1. The conspiracy theories about the Fed are grossly over exagerrated. My father served on the board of the bank of Canada (Canadian version of the fed.) for 20 years in the 70's/80's.(during times of rank inflation caused by the market) I have met a few of these central bankers, and talked to my old man about the policy, And i can assure you that these central bankers are not in on some giant conspiracy. The pursuit of permanent steady, yet minor inflation, and the idea that someone can make the free market go up permanently in a steady way is just bad policy, thats where the fuck up is, its not like they are in some giant conspiracy. Central bankers need to lay off, thats whyn i think they are idiots. Greenspan was an idiot and so is Bernanke, it doesnt go any deeper than that. 2. The bill would have passed with ease if any dems/Obama supported it. 4. Another fed conspiracy which is not true. 5. The problem is that no one will lead, and thus we are left with one idiot after another, like Obama or Bush.
My whole country "got problems", but they have nothing to do with black men stealing anyone's girls. In fact black men are the least preferred group according to studies: http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/22/love-isnt-color-blind-white-online-daters-spurn-blacks/ Does this fact also have something to do with the "black underclass"? So a black man stealing anyone's girl is not a common problem for people to experience, I guess that explains why I have never experienced. Black on white rape? Well that's a different story. In any case, thanks for offering yet another personal attack in response to being defeated in an argument.
So you support Hayek. Okay. Cool. My question then is, if we go into a nose dive, should be we allow the plane to crash, or go for a soft landing. Central bankers and their policies determine this, in the US, anyways. 2. I don't think the anybody has the testicular fortitude to support Ryan's bill. Maybe in private, but in public, they all want their jobs back. And let's face it, Congressman and Senator has some nice job perks. 4. Mea Culpa 5. I honestly believe the Tea Party is trying, but they have to find a way to define what they are and what they are not. More importantly, what they are not. Take Ron Paul for example. For many, the phrase "states rights" is newspeak for "if the south would won we would have it made". Ron Paul is not for that view. He has not shown it anywhere, but folks like Stormfront and VDare try to co-opt his message. This will be detected every single time. And rather than saying the kooks have found another host, get out the kook spray, they thro the host under the bus. The Tea Party must find a way to fight this.
More interesting to me is that you have these articles at the ready, seemingly at all times, obviously, it is a topic of interest to you Keep posting Artful Dodger, keep posting
Bullshit. "Liberty and justice for all" means exactly that. The only people that think "states rights" means some stupid shit about the south winning the war are bullshit artist propagandists. States rights are constitutionally conferred, period. The thing about the libertarian platform is that it brings together people of highly differential views. White racists, black racists, anti racists, protestants, catholics, and atheists can all get behind the cause of liberty because it affords them their right to choose and follow their own convictions. The tea party, so long as it retains it's libertarian principals will not have some "racist" witch hunt. Why? Because racists have the same rights as everyone else. People don't have to agree on race or anything else. They just have to agree that they each have the right to their own views. The only "kooks" that need to be "sprayed" are people like you who want liberty, only for people who agree with you. Sorry, but liberty for ALL means liberty for ALL, even the people you don't agree with.
Whoa, Whoa! Phenom, is that you? Well, welcome back! At some point these views have to converge as a national identity. Kinda like slave versus free. Did you know the civil war actually started in Kansas, which was a territory at the time? Individuals have to come under a tent when in a nation, and that nation must have rules. Absolute liberty to do whatever one wants is called anarchy. As I have explained before to your alt. We cannot have anarchy. So your right to discriminate, or to own others, de jure or de facto must be circumscribed by the federal government. Please get out of the libertarian party as you do more harm than good.
I don't have any articles "ready". Thankfully, google does that. It doesn't take much "interest" to arbitrarily type in a few search terms to google. Then again, it's not as if conspiracy theories are something unusual for you.
Nonsense. There is not one national set of official views which has to emerge. Slavery is unconstitutional, so long as you accept the premise that black people are humans. I accept that black people are humans, hence slavery is not constitutional. That's pretty simple. Discrimination is something that happens every day. I discriminate on who I'll do business with, which school I'll attend, which girl I'll date. Whether or not people discriminate in their own private affairs is none of the governments business. I never have and never would advocate for a right to own other people. Nice strawman though. I'm sorry that you're so inept at debate that you can't come up with any other option than to pretend that I'm a proponent of slavery, which I most clearly am not. However, there is no constitutional grounds for the government to decide on what basis private citizens discriminate. Btw, what is my "alt"? You guys are so funny. My views are quite common, and held by many average Americans. It's funny how you guys throw the "alt" accusation at everyone who espouses similar views, simply because you don't want to accept how common it is for people to have the same views I have. Oh well, ignorance is bliss as they say.
Then again, you haven't ever seen me. Yes yes, you have super natural "racist detection" powers, and anyone who doesn't agree with anti-white discrimination is a "racist". We've heard it all before. "Anti-racist" is simply a code word for anti white. Now hurry and get to those bed pans.