"There is no reason to create wealth in the developed world anymore as it will be confiscated for REDISTRIBUTION to special interest supporters. Do you think that might affect the behavior of producers and entrepreneurs? For supporters of socialist/progressive BIG government it is NEVER enough to fund their VOTE BUYING and corruption…
Its only small and medium size businesses that are paying TAXES as they are unable to INFLUENCE public servants for tax loopholes and regulatory FAVORS as BIG BUSINESS does with their lobbying.
In the United States the CIVIL war was fought to end slavery. To President Lincoln, the very idea of one person taking the fruits of another person’s labor IE: “SLAVERY” was VILE, immoral and repugnant and he went to war to end the practice. It still is in my mind.
Now the SOCIAL WELFARE governments throughout the developed world have implemented the same practice and call it FAIRNESS. Can you say George Orwell’s Animal Farm? There is no reason to produce wealth in these societies as to do so RESULTS in confiscation by the something for nothing societies which are cannibals of the worst sort."
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"There is no reason to create wealth in the developed world anymore as it will be confiscated for REDISTRIBUTION to special interest supporters. Do you think that might affect the behavior of producers and entrepreneurs? For supporters of socialist/progressive BIG government it is NEVER enough to fund their VOTE BUYING and corruption…
Its only small and medium size businesses that are paying TAXES as they are unable to INFLUENCE public servants for tax loopholes and regulatory FAVORS as BIG BUSINESS does with their lobbying.
In the United States the CIVIL war was fought to end slavery. To President Lincoln, the very idea of one person taking the fruits of another person’s labor IE: “SLAVERY” was VILE, immoral and repugnant and he went to war to end the practice. It still is in my mind.
Now the SOCIAL WELFARE governments throughout the developed world have implemented the same practice and call it FAIRNESS. Can you say George Orwell’s Animal Farm? There is no reason to produce wealth in these societies as to do so RESULTS in confiscation by the something for nothing societies which are cannibals of the worst sort."
We need a president who would suspend Habeas Corpus, gag the free press, imprison his political critics and sanction a scorched-earth policy on American cities that opposed him? Be careful what you wish for. We just might get it.
If the point of your thread is to demonstrate the need to throw off the chains of economic servitude, which are forged and shackled by the central banks, then we need Andrew Jackson back.
Jackson was a vicious bastard (who coincidentally also had to deal with a possible secession led by South Carolina, ostensibly over slavery but actually over Federal tariffs), but he was a staunch foe of the “moneyed aristocracy” exemplified by the international banksters.
“The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government … are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.”
“If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”
“You (the central bankers) are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out.”
Andrew Jackson versus the Federal Reserve Bank and the International Money Fund. That’s the match I’d like to see, even on pay per view.
So we have two presidents, one of whom PREVENTED the secession of and civil war with the South over slavery, who ENDED the economic slavery represented by the central banks, and who AVOIDED getting assassinated by a member of the Booth family…and the other of whom was Lincoln.
Varq said: “Andrew Jackson versus the Federal Reserve Bank and the International Money Fund. That’s the match I’d like to see, even on pay per view.”
What makes you think Jackson had a snowball’s chance in Hell winning that fantasy pay per view match back then, when
Ron Paul’s FREE air time fight against the same fuckin’ thing for decades hasn’t made much of a difference present day?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
We need a president who would suspend Habeas Corpus, gag the free press, imprison his political critics and sanction a scorched-earth policy on American cities that opposed him? Be careful what you wish for. We just might get it. [/quote]
If you disagree with their point , It is called a coup de grace . Sounds scary
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
We need a president who would suspend Habeas Corpus, gag the free press, imprison his political critics and sanction a scorched-earth policy on American cities that opposed him? Be careful what you wish for. We just might get it. [/quote]
To be fair, the imprisonment of critics weren’t actually Lincoln, and he ordered them released when he learned about it.
And, if I’m correct in you referring to Sherman’s March to the Sea with the whole scorched-earth policy- That’s all Sherman, and most of the burning was done by the fleeing citizens who didn’t want Sherman and his army to have stuff that were left behind.
What makes you think Jackson had a snowball’s chance in Hell winning that fantasy pay per view match back then, when
Ron Paul’s FREE air time fight against the same fuckin’ thing for decades hasn’t made much of a difference present day?[/quote]
Probably because Old Hickory actually was able to do it, and balance the federal budget for the last time it has been balanced ever since.
This is the difference between being a congressman and being a president. I like Ron Paul. I agree with a lot of what he says, but I have come to terms with the fact that he will not be president, nor will anyone else who really tries to take on the banks, at least not for very long.
Karado vs Andrew Jackson, the aftermath. Just a splatter of mustard, white bread and baloney.
[quote]Karado wrote:
Mean looks are a grand illusion, he looks like he weighs 140 pounds soaking wet…I can take him.
lol.[/quote]
Yes, because one’s prowess as a military commander depends entirely upon his physical strength. Anyway, Sherman was a ruthless, tricky bastard who would slip behind you and open your throat with a broken whisky bottle before you knew what was happening.
Now, Jackson on the other hand… he was physically a bad ass mother fucker. Six-two and 209 pounds, I imagine he would bludgeon you with an old hickory stick until you were a little puddle of mustard on the ground.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Just a few months ago everyone here was demanding Mitt Romney. Now they want Lincoln, no Jackson. Did people just get smarter around here? [/quote]
Severiano:
Actually, many Conservatives were demanding “Not Obama”.
They were luke-warm, at best, for a Mormon New-England Moderate.
Varq, you missed it! The only way to free the productive would be to trample all over the Constitution (as Lincoln did) and THEN free the economic serfs. No POTUS can pass laws freeing the serfs unless he’s a dictator.
Here HERE Headhunter! You decapitating little bastard you…REBOOT the whole thing.
Economic Emancipation, Drug Law emancipation…IDK about Ted Cruz, a real up and comer
talking about abolishing a monsterous, and well established and 3 letter agency though…What fuck is that half-Guajiro thinking?
That’s a David a Goliath situation where Goliath has won every single time…'Not happening, they’re too
fuckin big, and I like my checks from them every spring…This is why Conservatives are gonna lose again, they wanna bite
off more than they can chew and have totally unrealistic ‘abolish’ fantasies like this one.
Seriously?
