Bloomberg: Gov't has right to infringe on your freedom

[No Free Beer]

The problem is this nation is full of children that have never known responsibility and are not of sound body & mind to make these kinds of decisions and have absolutely zero business voting.

It took 200 years, but the bankers have successfully reversed man's evolution back to the level of a farm animal.

Like I said, it's our own damn fault.

I would also suggest that we have made amazing strides as well (as a country).

 

[TheTexan]

Moreover, it's not as simple as saying the bankers own us.

It is that simple. They own the politicians. They own the media. They own your wallet. (Literally and figuratively, as seen in Cyprus)

Like I said, it's our own damn fault.

It's not really anyone of this generation's fault. This brainwashing has been going on for a very long time. I consider myself lucky to have broken out of it. That shit has an iron grip over most people's minds that will be with them until the day they die.

I would also suggest that we have made amazing strides as well (as a country).

Interesting that you say that. How so?

 

[No Free Beer]

It is that simple. They own the politicians. They own the media. They own your wallet. (Literally and figuratively, as seen in Cyprus)



It's not really anyone of this generation's fault. This brainwashing has been going on for a very long time. I consider myself lucky to have broken out of it. That shit has an iron grip over most people's minds that will be with them until the day they die.



Interesting that you say that. How so?

With all due respect, you act as if it is as simple as bankers owning us. I do not see it like that at all. I think there are some power brokers in the world, but they aren't sitting around a round table with a globe in the center, drawing maps on how to conquer the world. And please, don't bring up Bilderberg, I am quite aware of that.

There are many reasons for our downfall, and banking is one of them.

You ask me about the strides we've made.

As ONE example, I would just point to the 13 Amendment.

 

[Anti Federalist]

As ONE example, I would just point to the 13 Amendment.

Great...

So instead of one small minority group being unjustly enslaved and oppressed, we all got enslaved.

And before you go on and talk about iron shackles and whippings, don't bother.

There are an infinite number of conditions of slavery and indentured servitude, the condition of the appearance and illusion of freedom, while in actuality confined to a gilded cage, is most likely the worst, because it enslaves the mind.

 

[No Free Beer]

Great...

So instead of one small minority group being unjustly enslaved and oppressed, we all got enslaved.


There are an infinite number of conditions of slavery and indentured servitude, the condition of the appearance and illusion of freedom, while in actuality confined to a gilded cage, is most likely the worst, because it enslaves the mind.

First of all, how does ending slavery for everyone create slavery for all?

Moreover, the second half of your comment doesn't have anything to do with the 13 Amendment.

 

[Anti Federalist]

First of all, how does ending slavery for everyone create slavery for all?

Moreover, the second half of your comment doesn't have anything to do with the 13 Amendment.

1 - The process by which that Amendment came to be, created a Leviathan state that has consumed us all.


2 - Huh?

There are an infinite number of conditions of slavery and indentured servitude, the condition of the appearance and illusion of freedom, while in actuality confined to a gilded cage, is most likely the worst, because it enslaves the mind.

Amendment 13:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It

's not really anyone of this generation's fault. This brainwashing has been going on for a very long time. I consider myself lucky to have broken out of it. That shit has an iron grip over most people's minds that will be with them until the day they die.

I'm breaking out of it. Which is making conversation with those who haven't very tough. And frustrating.

I hate the brainwashed world.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That's what they say. What they mean is:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, OR IF WE RENAME IT "THE DRAFT" shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

[No Free Beer]

1 - The process by which that Amendment came to be, created a Leviathan state that has consumed us all.


2 - Huh?

Amendment 13:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

please elaborate.

 

[TheTexan]

With all due respect, you act as if it is as simple as bankers owning us. I do not see it like that at all. I think there are some power brokers in the world, but they aren't sitting around a round table with a globe in the center, drawing maps on how to conquer the world. And please, don't bring up Bilderberg, I am quite aware of that.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I'm talking about human nature. Most people have an inherent desire to try to control everything, very often with good intentions. That desire to control is usually held at bay simply because they lack the economic resources to take action on it. But not bankers.

Bankers by the nature of their profession have control of very large amounts of resources, and through simply the passing of time, they have accumulated more power and influence than any class in the history of mankind.

There are many reasons for our downfall, and banking is one of them.

There are two root causes of our downfall. The first is the tragic loss in the War of Northern Aggression, and the second is the invention of "Modern Banking." Every reason for our downfall can be tracked back to one of those two.

Specifically, though, the Federal Reserve, through it's artificial liquidity, is responsible for:
1) The funding of the police state
2) The funding of the countless wars
3) The funding of the welfare state
4) The funding of massive government
4) And much more.

The bankers profit from this activity enormously. It's why they do it. And guess who loses, enormously? The people.

It's a vicious fucking cycle, that if you were to fully grasp your head would spin. As the bankers profit more, they get more powerful. As they get more powerful, they profit more. And similarly, the people lose, more, and more, and more. The progression of this can be seen clearly over the past 100 years, and their power has risen exponentially just in the past 10 years. It looks to be reaching a disastrous climax, which would be preferred, because the alternative is that it continues on its current course to a World Bank which will herald a century of wars and violence and strife and starvation and given man's current capacity for warfare, most likely the extinction of mankind.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."

I'm honestly not sure how after so much exposure to these forums, Need For Beer, that you still yet remain blind to the global dominance, theft, and oppression that the bankers have suffered upon this world.

You ask me about the strides we've made.

As ONE example, I would just point to the 13 Amendment.

The 13th amendment didn't really do much. Blacks were still treated like slaves, and continued to suffer greatly at the hands of white men, for many decades to come. It was a cultural and a moral issue that legislation couldn't fix.

Not to mention, that in the process of "freeing the blacks", a whole country was enslaved. As always, it's one step forward, and two steps back.

 

[Anti Federalist]

please elaborate.

See post number 69.

 

[No Free Beer]

I'm not talking about a conspiracy. I'm talking about human nature. Most people have an inherent desire to try to control everything, very often with good intentions. That desire to control is usually held at bay simply because they lack the economic resources to take action on it. But not bankers.

Bankers by the nature of their profession have control of very large amounts of resources, and through simply the passing of time, they have accumulated more power and influence than any class in the history of mankind.



There are two root causes of our downfall. The first is the tragic loss in the War of Northern Aggression, and the second is the invention of "Modern Banking." Every reason for our downfall can be tracked back to one of those two.

Specifically, though, the Federal Reserve, through it's artificial liquidity, is responsible for:
1) The funding of the police state
2) The funding of the countless wars
3) The funding of the welfare state
4) The funding of massive government
4) And much more.

The bankers profit from this activity enormously. It's why they do it. And guess who loses, enormously? The people.

It's a vicious fucking cycle, that if you were to fully grasp your head would spin. As the bankers profit more, they get more powerful. As they get more powerful, they profit more. And similarly, the people lose, more, and more, and more. The progression of this can be seen clearly over the past 100 years, and their power has risen exponentially just in the past 10 years. It looks to be reaching a disastrous climax, which would be preferred, because the alternative is that it continues on its current course to a World Bank which will herald a century of wars and violence and strife and starvation and given man's current capacity for warfare, most likely the extinction of mankind.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."

I'm honestly not sure how after so much exposure to these forums, Need For Beer, that you still yet remain blind to the global dominance, theft, and oppression that the bankers have suffered upon this world.



The 13th amendment didn't really do much. Blacks were still treated like slaves, and continued to suffer greatly at the hands of white men, for many decades to come. It was a cultural and a moral issue that legislation couldn't fix.

Not to mention, that in the process of "freeing the blacks", a whole country was enslaved. As always, it's one step forward, and two steps back.

I am not ignorant when it comes to the influence of the banks. I'm saying that there are many reasons for our downfall and the downfall of freedom and it isn't just/simply banking. That's my point.

About your 13 amendment answer, how was the passing of the 13 amendment a means of enslaving us all?

 

[TheTexan]

First of all, how does ending slavery for everyone create slavery for all?

You may or may not know this, but the civil war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over secession.

Yes, slavery was a major contributing factor of why the South seceded. But slavery was not the reason the North invaded the South. The North invaded the South because it feared that if the South were allowed to secede, that the American Experiment would fail, and that the democracy would shatter into many pieces. This is perfectly evident in Lincoln's speeches and correspondence, and generally any honest historian will quickly admit that the war was started because the South's secession threatened the "Indivisible union."

The issue of slavery only came about later in the war. And not for any moral reasons, or any kind of righteousness, or desire to free the slaves, but out of wartime necessity. The British and the French, because of their trade alliances with the South, threatened to enter the war to help on the South's behalf, which would have been a decisive victory for the South. The Emancipation Proclamation served to make such a move politically unpopular in Europe, as Britain and France strongly opposed slavery, and prevented them from entering the war, which was ultimately responsible for the North's victory.

Back to the South's secession, though. I believe, very strongly I might add, that every group of people have a natural right to self determination. This is the right that the South was trying to exercise. The South decided it no longer wanted to be a part of the United States, and the North decided they wouldn't let that happen. In effect, the North declared that they had the right to hold the South to the Union against its will, and as history makes clear, the North was willing to sacrifice the lives of close to a million men to make that happen.

By Lincoln's act of invading the South to keep it in the union, the South was made a slave. By extension, though, the North was also made a slave. The precedent that was set was that the United States are indivisible and if you try to leave it you will be murdered. This was a very dangerous precedent to set.

From that point forward, secession was taken off the table. If the Federal Government decided that something was constitutional, and a state vehemently disagreed, there was zero recourse. You don't like it? Deal with it, the Federal Government told them.

Even the threat of secession could have possibly kept the Federal Government at bay. But with the threat of secession off table, the Federal Government was no longer bound to the Constitution. Instead, the Federal Government was then only bound by a simple majority. If a majority of elected representatives said a law was constitutional, guess what, it's constitutional. Or Else.

Lincoln's victory in the War of Northern Aggression meant the death of the Constitution, the enslavement of the states, and a precedent of centralized limitless power that we continue to struggle with to this day.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No sir...that would be illegal.

So? You already do several "illegal" things each day.

 

[tfurrh]

Even the threat of secession could have possibly kept the Federal Government at bay. But with the threat of secession off table, the Federal Government was no longer bound to the Constitution. Instead, the Federal Government was then only bound by a simple majority. If a majority of elected representatives said a law was constitutional, guess what, it's constitutional. Or Else.

Mine eyes have seen the glory

 

[cheapseats]

: Bloomberg: Gov't has right to infringe on your freedom

Rand Paul ALSO sez government has the right to infringe on your freedom, when he advocates for SHORTER PRISON SENTENCES rather than for legalization of marijuana (wine & beer) and decriminalization of "hard drugs" (hard liquor).

[Yes, I KNOW that gen-yoo-ine Libertarianism would repeal the prohibition of all drugs, but that ain't happenin'.]

Rand Paul ALSO sez government has the right to infringe on your freedom, when he calls to privatize (read that, incentivize) TSA rather than rein in that beast and slash "our" EXTRAORDINARY spending on it.

[ELIMINATION of TSA ain't happenin', either.]

 

[Pericles]

"I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom."

I do think there are certain times that I should shoot anyone who tries it.

 

[cheapseats]

I do think there are certain times that I should shoot anyone who tries it.

There's a lotta real estate between SHOOTING someone who tries to infringe on your rights, and PURPOSEFULLY RESISTING said efforts &/or INFRINGING RIGHT BACK.

Not saying YOU, but some seem weirdly willing to EXTINGUISH people whose property rights they would not so much as scratch.

 

[No Free Beer]

You may or may not know this, but the civil war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over secession.

Yes, slavery was a major contributing factor of why the South seceded. But slavery was not the reason the North invaded the South. The North invaded the South because it feared that if the South were allowed to secede, that the American Experiment would fail, and that the democracy would shatter into many pieces. This is perfectly evident in Lincoln's speeches and correspondence, and generally any honest historian will quickly admit that the war was started because the South's secession threatened the "Indivisible union."

The issue of slavery only came about later in the war. And not for any moral reasons, or any kind of righteousness, or desire to free the slaves, but out of wartime necessity. The British and the French, because of their trade alliances with the South, threatened to enter the war to help on the South's behalf, which would have been a decisive victory for the South. The Emancipation Proclamation served to make such a move politically unpopular in Europe, as Britain and France strongly opposed slavery, and prevented them from entering the war, which was ultimately responsible for the North's victory.

Back to the South's secession, though. I believe, very strongly I might add, that every group of people have a natural right to self determination. This is the right that the South was trying to exercise. The South decided it no longer wanted to be a part of the United States, and the North decided they wouldn't let that happen. In effect, the North declared that they had the right to hold the South to the Union against its will, and as history makes clear, the North was willing to sacrifice the lives of close to a million men to make that happen.

By Lincoln's act of invading the South to keep it in the union, the South was made a slave. By extension, though, the North was also made a slave. The precedent that was set was that the United States are indivisible and if you try to leave it you will be murdered. This was a very dangerous precedent to set.

From that point forward, secession was taken off the table. If the Federal Government decided that something was constitutional, and a state vehemently disagreed, there was zero recourse. You don't like it? Deal with it, the Federal Government told them.

Even the threat of secession could have possibly kept the Federal Government at bay. But with the threat of secession off table, the Federal Government was no longer bound to the Constitution. Instead, the Federal Government was then only bound by a simple majority. If a majority of elected representatives said a law was constitutional, guess what, it's constitutional. Or Else.

Lincoln's victory in the War of Northern Aggression meant the death of the Constitution, the enslavement of the states, and a precedent of centralized limitless power that we continue to struggle with to this day.

But, in order for the amendment to become an amendment, the states had to support them.


Illinois (February 1, 1865)
Rhode Island (February 2, 1865)
Michigan (February 3, 1865)
Maryland (February 3, 1865)
New York (February 3, 1865)
Pennsylvania (February 3, 1865)
West Virginia (February 3, 1865)
Missouri (February 6, 1865)
Maine (February 7, 1865)
Kansas (February 7, 1865)
Massachusetts (February 7, 1865)
Virginia (February 9, 1865) - ratified by the Unionist Restored Government of Virginia
Ohio (February 10, 1865)
Indiana (February 13, 1865)
Nevada (February 16, 1865)
Louisiana (February 17, 1865)
Minnesota (February 23, 1865)
Wisconsin (February 24, 1865)
Vermont (March 8, 1865)
Tennessee (April 7, 1865)
Arkansas (April 14, 1865)
Connecticut (May 4, 1865)
New Hampshire (July 1, 1865)
South Carolina (November 13, 1865)
Alabama (December 2, 1865)
North Carolina (December 4, 1865)
Georgia (December 6, 1865)

 

[No Free Beer]

Moreover, it was not just about the 13th Amendment, but a lot happened before, like Dred Scott case

 

[The Gold Standard]

The problem with this train of thought is that we are the market. We decide what passes and what doesn't. It's our own damn fault.

Moreover, it's not as simple as saying the bankers own us. The law is a very complex beast. It's not as simple as saying "the government is screwing us" or not.

This makes no sense. "We" are not the "market". The market is the whole matrix of voluntary exchanges between free individuals. There is nothing voluntary about having a government thug shove a gun in your face or beat the fuck out of you.