A win for the Central Bank and it's puppet Obama

[Cappy_Smurf]

Look, I believe the faces on our main currency should be people THAT ACTUALLY HAD SOMETHING TO ****ING DO WITH OUR MAIN CURRENCY.

Cool story bro

Seriously though, I totally get this. I find it completely ridiculous that Mount Rushmore has the faces of a bunch of guys who had NOTHING to do with carving faces into a mountain. I'm thinking of starting a petition to make sure that from now on, if any more faces are added, they damn sure better be the faces of the guys doing the carving. And don't even get me started on Crazy Horse...

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

1)My understanding of Jackson is that he was considered brutal even in his day.

2)Indian removal was his greatest accomplishment. He doesn't have a Declaration of Independence on his resume.

3)It's not about him. He's gone. It's about us. I think who we celebrate or condemn can shape us. Why should we celebrate Jackson? Can we justify doing that even if we view him as a conflicted character; I don't think so.

18th and 19th US history is replete with atrocities committed against natives, many with public/government support. Jackson may have been considered brutal by some, but his Indian policies were a precursor to what happened later, in terms of forcing natives off their land onto reservations. Jackson was but one of many important players in the US's shameful treatment of its native populations, including other 'great men' who we continue to revere, or hold in high esteem, today.

Jackson is known for a lot more than Indian removal, or his Indian policies. I'm not sure I'd personally call him a great President, but he was a significant and highly influential leader who had significant influence during his time.

Neither Grant or Hamilton have Declaration of Independence on their Resume, in fact, neither does Washington. There are many reasons why we might revere a historical figure.

Most great men are morally conflicted. Jefferson, while mouthing condemnation of slavery, was, for example, an ardent slaver who whipped his slaves, sold them, and had sex with them (I'm guessing not all of it was totally consensual). Although Washington freed his slaves on his wife's death, he still owned slaves. While policies leading to the deaths of thousands of Indians is a moral atrocity, so is slavery, and enslaving human beings is not THAT far behind. If we can't celebrate historical figures who were morally conflicted (even if only by our modern standards), then we'll be hard pressed to find that many great men and women (mostly men, sadly) who we can celebrate.

Personally, I have no love for Jackson and am happy to see him jettisoned from the $20 bill, although I still do think all the 'genocide' language is a tad bit hyperbolic and fails to sufficiently consider historical context.

 

[JazzGal]

I don't care who is on the money - I just want more of it.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Gameface]

I don't care who is on the money - I just want more of it.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

Not at all the song I was looking for but it's late and so here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0

 

[Gameface]

Since I'm posting songs from ABBA here's another one that sort of very loosely applies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92cwKCU8Z5c

 

[franklin]

Cool story bro

Seriously though, I totally get this. I find it completely ridiculous that Mount Rushmore has the faces of a bunch of guys who had NOTHING to do with carving faces into a mountain. I'm thinking of starting a petition to make sure that from now on, if any more faces are added, they damn sure better be the faces of the guys doing the carving. And don't even get me started on Crazy Horse...

Crazy Horse carved his own knives out of fire cured wood, bitch. umpingchest:

 

[babe]

18th and 19th US history is replete with atrocities committed against natives, many with public/government support. Jackson may have been considered brutal by some, but his Indian policies were a precursor to what happened later, in terms of forcing natives off their land onto reservations. Jackson was but one of many important players in the US's shameful treatment of its native populations, including other 'great men' who we continue to revere, or hold in high esteem, today.

Jackson is known for a lot more than Indian removal, or his Indian policies. I'm not sure I'd personally call him a great President, but he was a significant and highly influential leader who had significant influence during his time.

Neither Grant or Hamilton have Declaration of Independence on their Resume, in fact, neither does Washington. There are many reasons why we might revere a historical figure.

Most great men are morally conflicted. Jefferson, while mouthing condemnation of slavery, was, for example, an ardent slaver who whipped his slaves, sold them, and had sex with them (I'm guessing not all of it was totally consensual). Although Washington freed his slaves on his wife's death, he still owned slaves. While policies leading to the deaths of thousands of Indians is a moral atrocity, so is slavery, and enslaving human beings is not THAT far behind. If we can't celebrate historical figures who were morally conflicted (even if only by our modern standards), then we'll be hard pressed to find that many great men and women (mostly men, sadly) who we can celebrate.

Personally, I have no love for Jackson and am happy to see him jettisoned from the $20 bill, although I still do think all the 'genocide' language is a tad bit hyperbolic and fails to sufficiently consider historical context.

There is a trend among "liberals" as I perceive them to impose their values on everyone else, and their judgments. I call this intolerance of the highest rank... . . morally despicable, in fact, and very hypocritical because their current batch of fav persons is held beyond reproach no matter what they do. It's "the cause" that matters, like Marxist prattle generally, anything useful to the cause is to be trotted out as the "raison du jour" and mark of intelligence and worth. I totally reject that presumed "moral superiority" because the truth does not matter to these people.

Bill Clinton has identified the racist J. William Fulbright as his mentor early on, and Hillary claims actual KKK leaders as her "mentors" and has not responded to an actual endorsement for her campaign by a California Klan leader, who donated, reportedly, according to the KKK leader's own boast $20000 to her campaign.

I think it is a slur on Jefferson to say he was indiscriminate in his sexual relations, or mistreated his slaves by standards of common decency consistent with a bible believer. comparable to some biblical characters like Abraham. Jefferson had several children by the same black woman who was legally his slave. I think the descendents of that black woman are not the source of a lot of hate on Jefferson. The most I can make of facts I trust is that he realized slavery must be ended to achieve equal status under the law for blacks, and I don't have any actual quotes from him that defended the practice. He couldn't do the work on the farm without the help, and I equate "slavery" in the hands of some of the better owners, with contemporary wage slavery by people like Warren Buffet who holds stakes in many minimum wage businesses while whispering to potential movers and shakers of public policy that the EIC is a smarter way to achieve the socialist utopia than a minimum wage hike. There are the corporatists who also want the government to become the single payer health care provider, and who don't give a damn about the actual quality of health care, or the right of people to control their own health care choices. Eononomic elites locked into some system who participated in some common practices for competitive survival at the time.

So, as I see it, of course, I think this argument fails totally on every level of analysis, but I don't think you are willing to actually review the issue in any way.

Oh, btw, I did a little reading on some things. The NRA was founded by folks from the North, after the civil war, who wanted to arm the blacks and teach them the use of those arms, in the south to enable them to resist the KKK types of atrocities, and guess what, there was a black woman who was a gun-toting Republican who took a strong stand on that side as well. Anybody care to identify her by name?

I'd love to see that damn democrat, racist taken off the $20 bill, and her face on it. Even if he did the right thing about the banker problem.

 

[♪alt13]

18th and 19th US history is replete with atrocities committed against natives, many with public/government support. Jackson may have been considered brutal by some, but his Indian policies were a precursor to what happened later, in terms of forcing natives off their land onto reservations. Jackson was but one of many important players in the US's shameful treatment of its native populations, including other 'great men' who we continue to revere, or hold in high esteem, today.

Jackson is known for a lot more than Indian removal, or his Indian policies. I'm not sure I'd personally call him a great President, but he was a significant and highly influential leader who had significant influence during his time.

Neither Grant or Hamilton have Declaration of Independence on their Resume, in fact, neither does Washington. There are many reasons why we might revere a historical figure.

Most great men are morally conflicted. Jefferson, while mouthing condemnation of slavery, was, for example, an ardent slaver who whipped his slaves, sold them, and had sex with them (I'm guessing not all of it was totally consensual). Although Washington freed his slaves on his wife's death, he still owned slaves. While policies leading to the deaths of thousands of Indians is a moral atrocity, so is slavery, and enslaving human beings is not THAT far behind. If we can't celebrate historical figures who were morally conflicted (even if only by our modern standards), then we'll be hard pressed to find that many great men and women (mostly men, sadly) who we can celebrate.

Personally, I have no love for Jackson and am happy to see him jettisoned from the $20 bill, although I still do think all the 'genocide' language is a tad bit hyperbolic and fails to sufficiently consider historical context.

Hamilton was a delegate to the Constitutional convention and is regarded as one of the primary framers of it.
Grant pushed for the 15th amendment and signed the first civil rights acts which he used to enforce the voting rights of blacks.
Washington (among a great many other things)formed the executive branch. He created the Cabinet and set much of the precedent and decorum that determines how the executive branch functions and what it aspires to be.

These people did something or a series of things that went beyond and rose above their era. That's how they earned a place of continued high esteem in history. Despite their failings, despite the reality that they were in most ways men of the times they also set us on a path to achieve the progress that we have made.

What did Jackson do that he should be revered above other American leaders? What enlightened path did he set us on? Sorry being popular isn't good enough.

For me Tubman should be held in a place of honor and her story revered. Jackson should be taught in a history class and should be a lesson in the potential dangers of populism.

 

[♪alt13]

There is a trend among "liberals" as I perceive them to impose their values on everyone else, and their judgments. I call this intolerance of the highest rank... . .

Conservatives would never impose their values and judgements on everyone else.

Srsly if that is intolerance of the highest rank than conservatives outrank just about everyone.

 

[b_line]

LOL. [MENTION=2931]Jamezz[/MENTION] you are a true goofball. If you are not outright racist, you are at least uneducated. Please educate yourself on the issues before being racist, at the very least.

 

[babe]

Conservatives would never impose their values and judgements on everyone else.

Srsly if that is intolerance of the highest rank than conservatives outrank just about everyone.

every category has its stinkers.

I might not make the grade on the ideal of genteel discussion tactics or being the consummate example of cosmopolitan sophistication, either.

That said, the more committed principled conservatives, whom I class as constitutional thinkers and proponents of the American principles of human rights and limited governance, are essentially taking a position that calls for tolerance of all kinds of people, if they are willing to think it through.

ideological proponents of statism, on the other hand, are essentially denying all people those same innate rights.

 

[♪alt13]

every category has its stinkers.

I might not make the grade on the ideal of genteel discussion tactics or being the consummate example of cosmopolitan sophistication, either.

That said, the more committed principled conservatives, whom I class as constitutional thinkers and proponents of the American principles of human rights and limited governance, are essentially taking a position that calls for tolerance of all kinds of people, if they are willing to think it through.

ideological proponents of statism, on the other hand, are essentially denying all people those same innate rights.

socially liberal is the phrase you are looking for

 

[babe]

socially liberal is the phrase you are looking for

hmmmm. . . . yah.

liberal in the classical sense, like some of those home-educated snuff-sniffing elites we call our founding fathers, or class among the group of our founding fathers.

Ambrose Bierce, an avowed socialist who went to Mexico to help with the revolution there, and got himself killed as a meddlesome busybody, believed that way, I think. As a humorist, I find his quips irresistible. However, I also find his lack of actual religious comprehension disquieting, notwithstanding his modern scientific sort of thinking.

I don't think the British school of political classification does justice to Americans, really. It is the system we use rhetorically today, which many Americans find to be such nonsense they will have nothing to do with it, preferring instead to be populists, agrarians, rednecks, or hillbillies and such. But believing you actually have rights does come across, in that rhetoric, as illiberal.

 

[♪alt13]

hmmmm. . . . yah.

liberal in the classical sense, like some of those home-educated snuff-sniffing elites we call our founding fathers, or class among the group of our founding fathers.

Ambrose Bierce, an avowed socialist who went to Mexico to help with the revolution there, and got himself killed as a meddlesome busybody, believed that way, I think. As a humorist, I find his quips irresistible. However, I also find his lack of actual religious comprehension disquieting, notwithstanding his modern scientific sort of thinking.

I don't think the British school of political classification does justice to Americans, really. It is the system we use rhetorically today, which many Americans find to be such nonsense they will have nothing to do with it, preferring instead to be populists, agrarians, rednecks, or hillbillies and such. But believing you actually have rights does come across, in that rhetoric, as illiberal.

There is a giant problem with definitions in politics. I think that for the average person on the left when they do define themselves as liberal they mean in a social sense. They believe in civil rights and see social conservatives as a statist threat to them. People end up talking past each other because while they are using the same words they mean very different things when they say them.

 

[babe]

There is a giant problem with definitions in politics. I think that for the average person on the left when they do define themselves as liberal they mean in a social sense. They believe in civil rights and see social conservatives as a statist threat to them. People end up talking past each other because while they are using the same words they mean very different things when they say them.

Perhaps the best way to understand it.

 

[franklin]

Franklin has lost his good sense somewhere with his fascination in the marvels of fiat currency. Pretty soon we'll have negative interest rates, and cash will be outlawed. We gotta go digital on all accounts. You'll have to spend whatever digital credits you have if you don't want to pay a fee for possessing them. And gold, silver will go down to values that reflect the cost of production in third-world countries where they pay slave wages to drivers of big equipment, and pay the equivalent of $0.50 a gallon for diesel fuel. lessee, that'll be about six dollars an ounce for silver, and $400 dollars an ounce for gold. Fiat currency isn't gonna fix the worldwide cyclical economic downturn that will take a California house down 70% in it's value, and the only way our banks will stay afloat is by our Congress and President enabling them to "nationalize" our savings and retirement funds.

Babe, can you explain what exactly is wrong with any of this? I <3 to make folks like you who worship currency out to be the commies you truly are . I will give you a hint at this: gold bugs and anti-inflation wackos tend to be the anarchistic type who hate gub'mint yet worship and demand a gub'mint store of wealth. Do you see it, commie?

P.S. The Federal Reserve system is by far the greatest invention of democracy. Nothing comes close to supporting the creation of wealth that the fed has. #Bernanke4Prez2016

 

[babe]

Babe, can you explain what exactly is wrong with any of this? I <3 to make folks like you who worship currency out to be the commies you truly are . I will give you a hint at this: gold bugs and anti-inflation wackos tend to be the anarchistic type who hate gub'mint yet worship and demand a gub'mint store of wealth. Do you see it, commie?

P.S. The Federal Reserve system is by far the greatest invention of democracy. Nothing comes close to supporting the creation of wealth that the fed has. #Bernanke4Prez2016

I take "commie", as in "communist", to require some reference to the economics of Karl Marx as laid down in Das Kapital, with the attendant specified social transformations and the great final collapse of statism, once the upper classs have been reduced to eating turnips and cabbage just like the serfs.

how do you imagine this relates to worship of gold or any other commonly understood store of undeployed wages or production?

I recognize that Karl Marx was an imaginative liar, or a severely retard delusional maniac of some kind, if he actually believed what he wrote, but most likely the only rational explanation for his place in history is that he was a useful idiot convenient to the British peerage as a deterrent to the spread of American visions of human rights.

the Brits, a small nation whose principal power came from seafaring commerce and colonial possessions useful to that commerce, have sometimes used a divide and conquer strategy, setting locals against one another somehow, a strategy often used by communist insurgents as well, and political sociopaths like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who owe their success and future to their skill at inciting morons like Perot and Trump to split their opponents.

I think it is reasonable to understand both world wars as British in origin, for the purpose of preventing an overland trade route like the Silk Road or the favorable relations across central Europe and Asia as competitors to their Hong Kong/Singapore/Capetown and Suez traffic.

A British-controlled central bank of the United States is one of the pillars of the evil empire. Please tell me how Goldman-Sachs gets their people seated at the Fed, and how the Fed officials have any interest in you or me, and I'll consider your opinion somewhat.

But as it stands, the Fed owes much of its success indirectly to Brigham Young, who essentially did what you imagine the Fed has invented, in issuing tithing office scrip to needy and unemployed Saints, and found that they went out an bought goods and services which made many tithepayers quite satisfied. The tithing scrip came home to the tithing office together will multiples of tithes. Walmart today recognizes the benefits of such "deficit spending", I'm sure.

It was a Utah banker, Eccles, who was chosen as chief of the Fed in the 1930s who brought the Brigham Young concept to the Fed. #BrighamYoung$100Bill.

 

[franklin]

how do you imagine this relates to worship of gold or any other commonly understood store of undeployed wages or production?

LOL, commie. Commie understood store of undeployed wealth?

I take "commie", as in "communist", to require some reference to the economics of Karl Marx as laid down in Das Kapital, with the attendant specified social transformations and the great final collapse of statism, once the upper classs have been reduced to eating turnips and cabbage just like the serfs.

how do you imagine this relates to worship of gold or any other commonly understood store of undeployed wages or production?

I recognize that Karl Marx was an imaginative liar, or a severely retard delusional maniac of some kind, if he actually believed what he wrote, but most likely the only rational explanation for his place in history is that he was a useful idiot convenient to the British peerage as a deterrent to the spread of American visions of human rights.

the Brits, a small nation whose principal power came from seafaring commerce and colonial possessions useful to that commerce, have sometimes used a divide and conquer strategy, setting locals against one another somehow, a strategy often used by communist insurgents as well, and political sociopaths like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who owe their success and future to their skill at inciting morons like Perot and Trump to split their opponents.

I think it is reasonable to understand both world wars as British in origin, for the purpose of preventing an overland trade route like the Silk Road or the favorable relations across central Europe and Asia as competitors to their Hong Kong/Singapore/Capetown and Suez traffic.

A British-controlled central bank of the United States is one of the pillars of the evil empire. Please tell me how Goldman-Sachs gets their people seated at the Fed, and how the Fed officials have any interest in you or me, and I'll consider your opinion somewhat.

But as it stands, the Fed owes much of its success indirectly to Brigham Young, who essentially did what you imagine the Fed has invented, in issuing tithing office scrip to needy and unemployed Saints, and found that they went out an bought goods and services which made many tithepayers quite satisfied. The tithing scrip came home to the tithing office together will multiples of tithes. Walmart today recognizes the benefits of such "deficit spending", I'm sure.

It was a Utah banker, Eccles, who was chosen as chief of the Fed in the 1930s who brought the Brigham Young concept to the Fed. #BrighamYoung$100Bill.

I made it to the end and your two paragraphs were icing on the cake for me. You are incorrect, however. Joseph Smith was the originator of LDS calling for a federal reserve system. Don't tell [MENTION=643]Jazz Spazz[/MENTION] or the LDS birchers, it'll kill em.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

LOL, commie. Commie understood store of undeployed wealth?




I made it to the end and your two paragraphs were icing on the cake for me. You are incorrect, however. Joseph Smith was the originator of LDS calling for a federal reserve system. Don't tell [MENTION=643]Jazz Spazz[/MENTION] or the LDS birchers, it'll kill em.

Lol... funny how we remember our conversation differently.

I remember having someone laying it on heavy about the conspiracy behind the federal reserve and centralized banking, so I decided to ask you about your thoughts on the subject.
I don't remember stating I was convinced of either view.

It's cool though. Maybe I gave you that impression somehow.

FYI, I'm still undecided. I think it's somewhere in the middle tbh. I also think I'm only hearing partial information from both sides of the fence, and each side only shares what makes their view sound solid. It's natural, so I don't really fault anyone for sharing what they feel is most important or relevant.

 

[babe]

LOL, commie. Commie understood store of undeployed wealth?




I made it to the end and your two paragraphs were icing on the cake for me. You are incorrect, however. Joseph Smith was the originator of LDS calling for a federal reserve system. Don't tell [MENTION=643]Jazz Spazz[/MENTION] or the LDS birchers, it'll kill em.

I thought I responded to this, with a load about the origins of Mormonism, to show that Joseph Smith was not the commie, but Sydney Rigdon was. Joe was the treasure digger, Rigdon the theologian, at least in the anti-Mo lore that first came out in the 1830s.

Colton might not like discussion of such things, even in my usual smug pseudo-humor, which usually goes to the point that by the time you know it all you're a jaded old fart nobody wants to listen to.

Christian communism sometimes seen in a few vague scriptural references was fundamentally different from statism because it was hoped that worldly governments would not last into the final nirvana of humanity, a dream borrowed by Karl Marx as well, but which will never be permitted by the progressive globalists I term fascists rather than communists.