Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once again I support the States rights to fix both of these problems and that is what we should be hearing from {R} leaders.Instead they just want a seat at the table and craft a Strong centralized gvt one size fits all solution.Where are the conservatives that use to support state rights?
Even though the Romney Plan is not working out I give him a lot of credit for doing his job as Gov.
But where do you stand? I think you might be in favor of the state banks but then on the other hand you are pushing for Obamacare?If that is true the view is inconsistent with freedom and state rights.
Thanks for posting a article from my girl and it is good to see that HuffPo is carrying her.I really like her because she is smart and has ideas,much better then Palin who screeches drill baby drill and has no new ideas or substance.Here is one of the reasons why I like this idea:
Quote:
An important part of sovereignty is the monetary authority. Currently, banks are allowed to multiply many times over the tax receipts deposited in their institutions. This special privilege is partly responsible for the 'sucking sound' in our local economies, as regional banks send their assets to central banks that are playing the derivatives markets of the world. A state bank would restore this privilege to the people in a public trust and would give us the opportunity to back our deposits with the wealth from our public lands
What we have now is the FR and the banking cartel gambling and when they lose the tax payer picks up the tab.With state banks that would come to a end and the money would hit main street where it belongs and is needed.
The current system is robbing us and taking away are freedom and the only way we can de fund them and take away their power is to claim our sovereignty through the states.
Actually having a government bank is a great idea. That is what should have happened with the bailouts. Those banks, like BOA, should have been declared dead and put in the hands of the government to be ran as a public trust. Instead Obama just handed them over the cash which they used to become even bigger than they were (for example Chase taking over WaMu) thus insuring the next failure will be even more catastrophic for the economy and the nation and will cost us in the TRILLIONS to bail out. And there is no assurance that the Chinese will bail us out next time.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,769,842 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex
Yeah lets not have a strong defense and hope we arent ever attacked or invaded due to lack of a strong military
We will not be attacked on invaded from another nation because we have a nuclear deterrent. Who the hell is going to attack us? Canada? Mexico? Don't think so.
We will be attacked by rouge terrorist despite the military as we almost were on Christmas day. Terrorism is largely a law enforcement function and not a military function. Now, if we are hit by terrorist and a foreign nation is involved, the military should be used to PUNISH the offending nation and not to invade or nation build there. We don't need to do "regime change". We need to just bomb the **** out of them and knock out all the government buildings, power plants, telco infrastructure and major roads, bridges and ports. Once we have destroyed their economy, the people themselves will do "regime change" because they won't want it again.
NONE of this requires huge defense budgets and hundreds of foreign and domestic bases.
I don't know about closet socialists but I do know that a disproportionate number of Republican politicians are closet gays due to the fact that their chances of getting elected by the republican voters is nil if they came out of the closet.
Once again I support the States rights to fix both of these problems and that is what we should be hearing from {R} leaders.Instead they just want a seat at the table and craft a Strong centralized gvt one size fits all solution.Where are the conservatives that use to support state rights?
Conservatives, if they ever existed as anything more than a myth, are anyway virtually extinct. For the most part, the people I see that claim that term for themselves are anything but and have disc jockeys shape their agenda and policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reid_g
Even though the Romney Plan is not working out I give him a lot of credit for doing his job as Gov.
But where do you stand? I think you might be in favor of the state banks but then on the other hand you are pushing for Obamacare?If that is true the view is inconsistent with freedom and state rights.
I don't see any inconsistency. State, city and federal agencies' politicians, policies and agendas, cooperate and sometimes conflict with each other all the time. And I do believe states can opt out of the plans if they so desire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reid_g
Thanks for posting a article from my girl and it is good to see that HuffPo is carrying her.I really like her because she is smart and has ideas,much better then Palin who screeches drill baby drill and has no new ideas or substance.Here is one of the reasons why I like this idea:
What we have now is the FR and the banking cartel gambling and when they lose the tax payer picks up the tab.With state banks that would come to a end and the money would hit main street where it belongs and is needed.
The current system is robbing us and taking away are freedom and the only way we can de fund them and take away their power is to claim our sovereignty through the states.
I have seen proposals for the creation of a national bank also. I believe its possible for government banks and for profit private banks to co-exist with each other. That state bank is a great example to follow.
When it comes to the military, they're fine with socialism.
I doubt a lot of them will give up Medicare and Social Security if they had the choice. It's just words.
Military is not a socialistic endeavor. They are responsible for the defense of the country.
Yeah lets not have a strong defense and hope we arent ever attacked or invaded due to lack of a strong military
I'm not the one that takes a big **** on socialism. You like the military, well, there is apparently one branch where socialism can work just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Military is not a socialistic endeavor. They are responsible for the defense of the country.
Please explain how a sector that is completely financed by the government is not a "socialistic endeavor".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
