Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wonder who wrote the definition you quote? Because politics shouldn't be confused with free markets, or rights or liberties. Free markets govern themselves with little oversight. A guiding hand, not what we have today with crony capitalism and tax, banking laws set up to make the bankers richer while the average American suffers. A small federal government, with power in the hands of the state and the individual is what this country was intended to be. The federal government has per the constitution a very strict set of things it can engage in. What they do today is well beyond their scope as set forth by our founders. 

    Does it seem strange to you that greater than 50% of those in congress are millionaires? How about the fact that they became millionaires while in congress. Special interest groups have this country and the politicians by the stones. Because of this, bankers benefit, not the tax payer. Banker bailout? How about giving that money to the taxpayers that were raked over the coals with a propped up and criminal derivatives market that was designed to implode. What do the bankers care? No one goes to jail, they just get bigger bonuses, leaving us to foot the bill. 

    Wozzys comment about the Fed is spot on. Congress is the only entity charged with the printing of money and control of interest rates. What the Fed is, is a cabal of bankers who rig the system, drive us further into debt so we are beholden to them via that debt and interest payments. A private banking organization like the Fed has no business setting monetary policy or the printing of money. It's criminal to say the least. With this control, it doesn't matter who or what party is in office, because the control of a country, our country is about who controls the money..see the Fed. 

    [/QUOTE]

    What he said...

    Which also makes a lot more sense than throwing your hands up and saying nobody is accountable, which is exactly how we got in this deep cesspool in the first place.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Uncle Rico. Show Uncle Rico's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to Brady2Welker47's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Brady2Welker47

    Anyone? Any idea how Sam the Ram is doing in OTAs?

    [/QUOTE]


    I hear he is fitting in pretty tight with the other guys.

    But I think of Michael Sam the way I thought about Favre in his final years: no matter what jersey he wears, he will always be a Packer.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Why did ESPN have to shove personal Sam moment down our throats?

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bradysgirlforreal's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    we know the problem Wozzy- Now come up with a solution?

    [/QUOTE]

    Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura ticket, a mass social media campaign to write them in.  Dissolve the privately owned Federal Reserve and have America start printing our own money again.  Refuse any United Nations resolutions that try to circumvent our Constiturion.  Remove money and special interests from politics entirely.  Abolish electronic voting. Jail the bankers and financers who have purposely tried to bankrupt America.  Give states the power to govern themselves with little Federal oversight.  Legalize industrial hemp and make it a major cash crop and stop the destruction of our national resources immediately.  The solutions are there and pretty straight forward.  The actions necessary and mobilization is the hard part, people are confused, pulled in every direction by false prophets, tea party's and  people labeling themselves as Libertarians.  The sure sign someone is FOS is if they say they can work within and around the two party system and make things better.  The system is broken.

    [/QUOTE]

    These are just empty postulates. Remove money and special interests from politics? That is perhaps the most naive statement of the year. One of the most well-known definitions of politics is that "Politics is the distribution of ressources in a society." It is all about money and special interests - as it has always been. 

    I think I dislike bankers as much as the next guy, but IMO they did not purposely try to bankrupt the country, they tried to get rich. The answer is not to remove federal jurisdiction in this - or other areas. It is, obviously, to regulate the banking sector better.

    Complicated problems are not always - if ever - Gordic knots, to be solved with a simple solution. Complicated problems most often need complicated solutions. 

    I don't believe in quick fixes, not for the economy and not for the exhaustion of natural resources.

    Supra societatem nemo

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I wonder who wrote the definition you quote? Because politics shouldn't be confused with free markets, or rights or liberties. Free markets govern themselves with little oversight. A guiding hand, not what we have today with crony capitalism and tax, banking laws set up to make the bankers richer while the average American suffers. A small federal government, with power in the hands of the state and the individual is what this country was intended to be. The federal government has per the constitution a very strict set of things it can engage in. What they do today is well beyond their scope as set forth by our founders. 

    Does it seem strange to you that greater than 50% of those in congress are millionaires? How about the fact that they became millionaires while in congress. Special interest groups have this country and the politicians by the stones. Because of this, bankers benefit, not the tax payer. Banker bailout? How about giving that money to the taxpayers that were raked over the coals with a propped up and criminal derivatives market that was designed to implode. What do the bankers care? No one goes to jail, they just get bigger bonuses, leaving us to foot the bill. 

    Wozzys comment about the Fed is spot on. Congress is the only entity charged with the printing of money and control of interest rates. What the Fed is, is a cabal of bankers who rig the system, drive us further into debt so we are beholden to them via that debt and interest payments. A private banking organization like the Fed has no business setting monetary policy or the printing of money. It's criminal to say the least. With this control, it doesn't matter who or what party is in office, because the control of a country, our country is about who controls the money..see the Fed. 

    [/QUOTE]
     I don't think it is credited to a single person, but it expresses the concept of pluralism, where Robert Dahl is one of the more prominent scholars on the subject.

    And no, politics is not a market (on a sidenote I don't believe that a completely free market is selfregulating in a desirable way. For it to function properly it would need full transperency for consumers to make optimal choices, and that transperency is far away).

    The federal reserve needs to be independent of government to ensure international trust in the US Dollar. Be it a private company or not, that independency is crucial.

    Domestic policy in essence is about how much money should be collected in taxes - and from whom - and how to redistribute that tax revenue. Should it be spent on infrastructure or education, on the military or the police, on social services or tax cuts. These are all legitimate wishes (=special interests) that are being championed by elected representatives fighting it out in Congress. Thereby politics is about the distribution of ressources.

    wozzys statement , IMO, suggests a belief that there is a objectively correct answer to how government should work and how ressources should be redistributed. I don't think that's the case. There is a very wide spectrum of legitimate outcomes to that struggle for ressources.

    The American Constitution is a wonderful piece of work, no doubt about it. It encorporates the division of power in the legislativt, executive and judicial branches described by Montesquieu (sp) and the classical idea of division of power between to houses and an individual as found in the Roman republic. BUT! There is only one constitutional reading of the Constitution, and that is the one expressed by the Supreme Court. Contradicting interpretations are constitutionally unconstitutional. So please, the notion "if only we lived by the Constitution as it was intended everything would be fine and dandy" is nonsence. You ARE living by the Constitution as it was intended.

    As I understand it your currency is actually not printed by the Fed but by the Department of Treasury, but I could be wrong.

    Supra societatem nemo

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share