Biden wants to Appoint Communist to take over Banking: Scary & Unbelievable

[Generation55]

Republicans maybe only want 10-20% of government control over the necessary things that protects our life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Like women’s health and corporate mask mandates.

What part of women's health are Republicans trying to control? If you're talking about abortion, that has to do with protecting the freedom and liberty of the baby in the womb, not about women's health. Childbirth right now is at the safest and least risky level than it's ever been in the history of mankind. And if the mother's life is actually in danger, then the abortion wold be OK to protect the mother's life and liberty.

And most Republicans I've seen and talked to have no problem with corporations requiring it for their businesses but they have a huge problem with the Big Government Draconian Authoritarian Mandate of Sleepy Clueless Joe Biden. That's why a bunch of liberals thought it was a "Gotcha!" when Fox News had a vaccine mandate and Republicans didn't complain. Yeah, because Fox News is not Big Daddy Government.

 

[Generation55]

You do realize that part of the reason we have North Korea today is because Eisenhower gave up and left the country divided. The war was supposed to unite the country but he basically just gave up.

Dwight Eisenhower was a REPUBLICAN. Yes, a REPUBLICAN.

Furthermore, the US-led coalition was up against some 1.5 million Chinese soldiers, and Presidents Truman and Eisenhower didn't want to start World War III.

He was a Republican, but the party switch did not happen yet. So, Eisenhower was basically a Democrat. He was HUGE on Big Daddy Government. Are you kidding me? He expanded so many government programs.

 

[lpetrich]

He was a Republican, but the party switch did not happen yet. So, Eisenhower was basically a Democrat. He was HUGE on Big Daddy Government. Are you kidding me? He expanded so many government programs.

If Eisenhower was a RINO, then Abe Lincoln was an even bigger RINO. Think of it. According to right-wing ideology, he raised taxes, he did lots of government giveaways and crony capitalism, he led a war of aggression against the South, he stole enormous amounts of property by decreeing its lack of ownership, ...

 

[lpetrich]

And most Republicans I've seen and talked to have no problem with corporations requiring it for their businesses but they have a huge problem with the Big Government Draconian Authoritarian Mandate of Sleepy Clueless Joe Biden. ...

Such gross hatred.

 

[Ford]

You do realize that part of the reason we have North Korea today is because Eisenhower gave up and left the country divided. The war was supposed to unite the country but he basically just gave up.

Dwight Eisenhower was a REPUBLICAN. Yes, a REPUBLICAN.

Furthermore, the US-led coalition was up against some 1.5 million Chinese soldiers, and Presidents Truman and Eisenhower didn't want to start World War III.

He was a Republican, but the party switch did not happen yet.

Ah...so when the racists quit the Democratic party over Civil Rights and switched to the GOP, the Republicans became your jam.

 

[Generation55]

And most Republicans I've seen and talked to have no problem with corporations requiring it for their businesses but they have a huge problem with the Big Government Draconian Authoritarian Mandate of Sleepy Clueless Joe Biden. ...

Such gross hatred.

Because I called him Sleepy Clueless Joe Biden? My God, you guys called Trump every vile name in the book. Kathy Griffin even held up a bloody beheaded Trump and you think calling someone sleepy and clueless is a big no-no for your feelings? C'mon!!

 

[Generation55]

He was a Republican, but the party switch did not happen yet. So, Eisenhower was basically a Democrat. He was HUGE on Big Daddy Government. Are you kidding me? He expanded so many government programs.

If Eisenhower was a RINO, then Abe Lincoln was an even bigger RINO. Think of it. According to right-wing ideology, he raised taxes, he did lots of government giveaways and crony capitalism, he led a war of aggression against the South, he stole enormous amounts of property by decreeing its lack of ownership, ...

He was. He freed the slaves which is the government's job to protect freedom and liberty. But you're right after doing some reading on Lincoln, he was really big on government.

Government welfare and the war on poverty has cost Americans 22 trillion dollars since the 1960's and it has done nothing except decimate poor whites and blacks. Perhaps people are dumb enough to think that maybe if we throw another 22 trillion smackers at the problem, it will magically get better.

Cut the programs=lighting a fire under everyone's ass=low unemployment rate. Republicans know this. Democrats do not.

 

[bilby]

If you're talking about abortion, that has to do with protecting the freedom and liberty of the baby in the womb, not about women's health.

FFS, "the womb". Not anybody's womb, just the freestanding, self sufficient womb that belongs only to the fetus it contains.

The womb that, as a totally independent life form, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with women's health.

Gotcha.

Let me know when you get these up and running, and I'll consider the possibility of taking your position seriously, at least for long enough to gasp for breath between guffaws.

ETA: I don't even know where to start with the insane concept of freedom and liberty for babies, much less fetuses. What possible freedom could either have? They're totally dependent entities, freedom would be almost instantly fatal to them.

 

[Generation55]

If you're talking about abortion, that has to do with protecting the freedom and liberty of the baby in the womb, not about women's health.

FFS, "the womb". Not anybody's womb, just the freestanding, self sufficient womb that belongs only to the fetus it contains.

The womb that, as a totally independent life form, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with women's health.

Gotcha.

Let me know when you get these up and running, and I'll consider the possibility of taking your position seriously, at least for long enough to gasp for breath between guffaws.

ETA: I don't even know where to start with the insane concept of freedom and liberty for babies, much less fetuses. What possible freedom could either have? They're totally dependent entities, freedom would be almost instantly fatal to them.

The babies are dependent when they get out of the womb, too. Let the baby be born and place the baby on the table and then do nothing and see what happens. The baby will die. Who's job is it to protect the life of the baby, if not us?

 

[Swammerdami]

This discussion may be useful; both "sides" have something to learn and something to teach.

But I'm not sure Generation55 is trying to learn; he's left many questions unanswered. Until he shows a willingness to answer difficult questions, I'm going to nominate this song to be Generation55's theme song!

 

[Generation55]

This discussion may be useful; both "sides" have something to learn and something to teach.

But I'm not sure Generation55 is trying to learn; he's left many questions unanswered. Until he shows a willingness to answer difficult questions, I'm going to nominate this song to be Generation55's theme song!

I have written countless paragraphs in these threads with questions that went unanswered.

 

[Swammerdami]

This discussion may be useful; both "sides" have something to learn and something to teach.

But I'm not sure Generation55 is trying to learn; he's left many questions unanswered. Until he shows a willingness to answer difficult questions, I'm going to nominate this song to be Generation55's theme song!

I have written countless paragraphs in these threads with questions that went unanswered.

Point to a few of them. I'll give my answers.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The paper in question sounds a lot like the Chicago Plan advocated by Irving Fisher, Henry Simons and Milton Friedman (extreme free-market liberals). Private financial institutions would be perfectly free to intermediate between savers, borrowers and investors and would still have access to Fed funds. But the power to create money on Main St would be insulated from the casino banking of Wall St:

If Main Street can't "create money" then banks can't loan, they have no way to make money and they will close.

And note that giving banks access to Wall Street was done to keep the whole banking system from crashing due to holding a bunch of fixed-rate mortgages in times of rising interest. It's not an ideal system--but an ideal system can't exist.

I can't tell whether you misunderstand the proposal, the banking and monetary system or both.

Money is "created" by making loans.

Correct.

If you say banks can't create money that means they can't make loans. No loans = no income = no bank.

Incorrect. Read the paper.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have written countless paragraphs in these threads with questions that went unanswered.

Point to a few of them. I'll give my answers.

Did i miss the post where Generation55 explained how he knew the other motorist, who couldn't speak English, was an illegal immigrant? If he's complaining/bragging about unanswerred questions, he must have satisfied all queries against him, nu?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Republicans maybe only want 10-20% of government control over the necessary things that protects our life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Like women’s health and corporate mask mandates.

What part of women's health are Republicans trying to control? If you're talking about abortion, that has to do with protecting the freedom and liberty of the baby in the womb, not about women's health. Childbirth right now is at the safest and least risky level than it's ever been in the history of mankind. And if the mother's life is actually in danger, then the abortion wold be OK to protect the mother's life and liberty.

When Republicans start having a consistent non-hypocritical approach to the sanctity of human life then I’ll believe that this is a sensible argument. Unfortunately their actions with regard to things that would prevent abortions (like contraception) and also that would save innocent human life in other arenas (like wars and public health) belie that position.

 

[IIDB Staff]

Staff Warning: Mis-naming members is a violation of the TOU. Stop it now.

 

[bilby]

If you're talking about abortion, that has to do with protecting the freedom and liberty of the baby in the womb, not about women's health.

FFS, "the womb". Not anybody's womb, just the freestanding, self sufficient womb that belongs only to the fetus it contains.

The womb that, as a totally independent life form, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with women's health.

Gotcha.

Let me know when you get these up and running, and I'll consider the possibility of taking your position seriously, at least for long enough to gasp for breath between guffaws.

ETA: I don't even know where to start with the insane concept of freedom and liberty for babies, much less fetuses. What possible freedom could either have? They're totally dependent entities, freedom would be almost instantly fatal to them.

The babies are dependent when they get out of the womb, too.

Yes, I said as much. Unlike you, I know the difference between a baby and a fetus.

Let the baby be born and place the baby on the table and then do nothing and see what happens. The baby will die. Who's job is it to protect the life of the baby, if not us?

Well, according to you, it would be an infringement of its liberty and freedom to interfere with its life in any way.

Unless, of course, you don't know what those words mean either.

And it's nobody's job to elevate the life of a fetus over the life of its mother. She's been born too, you do know that, right? She's a human being, with rights - including the right not to be forced to use her organs to support another person against her will.

If you disagree, then I assume you've already donated a kidney to someone who needed a transplant; And that you would have been perfectly happy if the government required everyone to do so on demand? No?

Thought not.

 

[lpetrich]

Government welfare and the war on poverty has cost Americans 22 trillion dollars since the 1960's and it has done nothing except decimate poor whites and blacks. Perhaps people are dumb enough to think that maybe if we throw another 22 trillion smackers at the problem, it will magically get better.

Cut the programs=lighting a fire under everyone's ass=low unemployment rate. Republicans know this. Democrats do not.

Evidence: {}

 

[Toni]

Republicans maybe only want 10-20% of government control over the necessary things that protects our life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Like women’s health and corporate mask mandates.

What part of women's health are Republicans trying to control? If you're talking about abortion, that has to do with protecting the freedom and liberty of the baby in the womb, not about women's health. Childbirth right now is at the safest and least risky level than it's ever been in the history of mankind. And if the mother's life is actually in danger, then the abortion wold be OK to protect the mother's life and liberty.

And most Republicans I've seen and talked to have no problem with corporations requiring it for their businesses but they have a huge problem with the Big Government Draconian Authoritarian Mandate of Sleepy Clueless Joe Biden. That's why a bunch of liberals thought it was a "Gotcha!" when Fox News had a vaccine mandate and Republicans didn't complain. Yeah, because Fox News is not Big Daddy Government.

You're woefully and I suspect deliberately ill informed with regards to pregnancy, childbirth, and women's health. Rates of complications from pregnancy and childbirth have both increased dramatically in recent years. While 80% of all pregnant women have healthy pregnancies and deliveries, that leaves 20% of all women (and let's be honest and include girls) experience serious and even life threatening complications during pregnancy and/or delivery. The rate of maternal deaths in the US is increasing dramatically, with more than 20% more maternal deaths recorded in 2019 compared with 2018. 2018 saw an increase of maternal deaths over 2016. The trend is increasing, not decreasing.

Carrying a pregnancy when one does not wish to be pregnant puts a woman/girl at increased health risks, risks to their life, increased risks of disruption of education and employment, leading to increased likelihood of poverty and along with it, more health risks for the mother and for any other children she might have.

Of course, that does not include the women and girls who wanted their pregnancies but because of their own health concerns or because the developing fetus is not viable, abortion is the only safe alternative for the mother. You may not have known anyone who carried a preganancy that was not going to result in a live birth, much less a healthy child, but I have. You cannot imagine the heartbreak that making such a decision entails.

Nor can you imagine what it is like to weigh the risks and the financial and social implications of carrying an unintended pregnancy, never mind the physical risks.

Whether to continue a pregnancy is a complicated, difficult decision that is best decided by the pregnant woman or girl, in consultation with her medical providers.

 

[Angry Floof]

Locking this thread for clean up.