what he is telling you.

It's OK. It's hard to think outside the box, and to get there, you have to.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian
I dont think the thread author has any understanding of the CIA's involvement and manipulation in South and Central America. They actively undermined and overthrew democratically elected governments and supported brutal violent revolutionaries. The American interviews in this documentary are particularly maddening:


It always seems like the right wing members of this site believe in personal liberty up until other countries make a choice they disagree with.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Absolutely nothing the voters on the left do makes any sense. I can understand why the politicians of the left do what they do, they are simply crooked, lying scammers of the system who thrive on the teat of all Americans and who also owe allegiance to their masters wishing to rule the world. I find it to be stunning that anyone actually buys into the lies preached by the left. You would think after one or two terms in office they would catch on to the fact they are being used, but they don't. I find it inconceivable that Hillary Clinton could even be discussed as a potential candidate for president, yet she is.

I have felt for at least twenty years now that I am living in a bad Twilight Zone episode where something in the water has caused everyone to lose their minds. Come to think of it, I have not had a sip of tap water in over 35 years now.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ArJunaBug

Yeah but we got the Presidency for past 8 yrs, and the next 8 yrs.

Who needs to do the soul searching??



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArJunaBug
Absolutely nothing the voters on the left do makes any sense.


Maybe the right should stop trying to be a Christian theocracy.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

The problem is the people on DC don't often reflect the people they represent, I live in Utah, and this town, the surrounding towns and cities are something like 80 percent mormon - a Christian sect. They will talk politics, but they are more into religious freedom, the second amendment, land ownership - much less about theocracy, state mandated morality, etc.

If all conservatives are Ted Cruz, all Democrats are Hillary Clinton.

But we both know this statement is not true - if I remember right, you and I both are more in the Sanders camp.

So yeah, maybe it seems that way especially in DC, but growing up morning and moving to different cities, there's much less theocracy minded people than one would think.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
This is going to be short and sweet and I figured I would pose this question in the mud pit.

First let me just state, we know that the exodus points towards the west, and in this case the United States - coming from primarily failed socialistic society's from south of the border , in other words we see large groups of people immigrating to the United States and not away.

So my question is, why is it that liberals want to make America more like the countries illegal immigrants flee from?


Socialistic? Do you know what the Monroe Doctrine was?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Annee

The problem is the people on DC don't often reflect the people they represent, I live in Utah, and this town, the surrounding towns and cities are something like 80 percent mormon - a Christian sect. They will talk politics, but they are more into religious freedom, the second amendment, land ownership - much less about theocracy, state mandated morality, etc.


I was Mormon for 5 years, loved it. Except the religious part. Would join a similar organised group in a nano-second if they were atheistic. My group in SOCA didn't care much for the Utah Mormons when they'd visit. They tended to be kind of arrogant.

The Mormon people are one thing, the Mormon leadership another. You do know they got fined (a slap on the wrist) for funding Prop 8 in CA from money outside the state. They fed millions of dollars into CA to stop gays from marrying. That religion has become as man corrupted as all the others. The religion itself tells you to think for yourself. Not to accept something you don't feel right about. The leadership? Bunch of old white dudes.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yeah, I've stepped away from affiliation of any religion. Mormonism seems to have some things down very well, their charitable contributions, worldwide reach, their organization ability. What they preach, yet don't always practice is some of the most down to earth and moral religions I've ever seen. But what you actually see from some members and leaders is certainly not what they are taught and preach. To others.

The church of Satan used to interest me more, but I think their self proclaimed leadership must have changed. I remember reading their statements of responsibility, respect, honor, being a good member of society but based on your own will, your own actions - not the will of some old white man telling you what to do, as you put it.

Now I go back to their site and they talk more of self indulgence, selfishness, serving ones self before everyone else, materialism and the like. Not sure what happened.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join