Poor little Rand can't run for senate seat & for POTUS at same time

[Bo-4]

What will he do? *sniffy-sniff*

:crybaby2:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/alison-lundergan-grimes-rand-paul_n_6347730.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[Cigar]

Disappear like a Fart in the Wind :laugh:

[Bo-4]

Disappear like a Fart in the Wind :laugh:

Maybe Aqua Buddha can assist? :D

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/TGCTGZcgh-I/AAAAAAAARwU/Pu9_jNJl-Zg/s400/aquabuddha.png

[Common]

Interesting, if that is true then Id bet he will sit tight and not run for Potus until he felt he had a much better shot at it.

[Peter1469]

He is too young for it anyway. He should run for Governor of Kentucky and learn how to be an executive.

[Cigar]

He is too young for it anyway. He should run for Governor of Kentucky and learn how to be an executive.

Or he can learn to be a Community Organizer :grin:

[Bo-4]

Interesting, if that is true then Id bet he will sit tight and not run for Potus until he felt he had a much better shot at it.

Bet that's what he does. He doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting the nomination much less being elected.

[Peter1469]

Or he can learn to be a Community Organizer :grin:

That is not a job.

[Peter1469]

Bet that's what he does. He doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting the nomination much less being elected.

You are probably correct. Most Americans desire government handlers to mange their lives for them (http://thelifeofjulia.com/).

[nic34]

That is not a job.

Sure?

http://www.indeed.com/q-Community-Organizer-jobs.html

[Peter1469]

Sure?

http://www.indeed.com/q-Community-Organizer-jobs.html

Yes I am sure. It is a fraud and it is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[Common]

Or he can learn to be a Community Organizer :grin:

Rand has spent considerable time courting blacks, I guess he hasnt convinced you cigar

[Alyosha]

Oh well, those are the rules. If they are equally applied then thems the breaks.

[Bo-4]

Oh well, those are the rules. If they are equally applied then thems the breaks.

He has a few tricks up his sleeve such as transitioning KY into a caucus state. Unlikely to fly however with a Dem legislature, governor and attorney general.

[Captain Obvious]

How/why is this a story?

I guess he's the first currently-in-office POTUS candidate ever.

Cutting edge reporting - thank you HuffPo.

[Alyosha]

He has a few tricks up his sleeve such as transitioning KY into a caucus state. Unlikely to fly however with a Dem legislature, governor and attorney general.

So you're saying that Democrats would not transition to a caucus just to prevent a Republican from running for president instead of doing what is in fair interest of future parties?

Yes, I'm not surprised. Oh well...

[Common]

So you're saying that Democrats would not transition to a caucus just to prevent a Republican from running for president instead of doing what is in fair interest of future parties?

Yes, I'm not surprised. Oh well...

heheh of course they wont and neither would the gop in reverse :) They get elected to play dirty and shaft each other regularly no matter how it hurts the country

[Alyosha]

heheh of course they wont and neither would the gop in reverse :) They get elected to play dirty and shaft each other regularly no matter how it hurts the country

If you know they're assholes, why keep voting for them? I haven't voted D or R (outside Ron Paul) and am quite happy about it. I never feel guilty for contributing to the evil that manifests itself in the two party system, and can honestly say that I vote on principle when I vote at all.

Lately, I think an anarchist probably shouldn't vote.

[Common]

If you know they're $#@!s, why keep voting for them? I haven't voted D or R (outside Ron Paul) and am quite happy about it. I never feel guilty for contributing to the evil that manifests itself in the two party system, and can honestly say that I vote on principle when I vote at all.

Lately, I think an anarchist probably shouldn't vote.

Ok cant argue with you aly except for one point. Rand Paul is the same as they are, he just says it different. If he were for real he would be promoting the Libertarian party.

[Chris]

If you know they're assholes, why keep voting for them? I haven't voted D or R (outside Ron Paul) and am quite happy about it. I never feel guilty for contributing to the evil that manifests itself in the two party system, and can honestly say that I vote on principle when I vote at all.

Lately, I think an anarchist probably shouldn't vote.



Voting supports and sanctions the state.

[Chris]

Ok cant argue with you aly except for one point. Rand Paul is the same as they are, he just says it different. If he were for real he would be promoting the Libertarian party.

Rand is not libertarian.

[Alyosha]

Ok cant argue with you aly except for one point. Rand Paul is the same as they are, he just says it different. If he were for real he would be promoting the Libertarian party.

Rand has said he is a libertarian-leaning Republican, not a libertarian. His father and Justin Amash are "libertarians". Actually, Ron's now come out as a voluntarist.

He's so cool. :cool2:

[Bo-4]

So you're saying that Democrats would not transition to a caucus just to prevent a Republican from running for president instead of doing what is in fair interest of future parties?

Yes, I'm not surprised. Oh well...

They'd do whatever they could to keep a Republican from running. It's called politics, and it's a dirty filthy game.

Hey i'm all for your viable third party concept, but i don't think that would change very much.

[Bo-4]

Rand has said he is a libertarian-leaning Republican, not a libertarian. His father and Justin Amash are "libertarians". Actually, Ron's now come out as a voluntarist.

He's so cool. :cool2:

He'd better stop making sense or he's liable to get my vote if we're unlucky enough to get a Clinton-Bush race and he runs third party or indy.

But i hope they won't make me go there. ;-)

http://skreened.com/product-image/w250h350f2ss1ab18/rbebqeyhpkcovrtrxvfw/irregular-apparel-no-more-dynasties-no-more-bushes-no-more-clintons-t-shirt.png

[Chris]

Rand has said he is a libertarian-leaning Republican, not a libertarian. His father and Justin Amash are "libertarians". Actually, Ron's now come out as a voluntarist.

He's so cool. :cool2:



"Ron's now come out as a voluntarist" - Where? Want to hear or read. Not that he hasn't always been so as a noninterventionist.

[Alyosha]

They'd do whatever they could to keep a Republican from running. It's called politics, and it's a dirty filthy game.

Hey i'm all for your viable third party concept, but i don't think that would change very much.


Well, don't agree with me too quickly because I'm leaning towards 100% voluntarism these days. I just think we're too big a nation with too many corporations and bankers who profit off large centralized states to ever really change anything with the current system.

I now think we need to break up into smaller states and decentralize. Think about it, how much contact do Senators not from Virginia or Maryland actually have with the people in their state?

They used to live in their states and ride in a few times a year. Smaller states means more control of the people over government.

[Alyosha]

"Ron's now come out as a voluntarist" - Where? Want to hear or read. Not that he hasn't always been so as a noninterventionist.

He's didn't say the world "voluntarist" he said he's now convinced its just government in general that doesn't work and we'd be better in smaller communities working privately.

[Bo-4]

Well, don't agree with me too quickly because I'm leaning towards 100% voluntarism these days. I just think we're too big a nation with too many corporations and bankers who profit off large centralized states to ever really change anything with the current system.

I now think we need to break up into smaller states and decentralize. Think about it, how much contact do Senators not from Virginia or Maryland actually have with the people in their state?

They used to live in their states and ride in a few times a year. Smaller states means more control of the people over government.

I think we'd do better to break up the big banks first.

[del]

What will he do? *sniffy-sniff*

:crybaby2:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/alison-lundergan-grimes-rand-paul_n_6347730.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

write his own rules just like when he decided he could as an ophthamologist

[Chris]

I think we'd do better to break up the big banks first.

With what, the big government that promotes and protects the big banks?

[Chris]

He'd better stop making sense or he's liable to get my vote if we're unlucky enough to get a Clinton-Bush race and he runs third party or indy.

But i hope they won't make me go there. ;-)

http://skreened.com/product-image/w250h350f2ss1ab18/rbebqeyhpkcovrtrxvfw/irregular-apparel-no-more-dynasties-no-more-bushes-no-more-clintons-t-shirt.png



...no more political monopolies, no more Republicans, no more Democrats.

[Alyosha]

I think we'd do better to break up the big banks first.

I think we should kick in the doors of the homes on every major shareholder of every major bank, drag them into the Verizon Center in DC and hold a populist trial.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/254/516/29d.jpg

[Common Sense]

Mob rule is cool.

It's why I keep a pitchfork around.

[Alyosha]

Mob rule is cool.

It's why I keep a pitchfork around.

But the state with all its power, guns, and might can trample people all over the world using your money. Yeh, that's so much better.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

[Common Sense]

But the state with all its power, guns, and might can trample people all over the world using your money. Yeh, that's so much better.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

...better than mob rule, that's for sure.

[Alyosha]

...better than mob rule, that's for sure.

Oh yeh, mobs have this type of destructive power at their disposal

http://cursor.org/stories/4-iraq.jpg


http://londonglossy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/KimPhucNapalmVictimIconicPictureJune1972APNicUt_la rge.jpg

http://thepoisedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/killing-fields.jpg


http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bomb/nag2.jpg

[Bo-4]

...no more political monopolies, no more Republicans, no more Democrats.

Hey, a third party will be great Chris. Let's make the Tea Party IT!! :D

[Bo-4]

I think we should kick in the doors of the homes on every major shareholder of every major bank, drag them into the Verizon Center in DC and hold a populist trial.

Works for me Alyosha !!

Quick story, my wacko religious right sibling emailed me in 2008 literally bragging about how she'd made 20 grand overnight (insider info) on a bank that was about to go under.

She put 20 grand on their failure and doubled her money.

I was disgusted, and told her that it was people like her who made the bank's small investors and customers lose their shorts.

We haven't spoken since.

[Chris]

Hey, a third party will be great Chris. Let's make the Tea Party IT!! :D

Ah hah hah! Tea Parties, and they're not a party in the sense of Reps and Dems, but a grassroots movement. Now the Libertarian Party, that's a party. I've supported them off and on.

[Chris]

I think we should kick in the doors of the homes on every major shareholder of every major bank, drag them into the Verizon Center in DC and hold a populist trial.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/254/516/29d.jpg


Works for me Alyosha !!

....

Why hasn't the government that represents the people done that? I mean if these banksters, corporations, and wealthy are criminals, why isn't our government protecting us...instead of them?

[Alyosha]

Why hasn't the government that represents the people done that? I mean if these banksters, corporations, and wealthy are criminals, why isn't our government protecting us...instead of them?

Exactly. They haven't and won't, so "the mob" with pitchforks must.

[Green Arrow]

I think we should kick in the doors of the homes on every major shareholder of every major bank, drag them into the Verizon Center in DC and hold a populist trial.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/254/516/29d.jpg
Alyosha -


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

[Chris]

Exactly. They haven't and won't, so "the mob" with pitchforks must.

Got to turn the castle to rubble first. IMHO.

[Alyosha]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPGPixySyGI

[Alyosha]

Got to turn the castle to rubble first. IMHO.

The people in the castle are the puppets, serves me nothing to attack Kermit when it leaves Jim Henson to run away while I'm destroying a bunch of felt. Pop Jim and Kermit goes with him.

Metaphorically, of course.

[Bo-4]

Sold, to the man in the cold sweat? LoL!

[Bo-4]

Ah hah hah! Tea Parties, and they're not a party in the sense of Reps and Dems, but a grassroots movement. Now the Libertarian Party, that's a party. I've supported them off and on.
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) .. as we've discussed many times, there is NOTHING "grassroots" about the TP.

Besides, i don't think your minions would ever go for a true "Libertarian" candidate such as Gary Johnson.

He's WAY too unconcerned with social issues and drug enforcement.

So yes, let's get Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin & their ilk to create an uprising and brand new party.. one that will ensure Dems rule the WH for next century or so. ;-)

[Alyosha]

Sold, to the man in the cold sweat? LoL!

Large governments exist because of bankers. They won't let you get rid of government because it is a symbiotic relationship. The state has to go, but the banking industry must topple first so that the states can break up into smaller states which will naturally happy with currency competition and states rights.

Once you get the states smaller, technology will do the rest.

The bankers have to go. They own the bonds on the companies, it's this collusion against the world we must stop by not succumbing to their disinfo agents pretending populism to corral us all.

The farmer and dog work together to get the sheep to slaughter.

[Green Arrow]

@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) .. as we've discussed many times, there is NOTHING "grassroots" about the TP.

Besides, i don't think your minions would ever go for a true "Libertarian" candidate such as Gary Johnson.

He's WAY too unconcerned with social issues and drug enforcement.

So yes, let's get Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin & their ilk to create an uprising and brand new party.. one that will insure that Dems rule the WH for next century or so. ;-)

Slight correction: the Tea Party WAS grassroots back when it started. It hasn't been that way for awhile though.

[Alyosha]

@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) .. as we've discussed many times, there is NOTHING "grassroots" about the TP.

Besides, i don't think your minions would ever go for a true "Libertarian" candidate such as Gary Johnson.

Most libertarians voted Gary Johnson. I did. We like Gary. Although we love Ron Paul. He is like the "Jesus" of the libertarian revolution. Gary is like Paul and Rand is unfortunately the really, really flawed "Peter".



He's WAY too unconcerned with social issues and drug enforcement.

So yes, let's get Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin & their ilk to create an uprising and brand new party.. one that will insure that Dems rule the WH for next century or so. ;-)

Sarah Palin is a Republican. Ted Cruz is the "wife" of the VP of Goldman Sachs. He's another "Russell Brand".

I was never so disappointed as when I found out who he's dating now. Fucking Rothschild get everyone.

[Bo-4]

The people in the castle are the puppets, serves me nothing to attack Kermit when it leaves Jim Henson to run away while I'm destroying a bunch of felt. Pop Jim and Kermit goes with him.

Metaphorically, of course.

Hey now, i'm a Henson fan.. please don't pop him cuz he died in 1990.

Besides, puppeteers are a dime a dozen. One dies, another slips under the table.

Just ask the fabulously filthy Koch Bros! ;-)

[Bo-4]

Rand's favorite band.. mine? -- not so much.

[Alyosha]

Hey now, i'm a Henson fan.. please don't pop him cuz he died in 1990.

Besides, puppeteers are a dime a dozen. One dies, another slips under the table.

Just ask the fabulously filthy Koch Bros! ;-)


I don't have a problem with "wealth" so they don't bother me nor does Elon Musk. I've been researching the banking system since probably 2001 and how it works, who really makes money off of it, how they "own" corporations and people like the Kochs.

You want to follow the money, so look into banking but I warn you...have a fuzzy blanket and a Bible with you.

[Chris]

Chris .. as we've discussed many times, there is NOTHING "grassroots" about the TP.

Besides, i don't think your minions would ever go for a true "Libertarian" candidate such as Gary Johnson.

He's WAY too unconcerned with social issues and drug enforcement.

So yes, let's get Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin & their ilk to create an uprising and brand new party.. one that will insure that Dems rule the WH for next century or so. ;-)


I understand how your view defined by the liberal media is blind to what the Tea Parties are, bo.

My minions? I'm an anarchist, bo. But I am looking at Johnson and what he has to say. He had a great article about how the Reps and Dems have a monopolistic lock on debates and exclude third parties.

Cruz, Palin and their ilk are not Tea Partiers, bo. But I forget how liberal media brainwashed you are.


The Tea Parties are analogous to OWS. Will that open your eyes a bit?

[Chris]

Large governments exist because of bankers. They won't let you get rid of government because it is a symbiotic relationship. The state has to go, but the banking industry must topple first so that the states can break up into smaller states which will naturally happy with currency competition and states rights.

Once you get the states smaller, technology will do the rest.

The bankers have to go. They own the bonds on the companies, it's this collusion against the world we must stop by not succumbing to their disinfo agents pretending populism to corral us all.

The farmer and dog work together to get the sheep to slaughter.


And bankers exist because of large governments. One is greedy for wealth and the other lusts for power. Politics is the means by which they collude.

[Bo-4]

I understand how your view defined by the liberal media is blind to what the Tea Parties are, bo.

My minions? I'm an anarchist, bo. But I am looking at Johnson and what he has to say. He had a great article about how the Reps and Dems have a monopolistic lock on debates and exclude third parties.

Cruz, Palin and their ilk are not Tea Partiers, bo. But I forget how liberal media brainwashed you are.

The Tea Parties are analogous to OWS. Will that open your eyes a bit?

Dude, the Teapers are a creation of the Fabulously Filthy Koch Bros and their roughly 150 or so shell orgs.

I've provided charts and graphs and links to prove it yet you choose to ignore.

That said, i want you to remain in the dark about TP origins.. it's better that way ;-)

[Green Arrow]

Dude, the Teapers are a creation of the Fabulously Filthy Koch Bros and their roughly 150 or so shell orgs.

I've provided charts and graphs and links to prove it yet you choose to ignore.

That said, i want you to remain in the dark about TP origins.. it's better that way ;-)

Actually, Ron Paul started the first Tea Party. The GOP and the Kochs didn't latch onto it until 2009.

[Bo-4]

Most libertarians voted Gary Johnson. I did. We like Gary. Although we love Ron Paul. He is like the "Jesus" of the libertarian revolution. Gary is like Paul and Rand is unfortunately the really, really flawed "Peter".

Sarah Palin is a Republican. Ted Cruz is the "wife" of the VP of Goldman Sachs. He's another "Russell Brand".

I was never so disappointed as when I found out who he's dating now. Fucking Rothschild get everyone.

Oh my, this is interesting and new for me. I do like Russell but should his new bride (Katy Perry lasted 14 months) be accountable for the sins of her father?

https://www.facebook.com/WeWillFightForYouUntilYouWakeUp/posts/529122507172263

[Alyosha]

And bankers exist because of large governments. One is greedy for wealth and the other lusts for power. Politics is the means by which they collude.

I disagree. They existed before governments became large and in fact financed governments so they could become larger.

[Alyosha]

Oh my, this is interesting and new for me. I do like Russell but should his new bride (Katy Perry lasted 14 months) be accountable for the sins of her father?

https://www.facebook.com/WeWillFightForYouUntilYouWakeUp/posts/529122507172263

He's no longer with her and is dating Jemma Khan now. She's related to the Rothschilds by her father.

[Bo-4]

I don't have a problem with "wealth" so they don't bother me nor does Elon Musk. I've been researching the banking system since probably 2001 and how it works, who really makes money off of it, how they "own" corporations and people like the Kochs.

You want to follow the money, so look into banking but I warn you...have a fuzzy blanket and a Bible with you.

See my response to you about my sister and ask yourself the following question: If you could double your money overnight betting against a bank that would probably fail based on insider into.. would you do it?

Not me, but i'll wager 9 out of 10 WOULD!

[Green Arrow]

See my response to you about my sister and ask yourself the following question: If you could double your money overnight betting against a bank that would probably fail based on insider into.. would you do it?

Not me, but i'll wager 9 out of 10 WOULD!

I would. I'd love to lie and say that I'm too much of an idealist and I'd never do it...but again, I'd have to lie. So instead I'll be honest and say absolutely, I'd do it. That money would make me financially stable and able to provide for my wife and future children. I could tell my 70 year old grandmother she doesn't have to work 16 hour shifts just so we can all stay together and afford our living. My dad could leave his shit job and get one that he actually wants.

So, yeh, I'd do it.

[Alyosha]

See my response to you about my sister and ask yourself the following question: If you could double your money overnight betting against a bank that would probably fail based on insider into.. would you do it?

Not me, but i'll wager 9 out of 10 WOULD!

Insider info? Sounds illegal.

I think you can be an ethical business person, but it's hard to be an ethical wealthy business person. Jesus was straight up truthin with: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man enter the kingdom of God/Heaven.

He didn't say impossible, however, just that it was hard.

There is a faustian bargain you make at a certain point and I'm actually not being metaphorical. That said, I don't discriminate between the Kochs, the Waltons, the Musks, and the Gates. They all do some shitty things, but they do good in that their sins allow for many other families who need houses, cars, food, electricity, etc to have them.

In a way, they do bad things so that others don't. I feel that the wages of sin is death. All their money can't bring them eternal life.

The bankers, however, are the true masters of war. They are the bondholders, the relevant stakeholders in all corporations. They control currency, inflation, and control every aspect of your life. There was a reason Jesus went apeshit on them and their currency monopoly!

http://www.stormeyes.org/tornado/blog/images/flogmeme.jpg

[Chris]

Dude, the Teapers are a creation of the Fabulously Filthy Koch Bros and their roughly 150 or so shell orgs.

I've provided charts and graphs and links to prove it yet you choose to ignore.

That said, i want you to remain in the dark about TP origins.. it's better that way ;-)


Once again, bo, I'm familiar with your liberal-media-based rant, but it's BS.

You provided me no charts nor graphs, bo.

You're mostly troll, bo.

[Alyosha]

Green Arrow

OMIGOD LOVE IT!

http://tomverenna.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/4611.jpg

[Common Sense]

Insider info? Sounds illegal.

I think you can be an ethical business person, but it's hard to be an ethical wealthy business person. Jesus was straight up truthin with: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man enter the kingdom of God/Heaven.

He didn't say impossible, however, just that it was hard.

There is a faustian bargain you make at a certain point and I'm actually not being metaphorical. That said, I don't discriminate between the Kochs, the Waltons, the Musks, and the Gates. They all do some $#@!ty things, but they do good in that their sins allow for many other families who need houses, cars, food, electricity, etc to have them.

In a way, they do bad things so that others don't. I feel that the wages of sin is death. All their money can't bring them eternal life.

The bankers, however, are the true masters of war. They are the bondholders, the relevant stakeholders in all corporations. They control currency, inflation, and control every aspect of your life. There was a reason Jesus went ape$#@! on them and their currency monopoly!

http://www.stormeyes.org/tornado/blog/images/flogmeme.jpg


I'm going to forward this to some of the bankers I know.

[Alyosha]

I'm going to forward this to some of the bankers I know.

Cool, thanks!

[Chris]

I disagree. They existed before governments became large and in fact financed governments so they could become larger.

They existed right along side governments, both grew together. Governments have alway protected the rich and provided them with political favors because they knew they needed to be financed to have any power. Look at your own words, you can't describe the existence of one without the other.

[Alyosha]

They existed right along side governments, both grew together. Governments have alway protected the rich and provided them with political favors because they knew they needed to be financed to have any power. Look at your own words, you can't describe the existence of one without the other.

The first bankers were not on the level of vassal lords, and those men were not "wealthy", merely men who received lands for their ability to rally troops and produce food supplies. The first governments were a large extended semi autonomous serious of tribal states with a central "king" whose power was often ignored for self-rule.

It wasn't until the banking class rose from the guilds, specifically the goldsmiths and silversmiths, and began to help finance the lords and later the kings that these entities of force had the power to expand and solidify their support structure. Fractional banking started in the middle ages/late dark ages.

So I disagree. Tribal decentralized governments are not a problem. It's when you have a centralized state and that comes with control of the currency.

[del]

tea parties

:rofl:

[Chris]

The first bankers were not on the level of vassal lords, and those men were not "wealthy", merely men who received lands for their ability to rally troops and produce food supplies. The first governments were a large extended semi autonomous serious of tribal states with a central "king" whose power was often ignored for self-rule.

It wasn't until the banking class rose from the guilds, specifically the goldsmiths and silversmiths, and began to help finance the lords and later the kings that these entities of force had the power to expand and solidify their support structure. Fractional banking started in the middle ages/late dark ages.

So I disagree. Tribal decentralized governments are not a problem. It's when you have a centralized state and that comes with control of the currency.


In your description the banking class arose after centralized governments were established, as even you say they arose "to help finance the lords and later the kings that these entities of force had the power to expand and solidify their support structure." Which also what I was saying.

Tribal decentralized governments didn't have bakers or rulers. So, no, they are not a problem.

[Alyosha]

In your description the banking class arose after centralized governments were established

They arose after governments were established but those "governments" were in no way as tightly knitted or controlled as they were in the 1400's and up. It was like tribes in castles. Castles were purely for defense and a way of protecting from Vikings and the Muslim thrust and depending on the region the laws were different and many had no set laws. People forget that the Muslims headed west first. Without that first huge victory in France a) we'd all be Muslim now, and b)the crusades would have never happened (the "Christian" countries going east)

Vikings also had "government" but their kings were elected and they could be challenged to a duel and "replaced".

Centralized governments with consolidated power came well after the rise of the goldsmithing guilds and banking classes, and again, they came that way because bankers loaned the kings money to fight against the lords and free people's who told them to fuck off.

[Chris]

They arose after governments were established but those "governments" were in no way as tightly knitted or controlled as they were in the 1400's and up. It was like tribes in castles. Castles were purely for defense and a way of protecting from Vikings and the Muslim thrust and depending on the region the laws were different and many had no set laws. People forget that the Muslims headed west first. Without that first huge victory in France a) we'd all be Muslim now, and b)the crusades would have never happened (the "Christian" countries going east)

Vikings also had "government" but their kings were elected and they could be challenged to a duel and "replaced".

Centralized governments with consolidated power came well after the rise of the goldsmithing guilds and banking classes, and again, they came that way because bankers loaned the kings money to fight against the lords and free people's who told them to fuck off.



Both arose from smaller entities.

I don't see where banking enters your history until after those times. You know, I'm sure, that banking requires interest and usury was fairly universally condemned by religions and outlawed by governments until fairly recent times. It wasn't until governments saw advantage in it that it was allowed.

Your argument would have more weight prior to the passage of the 16th amendment. Before that, bankers had, for a short time, the upper hand, governments had to beg them to finance their wars and such. But with passage of the 16th, government, at least ours, has had direct access to all the wealth it needs. Bankers' wealth now is used to get elected into government, with the promise/hope of political favors to come.

[Bo-4]

Once again, bo, I'm familiar with your liberal-media-based rant, but it's BS.

You provided me no charts nor graphs, bo.

You're mostly troll, bo.

Clearly you need further edification. Until you can disprove any of this, well.. you know ;-)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-tea-party_b_4136722.html

[Ethereal]

I don't really care what he does. Every politician in Washington DC is breaking the law on a daily basis. Why single Rand Paul out when Obama is droning sixteen-year-old American citizens with no trial?

[The Xl]

I would. I'd love to lie and say that I'm too much of an idealist and I'd never do it...but again, I'd have to lie. So instead I'll be honest and say absolutely, I'd do it. That money would make me financially stable and able to provide for my wife and future children. I could tell my 70 year old grandmother she doesn't have to work 16 hour shifts just so we can all stay together and afford our living. My dad could leave his shit job and get one that he actually wants.

So, yeh, I'd do it.

Bankers tell themselves the same things, I'm sure.

Sorry, I couldn't do it. Wouldn't make me any different from the lot of those scum who profit and damage others via their financial games.

[The Xl]

I'm going to forward this to some of the bankers I know.

They're all scum. The system is inherently fraudulent and based off manipulation and theft, so anyone who participates in the industry is scum.

Hope they see this post too.

[Alyosha]

Both arose from smaller entities.

I don't see where banking enters your history until after those times. You know, I'm sure, that banking requires interest and usury was fairly universally condemned by religions and outlawed by governments until fairly recent times. It wasn't until governments saw advantage in it that it was allowed.

Banking in Europe arose from guild smiths. We're not talking currency, but banking.

I could go back farther but then I'd have to discuss Jewish issues and that always ends in an antisemitic discussion I don't feel like having right now.

There were governments, but they were loose affiliations until around the later medieval period. Before that lords were likely to tell kings to fuck off and tribes/villages ran themselves. The war machine made it hard to say no, and made enforcing easier. Kings were only as strong as what they could tax and the tax wagons were often looted.

Being able to take loans enabled them to buy more enforcers.



Your argument would have more weight prior to the passage of the 16th amendment. Before that, bankers had, for a short time, the upper hand, governments had to beg them to finance their wars and such. But with passage of the 16th, government, at least ours, has had direct access to all the wealth it needs. Bankers' wealth now is used to get elected into government, with the promise/hope of political favors to come.

Start a thread on banking and I'll go into how that benefited banks, as well.

This is turning into a non-Rand thread, atm, and Bo wanted to bitch about Rand.

[Alyosha]

I don't really care what he does. Every politician in Washington DC is breaking the law on a daily basis. Why single Rand Paul out when Obama is droning sixteen-year-old American citizens with no trial?

Because of Bush!


Obama didn't want to drone anyone and power to the people and shit but Bush made him.

[Alyosha]

Clearly you need further edification. Until you can disprove any of this, well.. you know ;-)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-tea-party_b_4136722.html
Bo-4

Tea Parties, as in the meetings, began with Ron Paul because he's cool as shit and thought the idea of a Boston Tea Party was awesome sauce.

Then as usual, other people stole his good idea and created The Tea Party.

However, I give about twenty fucks right now what cock sponsored The Tea Party movement. Dems are always hating on Kochs meanwhile we're up to our ass in GMOs thanks to them and Bill Gates.

Where's the bees, huh? That's right, son. Your peeps killed them.

[Chris]

Clearly you need further edification. Until you can disprove any of this, well.. you know ;-)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-tea-party_b_4136722.html

Disprove what, bo? Tell me what proof your link contains. Put it in syllogistic form, since you're talking proof.

[Chris]

Banking in Europe arose from guild smiths. We're not talking currency, but banking.

I could go back farther but then I'd have to discuss Jewish issues and that always ends in an antisemitic discussion I don't feel like having right now.

There were governments, but they were loose affiliations until around the later medieval period. Before that lords were likely to tell kings to fuck off and tribes/villages ran themselves. The war machine made it hard to say no, and made enforcing easier. Kings were only as strong as what they could tax and the tax wagons were often looted.

Being able to take loans enabled them to buy more enforcers.



Start a thread on banking and I'll go into how that benefited banks, as well.

This is turning into a non-Rand thread, atm, and Bo wanted to bitch about Rand.


The banks were as small as the governments you're talking about. Loans required interest, a recent policy approved by government. I don't disagree that banking benefits banks, I just don't see it possible without the collusion of government.

OK, back to bo's rant about Rand....

[Alyosha]

The banks were as small as the governments you're talking about. Loans required interest, a recent policy approved by government. I don't disagree that banking benefits banks, I just don't see it possible without the collusion of government.

OK, back to bo's rant about Rand....

Back then the loans were not required or approved by government. The guilds colluded.

[Chris]

So back to Rand.

What's bo's beef, anyhow. It's like his beef against Coburn, bo finds something in the liberal media that distorts what Coburn said and did, and no matter the actual evidence, bo just keeps repeating the accusation till it becomes a troll. Same thing here with Rand, there's nothing specific, just Rand can't run for both offices, from that just character assassination.

Bo, there are specific things I disagree with Rand about. One, for example, was back a couple months with ISIS, his turn to interventionism. Granted, unlike Obama who wanted to take it into his hands, Rand insisted on going to Congress for a vote on whether to intervene. He has as well been far to pro-Israel as an interventionist would be.

See how that's done, you find something to argue about. There will be those who agree and disagree but the topic is interventionism primarily and only secondarily Ran's position.

[Chris]

Back then the loans were not required or approved by government. The guilds colluded.

OK, another time, let's get back to Bo's BS.