Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/17/14 03:12 PM, NightmareWitch wrote:

At 2/17/14 01:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Atheism means one has no faith in a God/s.

It believes there are no gods.. which is a faith.

Faith - strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

You are turning around the meaning of religious faith. One may have Faith that God is real this is called having a theistic belief system . Using religious Dogma as a basis for fact and reality is called faith not truth. Being that there is no proof that any God ever existed it is the people of religion that operate on Faith not the other way around.

At 2/17/14 09:28 AM, NightmareWitch wrote:

Atheism is one of the few faiths that does not have moral codes or accountability.. religion usually means you have to sacrifice a lot of personal freedoms for a goal larger than yourself..

Atheism does not have faith in fact quite the opposite. Atheism means one has no faith in a God/s. Morals and ethics etc are up to the individual. Atheism is not a religion is just simply mean one that does not believe in a God. In the middle East they call them infidels.

At 2/16/14 10:46 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 2/16/14 09:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: He can't fight the fact that Insurers are getting rich and health care is still privatized.

Well, he could do something about that... but he's Obama, so he won't.

In the healthiest countries in the world everyone gets the same level of health care and it is payed through taxes. In the self proclaimed best country in the world you would think they would take some notes from countries with the best health care in the world.

At 2/16/14 09:51 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

let's see your credentials while we're at it.

Ya cause a fancy piece of paper means you can do research and understand it all LOL.

At 2/16/14 09:01 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 2/16/14 08:16 PM, TheKlown wrote:

What do you think of this? Is it true?

Doesn't matter, Obama can wave his magic pen and fix it like he does anytime a problem with Obamacare crops up.

He can't fight the fact that Insurers are getting rich and health care is still privatized.

At 2/16/14 08:43 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

This is all moot considering the eventual heat death of the universe. The edges of space expand, matter disperses until it becomes too spread out to coalesce into stars. Escape? Where would we escape to? We'd be running from fate until it caught up to us, if we made it that far.

Your self being a self defeatist is a pity. Humans are a young species but we have learned great amounts of knowledge in a short time. We don't have the math to explain how many stars and Galaxy's there are in the Universe so logically the math says that there is probably more planets out there that can sustain life. Planet's that might be many many many times better that Earth.

Science, although risky, is our only hope for a future outlasting our home planet

Leanlifter1 and others make this point, although minus the astrophysics. I really haven't decided how to respond to it yet.

I did not say anything of the sort. What I am saying is that you need not fear Science rather you should fear the evil men that control it. Do you think Einstein wanted to make the A Bomb or was he forced to by some evil power hunger American ass holes. Even Atomic weapons might have a profoundly great purpose/s in years ahead when we learn new things and are more advanced.

The only thing we know for a fact is that Obama Care really really sucks and is a huge discredited to the American people.

At 2/16/14 08:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I am all for science. Sure science has done some bad things ...

Correction Science did not do bad things but Humans did. Science is not Sentient. I am glad you are all for logic and advancement.

At 2/16/14 07:18 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

You claimed(?) that science cannot be held responsible for the evils it enables because to do so would confuse facilitation with prescription. You believe that it is non sequitor that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the fault of science. There are a couple of errors with this.

The presence of danger, of world-destroying weapons, is solely due to the existence of these tools. While those who use these horrible crafts should be held responsible for their use, their existence is the fault of their creator's, whom used the scientific method and science for them to come about.

Fire is science and without fire the human race would likely not have made it. Fire if abused by man could destroy the whole planet. Does that make fire bad absolutely not. Fire is what it is but it's up to how Humans control it. You are wrong because you claim that things or Science as a whole are bad when they are not even self aware and sentient.

At 2/16/14 04:55 PM, Warforger wrote:

Yes but you're wrong as to why he'd be wrong. Your logic states that because Hitler was the leader of a government he would be wrong as to why it was so great and that anyone who is against it is right simply because they're not Hitler or part of his government.

Just saying to Tonydark to take what the Federal Reserve says with a grain of slat. To develop a well round opinion on any topic you have to get your information from various sources preferable reputable ones. One can go on believing that Government is great and everything is fine because the Government says so but that is a fallacy and discredit to ones self.

That is not why he's wrong, he's wrong because of the damning facts against him, the political repression, the awful society he constructed, he's not wrong because he's a Fascist or because he's a National Socialist. Likewise a Chairman of the Federal Reserve or any economist for that matter saying why the Federal Reserve is so good are not wrong simply because they're supporting the government.

They are simply wrong because they will never tell you about the gaping flaws within the systems and ideals they promote. When I say they I don't mean a person I mean going to federalreserve.gov for unbiased information and to develop a well rounded opinion is just stupid. Tonydark said he would read this document and also research about the other side in where many exspert belive the Federal Reserve is corrupt.

This is the fundamental flaw in your logic and people like morefngbds, because they ignore any source which goes against their world view as garbage propaganda, which is why debating is just a circle of confusion and you changing what you're saying so that you don't have to admit the flaws in your logic or paradoxes you've created.

I don't have to admit anything. The fact is many experts agree the Fed is a corrupt institution. You are either picking on me and personally attacking me or you are trying to uphold American monetary policy and The Fed. You are in the wrong here not me and you are staring far from the main point. Point is Tony - Darkgrave wants more information about the Fed from both sides of the fence and he got so just drop the act and shitty attitude please.

It's people that need to change not science.

At 2/16/14 04:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 2/16/14 10:51 AM, Feoric wrote: The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to coin money and set its value, aka issue fiat money. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 officially delegated these powers to the Federal Reserve system:

"The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank. It is so, however, only in the sense that its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of government. The entire System is subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress because the Constitution gives to the Congress the power to coin money and set its value -- a power that, in the 1913 act, the Congress itself delegated to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve works within the framework of the overall objectives of economic policy established by the government, and thus the description of the System as “independent within the government” is more accurate." (p.32)

see this is what I'm talking about. thank you very much. now that I understand I will study the other side that Lean and Ron Paul argue that its "unconstitutional" then I can form my own opinion.

Take that with a grain of salt. If you asked Hitler if his regim was the best he would probaly spout out 500 pages words of retoric as to why National Socialism is the way to be. Likewise the Federal Reserve is not going to say they are bleeding the public dry and parasiting rather they will diddle the public into thinking this is what you need and that you have no other choice. I don't go to the Ameican Government and ask the downfalls of Obama Care rather that information is found elsewhere.

At 2/15/14 08:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/15/14 07:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The constitution includes a loophole clause which technically enables Congress to do whatever they deem necessary and even make the rules as they go along type of thing.

You're missing the major part of the necessary and proper clause. It ties to, and ONLY to, the powers Congress has. Congress cannot use the necessary and proper clause to pardon someone, or appoint supereme court justices, or to dictate state medical policy, or state police power.

Yes we both know that and we are debating monetary policy "Powers of Congress". Why would you let people change their rules that they are required to abide by to avoid corruption ?

What the necessary and proper clause does is give Congress the felxibility and tool necessary to crry out the list of enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8. You can argue on specific points between what you think is or is not necessary and proper, and that's valid, but claimi ng the clause is a ticket to do whatever it wants is wrong.

You don't give human's which are known sinners the power to change and make new rules as they go along.

Heck, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be railing against the commerce clause or the tax and spend clause instead, as they provide far more plenary power to Congress than the necessary and Proper clause does.

We are not debating the necessary and proper clause we are debating the fact that it enables them to tamper with the money supply. Money supply which affects the whole world not just the states. Fuck who cares if they destroy the US if you dont live there but the reality is the American Dollar effects the entire planet which is where in the problem lies.

At 2/15/14 06:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 2/15/14 05:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I can easily see where people have Constitutional trouble with it. They see the use of a private organization instead of a government agency having any control over the government's money, even just in the form of holding and loaning the government money, as neither necessary nor proper to the execution of any of the Article 8 enumerated power.

blah blah, all I asked for was reasons on both sides of the argument (dumbed down) to where I can understand because when I google searched all I get is bullshit Ron Paul articles and rhetoric, I just want a bit of a explanation and a nudge in the right direction to the point where I can do make my own opinion o the subject after doing some studying

The constitution includes a loophole clause which technically enables Congress to do whatever they deem necessary and even make the rules as they go along type of thing. Said clause is at the end of Section 8 of the Constitution. Weather it's morally, ethically or financially sound is up for debate. Google why the Federal reserve is corrupt and you will find lots of information about how it screwed things up and made a few people rich and devalued currency and cause hyper inflation etc etc etc.

At 2/15/14 05:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 2/15/14 10:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote: My guess is a new party will form.

;;;presently you have a system that is exactly the same as a coin, with the choices heads or tails( please place whatever political party you like in whichever of the 2 positions you like)
So you may have 2 parties , you have one coin !
Its so close to a system where you have the choice for example of electing
Sam Johnson or John Sampson ...aka as no real choice at all.

Add to that a totally F~(#%@ donation system to politicians, where megla rich give millions of dollars to (for example your last Presidential election) both candidates...doesn't matter who wins they've bought both of them ...they win & one needs only look at the wealth of America & what percentage is controlled by who to see the megla rich own your government & control your country

Enjoy your perceived freedom, but don't worry if you give away even more of your rights I'm sure the homeland security & TSA will keep you all safe ....L M A O

When Maddoff bilked people outta millions he went to jail, when the banks near bankrupted the country they got bailed out ...

You said it pretty well. Allot of honesty in your words. In short we could conclude that it is indeed the Banks that rule the whole world which is why we need money outta politics and focus more on taking care of peoples basic needs. Peter Schiff had a good idea in that limited Government would be a better way of doing it and that the Government could pay out $20,000 a year to every citizen to pay for basic needs.

At 2/15/14 10:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

To contravene a Law anyway your rulers deem fit if and when they deem it necessary. A loophole if you will.

So you think the Congress members themselves should be out minting coins in accordance with the Constitution? Or, do you think Congress should have some power to get their laws into effect without having to do the leg work themselves?

Money should be out of politics completely. Loopholes should be out of Politics completely. Dogma and religion need to be out of Politics completely. A tight moral and ethical code must be the corner stone to a truly great nation.

So much for a democratic republic LOL.

At 2/14/14 05:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/14/14 04:50 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That's why I said it does not say.

I have pointed to language that by its basic meaning allows it. Please point to language that actively limits this.

That would make it an amendment to the constitution then. Problem is no such amendment exists. What;s the point of a rule when another is made specifically to contravene it.

Oh there's that clause we are debating.

Tell me what you think the necessary and proper clause means.

To contravene a Law anyway your rulers deem fit if and when they deem it necessary. A loophole if you will.

At 2/14/14 04:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/14/14 01:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It also does not say that Congress can mess with the money supply as they see fit.

Where does it say that?

That's why I said it does not say.

You must understand that if congress can change the rules that they are supposed to uphold and abide by then the system is faulty especially the fact that amendments to the constitution do not even go to vote by the Citizens.

Where does it say that?

What was that clause we are debating again ?

For this clause to be used in an unbiased and effective manor then it would need to go to vote to determine weather or not the people want to amend parts or all of their Constitution. This is the down fall of a representative democratic republic as it can lend a nation over to absolute control in the hands of a few cause really lets be honest you only have 12 to 15 votes in your life time and this is not nearly effective or nearly participatory enough.

Are you trying to say that the necessary and proper clause allows Congress to actively change the Constitution?

Oh there's that clause we are debating.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Yadda yadda yadda.

Please point me to the exact langauge that completely prohibits the use of the Fed. That's ALL you have to do.

Does the Constitution state that Congress has the power to mint and regulate the money supply or does the Constitution state that the Federal Reserve and or other institution/s have the power to control and manipulate the money supply ? If Congress concluded that they must outsource for whatever reason/s the Minting and regulation of the money supply then an amendment to Section 8 of the Constitution would have had to have been made.

At 2/14/14 12:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The forefathers included the Necessary and Proper clause. So they're following pretty honestly. Oh, and numerous of the forefathers expressly wanted a Federal Bank.

I don't have to take your word for it. It also does not say that Congress can mess with the money supply as they see fit. You must understand that if congress can change the rules that they are supposed to uphold and abide by then the system is faulty especially the fact that amendments to the constitution do not even go to vote by the Citizens. The Fed is no good and this is well documented.

The plain meaning of the necessary an dproper clause includes it.

For this clause to be used in an unbiased and effective manor then it would need to go to vote to determine weather or not the people want to amend parts or all of their Constitution. This is the down fall of a representative democratic republic as it can lend a nation over to absolute control in the hands of a few cause really lets be honest you only have 12 to 15 votes in your life time and this is not nearly effective or nearly participatory enough.

Could you point to specific text that doesn't allow it? You're not arguing that the reading is improper. You're arguing that the reading isn't even valid. You can go far on the former argument, you will go nowhere on the latter.

Sad that the people have no choice in this matter. Your republic sucks cause the people have absolutely no control over anything that happens in Government or monetary policy.

If you're going to argue with the heavyweights, don't call their readings unfound, call them misguided. If you don't the the Fed is Necessary or Proper, say it.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" I understand there are people on these forums that are working with the US Government to try and sway people's opinions and discredit the fact that America is a failing hegemony. Heck I would interject and state that you would argue that a hegemony is a good thing. Back on about the Constitution I would say that it is not effective because it is not controlled by what the people want rather it ultimately put's absolute power into the hands of a few due to this clause you speak of.

“We have about 60% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its’ population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

By some American asshole named George F. Kennan

At 2/4/14 05:23 PM, Korriken wrote:

True Communism, ....

Enough with Communism cause you don't know what communism is if you think that Government is involved. Read the definition of communism please.

You can delude yourself all you want, but it's not going to change reality.

Self defeat is a pity and also what the current statuesque wants you to bask in.

Also, the USA is a Democratic Republic. We elect people to, in theory, represent us.

US a Democracy LOL. Let me know with quantified sources when the last time was that the American public voted on something important aside from the 12 to 15 votes in a lifetime they are given by the hegemony.

At 2/13/14 10:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/13/14 10:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Amendment II
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.

There is a lot more wiggle room contained in those words ....

That's the fallacy contained within written and spoken word.

At 2/13/14 07:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Brought from other thread: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1360545/3#bbspost24978321_post_text

At 2/13/14 06:09 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: This has nothing to do with monetary police.

Cite links to your sources.

US Constitution

Article 1 Section 8
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

So, you are trying to argue severe limitations on this. So I ask you, what exactly do these lines mean?

So the Constitution is Bullshit. The Fed is Bullshit and the Government will continue to pass laws as they see fit without putting it to a vote. The Constitution mandates that only congress has the power to Mint and regulate money then what the hell is the point of having a Constitution if they keep dancing around the rules by way of "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." ? There was good reason why Congress was supposed to follow the original Constitution ratified by the four fathers. Still the words at the end of section 8 doesn't say that Congress has the power to outsource the Minting and regulation of money. Fuck democracy right !

At 2/13/14 05:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

But if you're so concerned about strict adherence to what the Constitution says, why do you consistently argue against the 2nd Amendment? I mean, it is actually very clear and unambiguous.

I don't have to agree with everything in the American constitution and I have rights to freedom of speech and am entitled to my own opinions just like how Iran is free to run their ships in any international waters. If you are so worried about your 2nd amendment rights or any rights for that matter then I suggest you do your part to stop the Government from trying to take these rights away or limit them. It's not me trying to disarm your nation it's your Government that is so I suggest you take it up with them.

At 2/13/14 05:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers"

This has nothing to do with monetary police.

Found in the same place you found your line.

Enacting a law allowing a private entity under the eye of the government to make money fits here just fine.

Cite links to your sources.

At 2/13/14 05:42 PM, oobooglunk wrote:

I was talking about the United States as a whole.

Also, TheMason has given me the most informative answer thus far.

I offered a truncated version of what themason stated. It's simply not the USAs job to Police the world and interfere with other countries unless other countries are interfering the US.

At 2/13/14 05:00 PM, oobooglunk wrote:

At 2/13/14 04:13 PM, orangebomb wrote:

Yes, the people are suffering and the horror stories coming from there rivals that of Saddam's Iraq, or the heyday of the Soviet Union. But there isn't much we can do about it

Actually, if you want to know something we can do about it, we can arrest the current leaders of North Korea on the grounds of disobeying the constitutional law of North Korea.

By we do you mean yourself ? If you are talking about yourself then who gave you the power to interfere with other peoples and Government affairs ? If you don't Live in Korea then I don't think you have to worry about it's Laws unless they are interfering with your own rights and Liberties afforded to you by your own Country's Government and natural Laws.

At 2/13/14 05:05 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/13/14 01:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/13/14 01:19 PM, TheMason wrote: So anyway...what about those Iranian warships?

(Or has LL1 turned this into a Necro thread by hijacking it with his conspiracy theories?)

So the Constitution is a conspiracy now ?

Nope.

Just your line of thought.

I link to the Constitution and quote it word for word and somehow it's a conspiracy according to you LOL. What the problem is that you think that the Congress can do whatever they deem necessary with monetary policy when this is not the case. Congress has rules to abide by as per the Constitution of the USA.

Section 8: Powers of Congress
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Congress does not have the power to turn over control of the money supply to the Federal Mint. If I am wrong then please show me where in the Constitution that it states that Congress has the power to turn over control of the money supply to another institution.

At 2/13/14 02:38 PM, Little-Kinky wrote:

At 2/13/14 12:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: ...

My explanation was better~

No it was not. If Congress can change the rules anyway they see fit then there was no point in creating the Constitution to begin with. The creation of the Federal mint should have went to vote not dictated by Congress. Federal Reserve Notes are counterfeit by definition.

At 2/13/14 01:19 PM, TheMason wrote: So anyway...what about those Iranian warships?

(Or has LL1 turned this into a Necro thread by hijacking it with his conspiracy theories?)

So the Constitution is a conspiracy now ?