[aldante]

Many in the “tea party” would say that there should not be a department of education or public schools.

[aldante]

Many in the “tea party” would say that there should not be a department of education or public schools.

[aldante]

Many in the “tea party” would say that there should not be a department of education or public schools.

[aldante]

Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.

[aldante]

Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.

[aldante]

Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.

[aldante]

Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.

[aldante]

Faterikcantman seems to have won this discussion on its merits. Our system has flaws and one of them seems to be that judical review can be used for political purposes. “Seperation of Church and State” is a different concept then the exemption clause. It seems that the exemption clause was used to enforce seperation of Church and State. I do not want anyone telling me what religion to abide by. But I certainly do not want to live in the same society where I could drive down the street and see a woman getting stoned by rocks either. The difference is that our common understanding of what is right and wrong came from somewhere and in this country it came from a mixture of Judeo-Christian beliefs combined with ideas from the enlightenment…..all Western European/American. A society must have common beliefs in order to operate as a society. Otherwise it fractures and divides. For our country to fracture and divide would spell the end of our strength. Our commonality is our stength. I think one thing most of us agree upon is the right of the minority to be heard, but that does not mean that the minority rules.
So our mores must have some commonality. O’Donnell was right as Faterikcantmen proves. My real question is whether she knew she was right or not? Everyone who laughted at her showed either their bias or their ignorance. But guess what now we are talking about what the Constitution means or should mean. We are not talking about partisen b.s. That is the type of dialogue that has been missed for many years in this country. I hope it comes back.

[aldante]

Thanks for your collective posts. I was wondering though if anyone has seen the movie? It looks like the closest showing is this Friday in Irvine. I do not want to drive up there and see some fluff job movie that just tried to blame an administration. In the above link the director says that there was criminal activity which lead to the 2008 which I completely agree with.

[aldante]

Thanks for your collective posts. I was wondering though if anyone has seen the movie? It looks like the closest showing is this Friday in Irvine. I do not want to drive up there and see some fluff job movie that just tried to blame an administration. In the above link the director says that there was criminal activity which lead to the 2008 which I completely agree with.

[aldante]

Thanks for your collective posts. I was wondering though if anyone has seen the movie? It looks like the closest showing is this Friday in Irvine. I do not want to drive up there and see some fluff job movie that just tried to blame an administration. In the above link the director says that there was criminal activity which lead to the 2008 which I completely agree with.

[aldante]

Thanks for your collective posts. I was wondering though if anyone has seen the movie? It looks like the closest showing is this Friday in Irvine. I do not want to drive up there and see some fluff job movie that just tried to blame an administration. In the above link the director says that there was criminal activity which lead to the 2008 which I completely agree with.

[aldante]

Thanks for your collective posts. I was wondering though if anyone has seen the movie? It looks like the closest showing is this Friday in Irvine. I do not want to drive up there and see some fluff job movie that just tried to blame an administration. In the above link the director says that there was criminal activity which lead to the 2008 which I completely agree with.

[aldante]

But to get back to the original point, I don’t have any great problem with the fractional reserve system in general. But I have a big problem with the manner in which it has been administered – problems exacerbated by the likes of Greenspan, Bernanke, Summers, et al. But let’s not confuse the two issues. And, more on topic, none of this has anything to do with the legitimacy of Edward Griffin. In this debate, both Greenspan and Griffin can be quacks. It’s not a mutually exclusive condition.[/quote]

I am glad that you have reached this conclusion. Becasue
My Point is this…….Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The entire money printing system is thus out of joint and needs to be changed.
By the way most of the Economic papers I have read use Scientific evidence. And while “discovery of priciples” those priciples are only valid if they can predict outcomes.

[aldante]

But to get back to the original point, I don’t have any great problem with the fractional reserve system in general. But I have a big problem with the manner in which it has been administered – problems exacerbated by the likes of Greenspan, Bernanke, Summers, et al. But let’s not confuse the two issues. And, more on topic, none of this has anything to do with the legitimacy of Edward Griffin. In this debate, both Greenspan and Griffin can be quacks. It’s not a mutually exclusive condition.[/quote]

I am glad that you have reached this conclusion. Becasue
My Point is this…….Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The entire money printing system is thus out of joint and needs to be changed.
By the way most of the Economic papers I have read use Scientific evidence. And while “discovery of priciples” those priciples are only valid if they can predict outcomes.

[Author]

Posts