[urbanrealtor]

Okay I have not been trolling here long enough to know this person. Can someone give me some insight on this? Was she actually banned or what? I am curious given some of the discourse here as to what is required to actually get you booted. When I do a search under her name the search just runs forever.

[urbanrealtor]

Okay I have not been trolling here long enough to know this person. Can someone give me some insight on this? Was she actually banned or what? I am curious given some of the discourse here as to what is required to actually get you booted. When I do a search under her name the search just runs forever.

[urbanrealtor]

While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.

[urbanrealtor]

While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.

[urbanrealtor]

While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.

[urbanrealtor]

While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.

[urbanrealtor]

While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.

[urbanrealtor]

Nothing to contribute. The responses though, are pretty funny.

How about a gold leaf hat?

Would it keep out the rays of major league baseball?

[urbanrealtor]

Nothing to contribute. The responses though, are pretty funny.

How about a gold leaf hat?

Would it keep out the rays of major league baseball?

[urbanrealtor]

Nothing to contribute. The responses though, are pretty funny.

How about a gold leaf hat?

Would it keep out the rays of major league baseball?

[urbanrealtor]

Nothing to contribute. The responses though, are pretty funny.

How about a gold leaf hat?

Would it keep out the rays of major league baseball?

[urbanrealtor]

Nothing to contribute. The responses though, are pretty funny.

How about a gold leaf hat?

Would it keep out the rays of major league baseball?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]Wealth can not be built without credit expanding.

If you base the amount of money available on gold so that credit growth is based on Gold then you limit how fast you can expand credit since Gold would have to be acquired to support the debt.

All currencies are fiat now. Its doesn’t matter if it is fiat because its the governments that have been so reckless over the last 50 years spending it. Our spending is out of control due to the leaders we have elected not on the currency.

A country with a flat tax or a consumption tax and a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget would do great with fiat money.

John[/quote]
Please elaborate.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]Wealth can not be built without credit expanding.

If you base the amount of money available on gold so that credit growth is based on Gold then you limit how fast you can expand credit since Gold would have to be acquired to support the debt.

All currencies are fiat now. Its doesn’t matter if it is fiat because its the governments that have been so reckless over the last 50 years spending it. Our spending is out of control due to the leaders we have elected not on the currency.

A country with a flat tax or a consumption tax and a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget would do great with fiat money.

John[/quote]
Please elaborate.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=jficquette]Wealth can not be built without credit expanding.

If you base the amount of money available on gold so that credit growth is based on Gold then you limit how fast you can expand credit since Gold would have to be acquired to support the debt.

All currencies are fiat now. Its doesn’t matter if it is fiat because its the governments that have been so reckless over the last 50 years spending it. Our spending is out of control due to the leaders we have elected not on the currency.

A country with a flat tax or a consumption tax and a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget would do great with fiat money.

John[/quote]
Please elaborate.

[Author]

Posts