At 1/9/13 11:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At what expense? By your logic, Nazi's SS was totally justified because it "created security"
No, the Nazi SS was created to pursue a policy of genocide. The Jews did not actively try to attack Germany, there were not many groups which did.
LOL. No it's not
Forcing people to do something they don't want to do is coercion.
Good so you admit you contradict yourself constantly?
Yes, after it was artificially price fixed.
All prices are artificial technically.
And the conversation has somewhat evolved...as they do. I was merely pointing out the illegality of the order.
It wasn't illegal at all, the President has the power to manipulate Currency like how he can mint a trillion dollar coin.
Good. However this is not what, say middle schoolers are taught
Well technically he was an anti-Slavery hero, he did ban slavery after all, but I think what you're looking for was that he wasn't about Civil Rights for blacks. He would've gladly accepted a Segregationist South if it meant the Union would come back together (although the North and his home state of Illinois was Segregated too, so it probably would've been pretty progressive).
School children are taught that Europeans discovered the new world.
They're taught about the first Europeans to do so. Even then Columbus wasn't the first and the reason for his discovery is wrong (not to prove the Earth was round for example). Of course migrants from Siberia were the first technically. Even then you could also argue an expedition from China discovered it as well.
Good. When I was in school, this was not the case and we were taught as if FDR was some sort of savior of the US. Much like teachers teach about Obama now.
FDR was a good President, you don't get elected 4 times in a row if you're not after all, but teachers don't teach Obama is a savior in fact if they do that it will probably be illegal.
This was not my experience. My experience had an air of liberalism to it.
Where'd you go then?
And how is that my fault? Why should I pick up the slack for their fuckups?
Because it would've caused a domino of companies to fail. Not only would they go out of business but so would their suppliers, and then since there are less total workers other businesses will be effected and pretty soon every business left and right is declaring bankruptcy.
Because posting anything beyond "nuh uh" will ust result in more revisionist bullshit. I already know what you're going to say before you say it, there's no point in going in depth to dispute you when I'm just gonna be met with more bullshit.
Ok fine, then let's just stop debating since we're going in circles.
No I didn't. I've been saying the entire time that the government worked with and favored the robber barons.
How could they if they give up any control they had?
And now we barely have enough to cover all of our bills. Hence the large amount of personal debt, foreclosures, homelessness, etc.
Yah it's much better than in the 1890's.
No I don't. Pound for pound it's the same. People are still struggling to make ends meet. PEople are still in debt. People are still homeless....only difference now is, government and taxpayers pick up the tab.
Ah but a smaller amount of people are. During the 1920's 50% of people lived in poverty and another 20% were in danger of joining them, by 1960 that number had declined to 20% and by 1969 it declined further to 10% and has remained around there since.
No it hasn't. It has propagated them.
Like what? Where has low taxes and higher gov spending during a recession then high taxes and lower gov spending during an economic boom caused recessions? This current Recession is the same as it usually is, a couple of large companies or banks mismanage their funds and bring the rest of the economy with them, same as it was previous to the Federal Reserve and after.
LOL. Right. Here's a clue. Unemployment is bad. People starving is bad. People being kicked out of their homes, is bad.
Unemployment is just a rate, you have to interpret it to know if it's bad or good. The Unemployment rate rose not because people were losing their jobs, but because people who stopped looking for one actually started looking again and hadn't got one yet, so the Labor Force grew but with people who hadn't gotten a job yet, therefore it was technically a good thing because it is a sign the economy is turning around.
It isn't rocket science. To put on this attitude of "Oh, only I understand inflation, you're dumb", is rediculous.
You said inflation is a sign of a recession, I challenged you to look for any economic boom where there wasn't inflation and you dodged the question again. I pointed out only in Staglation does inflation rise and the economy well stagnates and you responded with "You're a Keynesian retard". You went off on some tangent complaining about how the dollar isn't as worth as much as it was before and I pointed it out that doesn't matter when people have enough dollars to make up for the difference. You barely try to argue the actual definition or the causes of inflation and just respond with "No it doesn't" so I feel I have a better grasp of the concept than you do.
Liberalism, in this context, refers to certain policies.
No it doesn't because you were talking about Hoover, "Liberalism" as we know it know wasn't defined until FDR thus it meant something completely different at the time.
And "giving people money" is govt interferance in the private sector.
Well they hired people to build roads along with a whole assortment of projects, that's not really interference in the Private Sector. But FDR did interefere in the Private sector alot, mostly making Unions stronger (well this was back when they were starting to get any remote sense of the word of power).
You can't refute what I'm saying, so it's "irrelevant". That's nice.
Anyone who interacts with humans on a daily basis can see it. It's pretty basic "people reading", a skill that can easily be gained by interacting with them.
When a politician makes a speech he is essentially acting so that wouldn't matter. Otherwise you're basing this off of a hunch, not actually talking to him or what people have to say about him.
We are not in a legal war. So it's just murder, at this point. With modern technology and intelligence, there should not be this much blood on our hands.
It's still a war so people will still die......
Oh...liberal interpretations of the Constitution....yay.
Actually only two justices were appointed by Democrats (and this was a time where the Conservative wing of the Democrats was still dominant), the rest were appointed by Republicans, like for example William Howard Taft.
How do you know they won't come after you? What do you think makes you safe?
Because I've done nothing and if Obama would go after me it would make a huge story on the news and his popularity will crash and he will probably be impeached? If he goes after some terrorist people will let it slide, if he goes after innocents who've done nothing his entire career is down the drain.
As for killing Americans...that has nothing to do with enemy combatant, as there is no definition.
How do you know? There was no trial. What was his crime?
OBL? He claimed responsiblity and he was the head of the organization which did it. It's like saying Holmes didn't shoot up the theater.
I suspect my neighbor stole a car. Should the Navy Seals come over and kill him?
Well when your neighbor is driving around in it and told you he did I think it's pretty fair to say he did.
Kind of hard to explain economics to someone who denies your definitions and explanations.
It is. Because Gates and Jobs used knowledge (that can't be patented or trademarked)
Ideas are patented......