PrisonPlanet Forum

Elections, Referendums and Politics => Tea Party => Topic started by: Jacob Law on March 05, 2014, 04:05:54 am

Title: Re: Democrat-vs.-Republican-vs.-Tea Party: Yet another
Post by: Jacob Law on March 05, 2014, 04:05:54 am
So that everyone has at least some idea of what compelled me to create this thread in the first place, please consider the following hypothetical scenario.

It's October 2016. There's a nationally televised presidential debate between four candidates: (a) Hilldog, (b) Jeb Bush, (c) Rand Paul, and (d) a "progressive libertarian (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=252703.msg1450893#msg1450893)" candidate whom I'll call Bill Smith.

The first question posed to each of the four candidates is:

"Do you support the NEED Act?"

--  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2990.IH: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2990.IH:)

--  http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/HR-2990.pdf (http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/HR-2990.pdf)

--  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zarlenga/sequesters-shutdowns-and-_b_4086071.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zarlenga/sequesters-shutdowns-and-_b_4086071.html)

Bill Smith responds: "Yes, I do."

How do the other three candidates respond?

I am not sure why Bill smith responds Yes?

But Hilldog and Jeb would say yes too.

But Rand I think he may be like his father and say NO to all, unless he is play politics
Title: Re: Re: Democrat-vs.-Republican-vs.-Tea Party: Yet another
Post by: Geolibertarian on March 05, 2014, 07:49:50 am
I am not sure why Bill smith responds Yes?

But Hilldog and Jeb would say yes too.

Can you provide one shred of verifiable evidence that either Hilldog or Jeb would say "yes" to removing the power of money creation from private banks?

(Edit: And by verifiable evidence, I don't mean you saying, in effect, "Well, they both advocate such-and-such on all these other issues, so I'm conveniently assuming that they advocate such-and-such on this issue..." [blah blah blah], but actual statements and/or legislative actions indicating that they specifically support removing the power of money creation from private banks.)

If not, then I'll accept that as a grudging admission that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Re: Democrat-vs.-Republican-vs.-Tea Party: Yet another
Post by: Highland on March 05, 2014, 08:22:15 am
Can you provide one shred of verifiable evidence that either Hilldog or Jeb would say "yes" to removing the power of money creation from private banks?

If not, then I'll accept that as a grudging admission that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Republican-Democrat are apparently expecting-demanding to be lied to and they are apparently expecting things to continue along in the same way. Republican or Democrat can get away with numerous lies without any problem If Republican or Democrat came out and said we have to represent the entire nation as individuals, not just favored groups and every individual has to have the ability to defend himself against corporations in a court of law it would be a problem.

Things will probably not continue as usual for Republican-Democrat due to a combination of fiat currency inflation and austerity cuts etc..
Title: Re: Re: Democrat-vs.-Republican-vs.-Tea Party: Yet another
Post by: Jacob Law on March 05, 2014, 08:39:53 am
Can you provide one shred of verifiable evidence that either Hilldog or Jeb would say "yes" to removing the power of money creation from private banks?

(Edit: And by verifiable evidence, I don't mean you saying, in effect, "Well, they both advocate such-and-such on all these other issues, so I'm conveniently assuming that they advocate such-and-such on this issue..." [blah blah blah], but actual statements and/or legislative actions indicating that they specifically support removing the power of money creation from private banks.)

If not, then I'll accept that as a grudging admission that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

I was thinking it was their nature to add new laws that continue to muddle society and if these bills got this far their underlining reason was to put more restraints on such.
Other than that I don't think I would like to spend time think I could make any sense out of Hilldog and Jeb.
Title: Re: Re: Democrat-vs.-Republican-vs.-Tea Party: Yet another
Post by: Geolibertarian on March 05, 2014, 08:44:11 am
I don't think I would like to spend time think I could make any sense out of Hilldog and Jeb.

So then no one should take seriously your baseless assertion about their presumed "support" of the NEED Act.

Establishment Democrats, establishment Republicans, and Tea Party conservatives are all agreed (because they're so "different" from one another) -- the power of money creation must not be removed from private banks, and so the NEED Act should never be passed.

Glad we sorted that out.
Title: Re: Re: Democrat-vs.-Republican-vs.-Tea Party: Yet another
Post by: Geniocrat on March 05, 2014, 03:08:38 pm
So then no one should take seriously your baseless assertion about their presumed "support" of the NEED Act.

Establishment Democrats, establishment Republicans, and Tea Party conservatives are all agreed (because they're so "different" from one another) -- the power of money creation must not be removed from private banks, and so the NEED Act should never be passed.

Glad we sorted that out.

Well now we know that we need the Constitution Party let's put our support into a party that shares our ideals.

Look the Tea-Party train is grinding to a halt.

The Constitution Party is still very pro-active.  The Globalists will never control us.
Title: Re: Re: Democrat-vs.-Republican-vs.-Tea Party: Yet another
Post by: Jacob Law on March 05, 2014, 08:37:07 pm
So then no one should take seriously your baseless assertion about their presumed "support" of the NEED Act.

Establishment Democrats, establishment Republicans, and Tea Party conservatives are all agreed (because they're so "different" from one another) -- the power of money creation must not be removed from private banks, and so the NEED Act should never be passed.

Glad we sorted that out.

Not really so baseless but I do now understand your question, thank you.