Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: A Calamity Too Far

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default A Calamity Too Far

    Donald Trump’s scorecard on cabinet appointments, advisors, etc. reads 50-50 at best. That many calamitous decisions shows a serious flaw in the character judgement department.

    Trump’s flat refusal to fire every Clinton/Obama holdover was a calamity too far. It was a major disaster for him and the country. Surely, the press quoting his enemies while they had a job looked a lot better than quoting FORMER so-and-so. Who in hell pays attention to a FORMER anything? That single calamity surely cost Trump the House in 2018 as well as being responsible his election problem today.

    Count the number of holdovers with a public voice who are contributing to stealing the election from Trump if you doubt me.

    Bottom line: No president can be paired with Ronald Reagan after making that many mistakes.

    The first 12 words in the title is correct.

    Trump to go down in history for what he did for GOP; on par with Lincoln and Reagan
    November 15, 2020
    Vivek Saxena

    https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/11...-reagan-996675

    Trump sure as hell never did anything for conservatism or conservatives.

    Pairing Trump with Lincoln is okay. Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson each made an unforgivable mistake —— the Civil War and World War One.

    NOTE: Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    The Federal Reserve System was not created on December 23, 1913 as most Americans believe. The Fed was actually created in 1910:



    Eventually the Fed devalued purchasing power. Read how it was done:


    The Bureau of Engraving and Printing
    By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
    December 18, 2019

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/...g-and-printing

    That brings me to:




    Shelton has generated opposition for her pointed criticisms of the Fed and her advocacy for a return to the gold standard as a monetary system.

    Earlier this year, her nomination faced several challenges after multiple Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee said her views made her unsuitable for a seat on the Fed's board of governors.

    Shelton said in 2011 that the Fed is "almost a rogue agency" and asked whether it could be trusted in having oversight of the dollar. She has also called for a 0% inflation target, as opposed to the bank's current 2% target, and has raised the "fundamental question" of "Why do we need a central bank?"

    She has raised concerns on both sides of the aisle for her view that the Fed should have less power and independent discretion and instead have closer ties to the White House.


    Controversial Trump Fed nominee Judy Shelton headed toward Senate floor vote
    by Nihal Krishan
    November 12, 2020 03:24 PM

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ate-floor-vote


    Will Shelton be one of Trump’s better appointments?
    The answer depends upon who you ask:

    William Jennings Bryan was talking about absentee ownership before the term became known. Notice three things in the speech:

    1. The Democrat Party did stand for working Americans before the party became the party of absentee owners and tax dollar millionaires.

    2. Every American owned precious metal in the form of silver coins.

    3. Every American purchased the necessities of life with silver coins or silver certificates.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...71#post3105371

    I did not follow the Shelton pros an cons; so I wonder if this speech was even mentioned:

    William Jennings Bryan

    Democratic National Convention Address

    originally delivered 8 July 1896 and later recorded in studio

    "A Cross of Gold"


    Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were mere measuring of abilities; but this is not a contest between persons. The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty -- the cause of humanity.

    When this debate is concluded, a motion will made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in commendation of the Administration, and also the resolution offered in condemnation of the Administration. We object to bringing this question down to the level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal, and this has been a contest over a principle.

    Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have just passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been, by the voters of a great party. On the fourth of March, 1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of Congress, issued an address to the Democrats of the nation, asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; declaring that a majority of the Democratic party had the right to control the action of the party on this paramount issue; and concluding with the request that the believers in the free coinage of silver in the Democratic party should organize, take charge of and control the policy of the Democratic party.

    Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver Democrats went forth openly and courageously proclaiming their belief, and declaring that, if successful, they would crystallize into a platform the declaration which they had made. Then began the conflict. With a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit, our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory, until they are now assembled, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment already rendered by the plain people of this country. In this contest brother has been arrayed against brother, father against son. The warmest ties of love, acquaintance and association have been disregarded; old leaders have been cast aside when they have refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of truth. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever imposed upon representatives of the people.

    We do not come as individuals. As individuals we might have been glad to compliment the gentleman from New York [Senator Hill], but we know that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic party. I say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle, and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side.

    The gentleman who preceded me [ex-Governor Russell] spoke of the State of Massachusetts; let me assure him that not one present in all this convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the State of Massachusetts, but we stand here representing people who are the equals before the law, of the greatest citizens in the State of Massachusetts. When you [turning to the gold delegates] come before us and tell us that we are about to disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your course.

    We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day -- who begins in the spring and toils all summer -- and who by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are as much business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world. We come to speak for this broader class of business men.

    Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose -- the pioneers away out there [pointing to the West], who rear their children near to Nature's heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds -- out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their young, churches where they praise their Creator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their dead -- these people, we say, are as deserving of the consideration of our party as any people in this country. It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them.

    The gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he fears a Robespierre. My friends, in this land of the free you need not fear that a tyrant will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand, as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of organized wealth. They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which Democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen, and we are here to meet these conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that it is a new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have not criticized; we have simply called attention to what you already know. If you want criticisms read the dissenting opinions of the court. There you will find criticism. They say that we passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The income tax law was not unconstitutional when it was passed; it was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time; it did not become unconstitutional until one of the judges changed his mind, and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind. The income tax is just. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

    They say that we are opposing national bank currency. It is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said you will find he said that, in searching history, he would find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson; that was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracy of Cataline and saved Rome. Benton said that Cicero only did for Rome what Jackson did for us when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America. We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe that it is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have differed in opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank, and that the Government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of government, and that the banks ought to go out of the governing business.

    They complain about the plank which declares against life tenure in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What we oppose by that plank is the life tenure which is being built up in Washington, and which excludes from participation in official benefits the humbler members of society. Let me call your attention to two or three important things. The gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment to the platform providing that the proposed change in our monetary system shall not affect contracts already made. Let me remind you that there is no intention of affecting those contracts which according to present laws are made payable in gold; but he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, I desire to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find justification for not protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was passed, if he now insists that we must protect the creditors.

    He says he will also propose an amendment which will provide for the suspension of free coinage if we fail to maintain the parity within a year. We reply that when we advocate a policy which we believe will be successful, we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by suggesting what we shall do if we fail. I ask him, if he would apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. He says he wants this country to try to secure an international agreement. Why does he not tell us what he is going to do if he fails to secure an international agreement? There is more reason for him to do that than there is for us to provide against the failure to maintain the parity.

    Our opponents have tried for twenty years to secure an international agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who do not want it at all.

    And now, my friends, let me come to the paramount issue. If they ask us why it is that we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that, if protection has slain its thousands, the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we do not embody in our platform all the things that we believe in, we reply that when we have restored the money of the Constitution all other necessary reform will be possible, but that until this is done there is no other reform that can be accomplished.

    Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the country? Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who believe in the gold standard would frame our platform and nominate our candidates, even the advocates to the gold standard did not think that we could elect a President. And they had good reason for their doubt, because there is scarcely a State here to-day asking for the gold standard which is not in the absolute control of the Republican party. But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform which declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until it can be changed into bimetallism by international agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans, and three months ago everybody in the Republican party prophesied his election. How is it to-day? Why, the man who was once pleased to think that he looked like Napoleon -- that man shudders to-day when he remembers that he was nominated on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but as he listens he can hear with ever-increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena.

    Why this change? Ah, my friends, is not the reason for the change evident to any one who will look at the matter? No private character, however pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an indignant people a man who will declare that he is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this country, or who is willing to surrender the right of self-government and place the legislative control of our affairs in the hands of foreign potentates and powers.

    We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the paramount issue of this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. If they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we shall point to their platform and tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of the gold standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? I call your attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention to-day, and who tell us that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism -- thereby declaring that the gold standard is wrong and that the principle of bimetallism is better -- these very people four months ago were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard, and were then telling us that we could not legislate two metals together, even with the aid of all the world. If the gold standard is a good thing we ought to declare in favor of its retention, and not in favor of abandoning it, and if the gold standard is a bad thing, why should we wait until other nations are willing to help us to let go? Here is the line of battle, and we care not upon which issue they force the fight; we are prepared to meet them on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most enlightened of all the nations of the earth, has never declared for a gold standard and that both the great parties this year are declaring against it. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have it? If they come to meet us on that issue we can present the history of our nation. More than that -- we can tell them that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance where the common people of any land have ever declared themselves in favor of the gold standard. They can find where the holders of fixed investments have declared for a gold standard, but not where the masses have.

    Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between "the idle holders of idle capital" and "the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country," and, my friends, the question we are to decide is, upon which side will the Democratic party fight -- upon the side of "the idle holders of idle capital," or upon the side of "the struggling masses"? That is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.

    You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms, and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

    My friends, we declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every State in the Union. I shall not slander the inhabitants of the fair State of Massachusetts nor the inhabitants of the State of New York by saying that, when they are confronted with the proposition, they will declare that this nation is not able to attend to its own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3,000,000 in number, had the courage to declare their political independence on every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70,000,000 declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?

    No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

    https://www.americanrhetoric.com/spe...yan1896dnc.htm
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    UPDATE

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    her advocacy for a return to the gold standard as a monetary system.

    XXXXX

    "A Cross of Gold"
    Controversial Trump Fed nominee Judy Shelton fails key vote, leaving confirmation in doubt
    by Nihal Krishan
    November 17, 2020 03:48 PM

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...fails-key-vote
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    70,468
    Thanks
    3,125
    Thanked 15,029 Times in 12,559 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,401 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    talking 1500 words to say what you should be able to condense the main thoughts into 200 words and get 97% of the idea through is failing.

    I am too old for this low of quality.

    For this lack of consideration.
    This illegal illegitimate regime that runs America is at fault...not me.... they do not represent me and I have long objected to their crimes against humanity.

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    talking 1500 words to say what you should be able to condense the main thoughts into 200 words and get 97% of the idea through is failing.
    To Hawkeye10: Actually there are 3,616 words in number 2 permalink.

    So is four words condensed enough for your bumper sticker mentality? Mind your own business.
    Last edited by Flanders; 11-19-2020 at 06:44 AM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    70,468
    Thanks
    3,125
    Thanked 15,029 Times in 12,559 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,401 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Hawkeye10: Actually there are 3,616 words in number 2 permalink.

    So is four words condensed enough for you bumper sticker mentality? Mind your own business.
    I am minding my business.

    Have you ever considered trying to improve your content?

    You are such a time suck which is so narcissistic, HOW DARE YOU!
    This illegal illegitimate regime that runs America is at fault...not me.... they do not represent me and I have long objected to their crimes against humanity.

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    I am minding my business.
    To Hawkeye10: How is dictating the length of my message your business?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Have you ever considered trying to improve your content?
    To Hawkeye10: There you go again —— minding my business.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    You are such a time suck
    To Hawkeye10: It is my time. Put me on your ‘IGNORE’ list —— Asshole —— and stop wasting my time with inane replies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    which is so narcissistic,
    To Hawkeye10: You got one right. I love myself more than I love Democrat parasites.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    HOW DARE YOU!
    To Hawkeye10: Moron. I always dare to post messages that you and your kind are too stupid to grasp.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    70,468
    Thanks
    3,125
    Thanked 15,029 Times in 12,559 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,401 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Hawkeye10: How is dictating the length of my message your business?



    To Hawkeye10: There you go again —— minding my business.



    To Hawkeye10: It is my time. Put me on your ‘IGNORE’ list —— Asshole —— and stop wasting my time with inane replies.



    To Hawkeye10: You got one right. I love myself more than I love Democrat parasites.



    To Hawkeye10: Moron. I always dare to post messages that you and your kind are too stupid to grasp.
    Oh Please.....my kind dont use ignore lists.

    We also run our own mouths...we decide.

    As you should know.

    Appear 2 not know.

    SAD
    This illegal illegitimate regime that runs America is at fault...not me.... they do not represent me and I have long objected to their crimes against humanity.

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Realville
    Posts
    31,850
    Thanks
    1,475
    Thanked 6,520 Times in 5,217 Posts
    Groans
    779
    Groaned 2,477 Times in 2,299 Posts

    Default

    Fiat money is the bane of mans economic existence.

    The Fed should be abolished

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to canceled.2021.1 For This Post:

    Flanders (11-19-2020)

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Realville
    Posts
    31,850
    Thanks
    1,475
    Thanked 6,520 Times in 5,217 Posts
    Groans
    779
    Groaned 2,477 Times in 2,299 Posts

    Default

    The gold standard was eliminated because it is the only way gobblement can run up massive debts and rob the citizens

    Americans are waking up to the fraud

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to canceled.2021.1 For This Post:

    Flanders (11-19-2020)

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Oh Please.....my kind dont use ignore lists.
    To Hawkeye10: I have to keep trying and hoping.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    We also run our own mouths...we decide.
    To Hawkeye10: Get serious! People like you never had an original thought, or an opinion, in your lives. You would all be speechless if Democrat Party talking points were not sent daily to mindless fools via government TV.
    More importantly, halfwits like you willing watch Big Brother.


    Quote Originally Posted by I Love America View Post
    The Fed should be abolished
    To I love America: Amen.

    Quote Originally Posted by I Love America View Post
    The gold standard was eliminated because it is the only way gobblement can run up massive debts and rob the citizens

    Americans are waking up to the fraud
    To I love America: Notice that Judy Shelton objects to the Fed that the public agrees with —— than she cleverly endorses the gold standard. That is called Having It Both Ways.

    With establishment Republicans like Shelton it will be a long time before the American people wake up.
    Last edited by Flanders; 11-19-2020 at 06:35 AM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    70,468
    Thanks
    3,125
    Thanked 15,029 Times in 12,559 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,401 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Hawkeye10: I have to keep trying and hoping.



    To Hawkeye10: Get serious! People like you never had an original thought, or an opinion, in your lives. You would all be speechless if Democrat Party talking points were not sent daily to mindless fools via government TV.
    More importantly, halfwits like you willing watch Big Brother.




    To I love America: Amen.



    To I love America: Notice that Judy Shelton objects to the Fed that the public agrees with —— than she cleverly endorses the gold standard. That is called Having It Both Ways.

    With establishment Republicans like Shelton it will be long time before the American people wake up.
    What a liar.

    Your content is low quality and you lie and you behave like a DICK...that about does it for me.
    This illegal illegitimate regime that runs America is at fault...not me.... they do not represent me and I have long objected to their crimes against humanity.

  15. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Cymru/ Wails
    Posts
    6,356
    Thanks
    3,525
    Thanked 2,507 Times in 1,787 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,738 Times in 1,599 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I have commented on Flanders' wordiness before. I have a short attention span, and he does go on so! Which side does he favour, I wonder.

  16. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iolo/Penderyn View Post
    Which side does he favour, I wonder.
    To Iolo/Penderyn: The limited government side —— the original Constitution and the first Ten Amendments in words even you can understand.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  17. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Cymru/ Wails
    Posts
    6,356
    Thanks
    3,525
    Thanked 2,507 Times in 1,787 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,738 Times in 1,599 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Iolo/Penderyn: The limited government side —— the original Constitution and the first Ten Amendments in words even you can understand.
    Yes - learn to keep it short like that. I don't see the relevance, but the words are clear.

Similar Threads

  1. Trump's Mordor-climate calamity
    By Micawber in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-27-2020, 03:01 PM
  2. plastic: a global environmental calamity
    By anatta in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 184
    Last Post: 03-13-2020, 12:03 PM
  3. Trump Followed His Gut on Syria. Calamity Came Fast.
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-14-2019, 01:52 PM
  4. Calamity Rhymes With Amnesty
    By Flanders in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-11-2019, 06:20 AM
  5. A National Calamity in the Making
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-14-2017, 12:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •