[quote]DB297 wrote:
daudowen wrote:
How many carrier battle groups do we have deployed around the globe?
I think we will be the reserve currency as long as we maintain military dominance.
Yes, the dollar will trend weaker for a time.
But, when the house is on fire who gets the call-the U.S. or the Euro Zone.
We are at the cross roads in this country.
People who think we can carry on business as usual have their heads in the sand.
Why not a reduction in payroll taxes and a high gas-tax until we change peoples behaviours? We need a new energy policy-stop sending the money over seas.
Our competitors will take us to the carpet at every opportunity.
We need to get lean and mean.
One of the best posts I have read here. Well said sir! [/quote]
If your competitors don’t police the globe and you do, and they in fact benefit from YOUR policing, they have a competitive advantage. We did this to Britain and now the Chinese are doing it to us. The parallels between today and late 19th century geopolitics is shockingly similar to today.
The Chinese probably will have a revolution soon. We may gain a reprieve until they get a new democratic government. After that, its Chinese hegemony.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If your competitors don’t police the globe and you do, and they in fact benefit from YOUR policing, they have a competitive advantage. We did this to Britain and now the Chinese are doing it to us. The parallels between today and late 19th century geopolitics is shockingly similar to today.[/quote]
OUR policing is pretty much what makes our dollar worth anything. DO you honestly think that the Chinese are willing to fuck over the currency that is providing all the protection? Do you think ANY country will be willing to do that?
[quote]The Chinese probably will have a revolution soon. We may gain a reprieve until they get a new democratic government. After that, its Chinese hegemony.
[/quote]
I seriously have to wonder why you continue to live in this country if things are as dire as you have been saying they are for the last 2-3- years.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I seriously have to wonder why you continue to live in this country if things are as dire as you have been saying they are for the last 2-3- years.
[/quote]
LOL. There are plenty of lightly-governed garden spots in Africa. I hear Somalia is warm and libertarian.
Fiat money is inherently worthless. It only has value because it can be exchanged for goods. Money cannot be eaten, lived in, worn, driven, etc. In fact, money that is not based on any commodity cannot be used for anything other than an exchange medium.
Why the Chinese Yuan is strong: The Chinese have no debt and are net producers of goods. So even as more money comes into creation in China there are still goods that they can consume with it; or better yet, trade for goods they are less capable of producing themselves. This will keep prices on an even keel within their own country though the vast majority of its citizens cannot afford the goods they produce. (Has anyone noticed that China is no longer a country of avid [sic.] bicyclists?)
Why the Dollar is weak: The US is in debt and is a net consumer of goods. Since no new goods enter the US via its own productive means there is less to buy with more money. This will create hyperinflation left unchecked.
The same is true within US boarders. For example, cities usually offer a higher standard of living than rural areas because they have higher concentrations of productive capital. If currency was regional in the US we would be forced to assume that the larger producing regions would have a stronger currency since more regions of the country would trade with them. Regions of the country that are highly leveraged with debt and are net consumers of goods would have a less valued currency because they would have less trade partners. Even on a commodity standard this would be the case.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I seriously have to wonder why you continue to live in this country if things are as dire as you have been saying they are for the last 2-3- years.
LOL. There are plenty of lightly-governed garden spots in Africa. I hear Somalia is warm and libertarian. [/quote]
Cheney prefers Dubai.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I seriously have to wonder why you continue to live in this country if things are as dire as you have been saying they are for the last 2-3- years.
LOL. There are plenty of lightly-governed garden spots in Africa. I hear Somalia is warm and libertarian.
Cheney prefers Dubai.[/quote]
He’s welcome to it. Personally, I don’t feel like being governed by Allah.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Fiat money is inherently worthless. It only has value because it can be exchanged for goods. Money cannot be eaten, lived in, worn, driven, etc. In fact, money that is not based on any commodity cannot be used for anything other than an exchange medium.[/quote]
I respectfully disagree.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
He’s welcome to it. Personally, I don’t feel like being governed by Allah. [/quote]
You don’t feel like being governed by God?
Well, then you should feel just fine in a secular republic like Dubai, which is an Islamic country in the same sense that New York is a Jewish city.
EDIT: An emirate, not a republic.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
He’s welcome to it. Personally, I don’t feel like being governed by Allah.
You don’t feel like being governed by God?
Well, then you should feel just fine in a secular republic like Dubai, which is an Islamic country in the same sense that New York is a Jewish city.
[/quote]
Yes, secular (except for the shari’ah part):
http://dubaiforvisitors.com/2007/09/27/the-sharia-dubai-law-how-it-affects-you/
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/10/sharia-law-jail-time-for-kissing/
‘Patriots’ never seem to find Islamists they don’t like.
Well yes, I agree, it does seem silly to us enlightened folks to see a government impose its superstitious notions of morality on the people.
Like here, for example:
"Adultery is the sexual intercourse of 2 persons, either of whom is married to a third person.
"Any person who shall commit adultery shall be guilty of a felony; and when the crime is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, the man shall be guilty of adultery, and liable to the same punishment.
"If any persons after being divorced from the bonds of matrimony for any cause whatever, shall cohabit together, they shall be liable to all the penalties provided by law against adultery.
“An appeals court has ruled that anyone found in an extramarital affair can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.”
Name that jurisdiction. Hint: it ain’t Dubai.
PR, this is the third time you’ve called me a patriot. Am I supposed to feel insulted by this?
And there are plenty of Islamists that I don’t like. Just as there are plenty of Christianitysts and Judaismists that I don’t particularly care for. Does this somehow make me more or less patriotic?
As soon as I find the time to Photoshop an M14 rifle into Mel’s hands, this is so going to be my avatar.
Unless, perhaps, PR was accusing me of being a New England Patriots fan, or perhaps a supporter of the US PATRIOT Act, both of which are demonstrably untrue.
Or, wait! I know. Maybe PR was implying that I am an automated surface-to-air missile system. Surely the Patriot missile never found an Islamist that it didn’t like. That could be because there are so few Islamists in the air.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well yes, I agree, it does seem silly to us enlightened folks to see a government impose its superstitious notions of morality on the people.
Like here, for example:
"Adultery is the sexual intercourse of 2 persons, either of whom is married to a third person.
"Any person who shall commit adultery shall be guilty of a felony; and when the crime is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, the man shall be guilty of adultery, and liable to the same punishment.
"If any persons after being divorced from the bonds of matrimony for any cause whatever, shall cohabit together, they shall be liable to all the penalties provided by law against adultery.
“An appeals court has ruled that anyone found in an extramarital affair can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.”
Name that jurisdiction. Hint: it ain’t Dubai.
[/quote]
Moral equivalence mania. I guess we’ll have to let everyone decide for themselves about the ‘secular’ nation of Dubai:
http://www.google.com/search?q=dubai+site%3Ajihadwatch.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
[quote]
And there are plenty of Islamists that I don’t like. Just as there are plenty of Christianitysts and Judaismists that I don’t particularly care for. Does this somehow make me more or less patriotic?[/quote]
I know. Look at all the Methodists calling for the death of non-Methodists every day! Scarcely a day goes by when we don’t hear of a Christianist trying to blow up a bus for the sake of Yahweh or a Judaist trying to impose Levitical law on a non-Jew. I’m as worried about a Christianist Beslan or 9/11 as you.
I think you missed the part where I said I don’t like Islamists, either.
And you still haven’t explained how like or dislike of Islamists in any way correlates to patriotism.
Looks like that is from the Michigan Penal Code.
How many people do you know doing life terms for committing adultery?
And how old are those laws?
Are you actually trying to compare living in the US to living under shari’ah law?
Really?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think you missed the part where I said I don’t like Islamists, either.
[/quote]
No, I’m aware I managed to extract that from you - it’s just that you have no functional definition of what an Islamist is.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Looks like that is from the Michigan Penal Code. [/quote]
Bingo.
Zero.[quote]
And how old are those laws? [/quote]
When were they written? I haven’t a clue. Unlike the Texas sodomy laws, however, they were never repealed.[quote]
Are you actually trying to compare living in the US to living under shari’ah law?
Really? [/quote]
No, of course not, RJ. I’m just being a contrary sumbitch, as usual.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I think you missed the part where I said I don’t like Islamists, either.
No, I’m aware I managed to extract that from you - it’s just that you have no functional definition of what an Islamist is. [/quote]
I define Islamism as a perverted, politicized form of Islam that seeks to impose itself on secular societies, sometimes through violence, but not always.
How do you define it? And for the last time, what is the correlation to patriotism?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I think you missed the part where I said I don’t like Islamists, either.
No, I’m aware I managed to extract that from you - it’s just that you have no functional definition of what an Islamist is.
I define Islamism as a perverted, politicized form of Islam that seeks to impose itself on secular societies, sometimes through violence, but not always.
[/quote]
I get a chuckle out of this. No doubt your understanding of Islam is as deep as it is of Christianity, which sure explains your moral equivalence. I am glad you finally laid some cards on the table, though. This is much better than our discussion about religion where I just used all of the same arguments I use when debating atheists as they all applied perfectly to our debate.
Keep your eyes peeled for the Christianists as much as for the Islamists, ok?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I get a chuckle out of this. No doubt your understanding of Islam is as deep as it is of Christianity, which sure explains your moral equivalence. I am glad you finally laid some cards on the table, though. This is much better than our discussion about religion where I just used all of the same arguments I use when debating atheists as they all applied perfectly to our debate.
Keep your eyes peeled for the Christianists as much as for the Islamists, ok? [/quote]
So happy you got a chuckle. Feel free to provide an alternate definition. Be sure to explain how an Islamist differs, in your mind, from an ordinary Muslim.
And then, be so good as to explain how a ‘Patriot’ differs, in your mind, from an ordinary patriot.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Fiat money is inherently worthless. It only has value because it can be exchanged for goods. Money cannot be eaten, lived in, worn, driven, etc. In fact, money that is not based on any commodity cannot be used for anything other than an exchange medium.
I respectfully disagree.[/quote]
Duly noted. It burns well too, though I would exchange my $20 bills for $1s. Ironic, in that situation the $1s would be “worth” more.