The Bern Identity

[jem]

that is the funniest red herring like distraction you have ever posted.

the point of this conversation was your view of gerrymandering being the diabolical work of the republicans seems to be wrong. Instead of addressing that subject you went off on a tangent to change the subject.

By the way you admitted the shareholders of the Federal Reserve Banks are private banks and not the federal govt. So for anyone who has the slightest understanding of corporate structure and property rights - we proved you agree the Federal Reserve System is privately owned.

JEM, with all due respect, this is the kind of absolutely nutso stuff you post on occasion , like the business of the Fed being privately owned!, that just makes me scratch my head, and wonder, what have you been drinking or smoking?

Only citizens eighteen years old or older who are not convicted felons can vote. It will be 18 years before the babies of illegals can vote, and almost as long before their parents can become citizens.

 

[piezoe]

Napolitano: California To Allow Illegal Immigrants To Vote ...
dailycaller.com/.../napolitano-california-to-allow-illegal-...
The Daily Caller
Oct 13, 2015 - Judge Andrew Napolitano says that “if you are an illegal alien in California, get a driver’s license, register to vote, you can vote in local, state, and federal elections in California and those votes count.”. ... Napolitano argued that while it would be against the law for an ...
Jerry Brown Signs Bill Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Vote
www.breitbart.com/.../gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill...
Breitbart News Network
Oct 12, 2015 - Jerry Brown Signs Bill That Could Let Illegal Aliens Vote. ... On Saturday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1461, the New Motor Voter Act, which will automatically register people to vote through the DMV, and could result in illegal aliens voting.
States Cannot Prevent Illegal Aliens from Voting in US ...
www.truthandaction.org/supreme-court-states-prevent-illegal-aliens-voti...
In a stunning ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down an Arizona law requiring voters to present citizenship proof to register in state and ...
California Signs Law Allowing Illegals To Vote – RAW ...
rawconservative.com › Discussion
Oct 28, 2015 - Jerry Brown, that will register and allow illegal aliens to vote in US Elections. The New Motor Voter Act (A.B.1461) that is now law in California, ...

Did you notice that all of your links are to lunatic organizations?

This is advice i am happy to give you and Jem both, and for no charge. You can thank me later. If you follow this advice it can save you a great deal of embarrassment as you go through life.. The advice is: Whenever you read, or hear, something that does not make sense, or is not logical, assume it is probably not correct. Then if it is important to you, spend some time to check out the details. You will find in virtually 100 percent of these instances, what you read was politically slanted, intentionally misleading, intentional misinformation, misquoted, or important details were accidentally, or intentionally left out. Trust your brain and your common sense. So for your benefit: (I did the legwork this time, next time you do it.)

"Information about anyone who does not decline registration will be electronically transmitted from the DMV to the secretary of state’s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will be added to the voter rolls."

see for example: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html

And numerous other legitimate reference sites regarding California law.

 

[achilles28]

There is no one person that will fit your own, or my, or any other persons, personal philosophy perfectly. Each of us has to weigh all aspects of a candidate's platform, against those of other candidates. The important thing is for us to think about these matters in some depth and not be swept along foolishly by carnival hucksterism and salesmanship. It is very difficult to resist our strong human instinct to conform in order to be accepted by the group. But groups are often dangerous and wrong. We must learn to think for ourselves. Those among us who do become leaders are good at manipulating our basic instincts to get what they want. They may do this naturally without even realizing or recognizing why or how they are able to convince others to follow them. Unfortunately, this natural, instinctive ability of leaders is no guarantee that we will be led in a direction that serves our interests. Our ideas are in no way inferior to those of our leaders; yet we are perfectly happy to discard them in favor of the leader so long as doing so leads to acceptance by the group. It is a rare circumstance to find a leader that can articulate good, but unpopular ideas, or even wants to. It is far easier to play to our instincts. Sanders has found an audience among college students. Those students will be described as inexperienced and naive. They may be both, but I don't think that is why Sanders appeals to them. I think it is because they are still capable of hearing, weighing and thinking. Their thinking is still malleable and not intransigent and hardened by preconceived notions. He will be portrayed as radical of course. In reality, if one were to judge by standards of all the advanced countries, he is the least radical of all our candidates. The U.S. has transformed itself into a radical, militarized, far right country. We are the radicals. Sanders is the sane one.
_______________________
For those who have an interest in human evolution and the whys and hows of our path to becoming a eusocial species, like bees and ants, E.O. Wilson's new book, "The Social Conquest of Earth", is a good read.

I agree with much of that. America has always been conservative. It's never had a socialist/communist bent like Europe and Germany, going back nearly 200 years. While the ideas Bernie proposes are old to the world, they are new to America. That's no surprise. Do you honestly think the most capitalistic, meritocratic country in the world is just by coincidence, also the richest and most powerful? The two go hand-in-hand, many Americans recognize that, and will actively resist socialism at every level. On the otherhand, obviously at least 1/4'er of America is ready for Socialism along the lines Bernie suggests and are active politically.

 

[piezoe]

that is the funniest red herring like distraction you have ever posted.

the point of this conversation was your view of gerrymandering being the diabolical work of the republicans seems to be wrong. Instead of addressing that subject you went off on a tangent to change the subject.

By the way you admitted the shareholders of the Federal Reserve Banks are private banks and not the federal govt. So for anyone who has the slightest understanding of corporate structure and property rights - we proved you agree the Federal Reserve System is privately owned.

I don't want you to do anything, Jem, except grow up and stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

 

[piezoe]

I agree with much of that. America has always been conservative. It's never had a socialist/communist bent like Europe and Germany, going back nearly 200 years. While the ideas Bernie proposes are old to the world, they are new to America. That's no surprise. Do you honestly think the most capitalistic, meritocratic country in the world is just by coincidence, also the richest and most powerful? The two go hand-in-hand, many Americans recognize that, and will actively resist socialism at every level. On the otherhand, obviously at least 1/4'er of America is ready for Socialism along the lines Bernie suggests and are active politically.

As long as you will keep an open mind we can have a useful dialog. We should be asking the question whether being the richest and most powerful is something we should necessarily be proud of, and whether there are other thing much more important. Secondly, we should define what is meant by richest. I think "most powerful" is pretty clear. It means in a military sense or in a financial sense, or both. Many of these "most" type things, but certainly not all of them, have to be expressed as per capita to make any sense.

 

[nitro]

I agree with much of that. America has always been conservative. It's never had a socialist/communist bent like Europe and Germany, going back nearly 200 years. While the ideas Bernie proposes are old to the world, they are new to America. That's no surprise. Do you honestly think the most capitalistic, meritocratic country in the world is just by coincidence, also the richest and most powerful? The two go hand-in-hand, many Americans recognize that, and will actively resist socialism at every level. On the otherhand, obviously at least 1/4'er of America is ready for Socialism along the lines Bernie suggests and are active politically.

For the love of God, please admit to yourself that America is already socialist. So is every country in the world.

The only two major things left forAmerica to adopt is tax dollars going to free education and universal health care.

Otherwise we've been socialist for at least 3/4 of a century.

 

[Ricter]

For the love of God, please admit to yourself that America is already socialist. So is every country in the world.

In part. Mixed economy is the accepted term.

 

[achilles28]

As long as you will keep an open mind we can have a useful dialog. We should be asking the question whether being the richest and most powerful is something we should necessarily be proud of, and whether there are other thing much more important. Secondly, we should define what is meant by richest. I think "most powerful" is pretty clear. It means in a military sense or in a financial sense, or both. Many of these "most" type things, but certainly not all of them, have to be expressed as per capita to make any sense.

I've given much thought to that and made several conclusions. Yes, it's paramount America retains it's status as the worlds economic and military leader. Richest, on a per capita basis, is sort of irrelevant because oil-fiefdoms and capitalistic enclaves like Singapore and Hong Kong look like superpowers on paper. When in reality, their economies are tiny, relatively speaking.

Now I would also counter to you, that nearly the entire education system is dominated by Liberal educators, making it an echo-chamber for left-wing thought. Like every highschool kid and university graduate, I was indoctrinated into socialism by my educators. It took me many years and posting on this site, to undo my brainwashing. Now you're a guy who's obviously highly intelligent and from what I hear, involved in academia. It's no surprise to me your views are of the entrenched left-wing variety. So we both have our biases we bring to the table. But I know exactly where you're coming from. I was raised in Canada, went to Canadian schools, Canadian university. I know the schpeil. Lets discuss if you like

 

[achilles28]

For the love of God, please admit to yourself that America is already socialist. So is every country in the world.

The only two major things left forAmerica to adopt is tax dollars going to free education and universal health care.

Otherwise we've been socialist for at least 3/4 of a century.

Shades of grey?

Every country, by that narrow definition, qualifies as "socialist". Ancient Rome or Egypt were 'socialist' because they levied taxes to provide for the common defense, and staff government/administrators and public utilities, like roads.

Know what I mean? I think the point here is just because America does have some socialist welfare programs in existence now, doesn't mean we should socialize the entire system because we already are (sort of) 'socialist'. It's illogical.

 

[jem]

talk about open minds...

1. so the bloomberg article about gerrymandering being good for the democrats because of clumping is nonsense according to you? Good open mind there Piezoe.

2. and here is a quote of yours... when speaking of the Federal Reserve System... you stated...

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/the-bern-identity.297236/page-15

Of course I can tell you who owns the shares, it is right on each Branch Banks website. It is a required condition of joining the Federal reserve system. All the banks that are regulated through each regional bank own shares. It is a requirement. It is not optional. Don't be silly.. I've had enough of your conspiracy nonsense.

2.1 So from your own quote we see the Federal Reserve banks are owned by shareholders. Those shareholders are private banks... not govt shareholders.

You now must conclude the banks are owned by private shareholders not the govt. Either that or you are in full cognitive dissonance.

2.2 before you come back and assert some bullshit about the bank like you always... do... please provide a link to support your bullshit. You saying the Federal Reserve banks are not privately owned... does not make it so.

I don't want you to do anything, Jem, except grow up and stop wasting my time with this nonsense.