[OT] State of the Union Address

[Eleven]

Eleven throwin' down the heavy. Good stuff.

 

Thanks, Swamp. I hope a couple of other people read it. It isn't partisan, and I'm not, either.

[Bmwolf21]

Eleven throwin' down the heavy. Good stuff.

Agreed, great post.

[Hank]

It's rare when we agree, DeLuca. But I guess that we usually spar on less important matters, like hockey.

 

Look, whether the US is there or not, is largely immaterial at this point. What we were told, and why we supposedly are there, is false. Completely. It was a fraud, and it was a fraud designed to maximize money for certain people at the expense of many, many lives. And with my apologies to anyone who is serving there, I don't think the US is going to stabilize Baghdad, much less the country or the region. And I do not think we will have an advantage when war with Iran comes. The entire region needs its own reformation, a la Martin Luther, without foreign involvement. If the region (1) didn't have oil, and (2) wasn't threatening Israel (that's a whole ball of wax best left undiscussed here), the US wouldn't be there.

 

Afghanistan, of course. Pursue our attackers. But we have not found them, because our forces have been diverted. (And I know, a land war in the Afghan region is nearly impossible. I was "awake" during the 80s.)

 

A good revolution comes from within. I truly hope that one day, the Iranian and Iraqi peoples have the courage to take care of their countries, and their business. I truly hope that one day, rich countries in the region stop building indoor ski resorts (I'm looking at you, UAE) or just gaining money for the hell of it (and now, I'm looking at you, SA), and look towards creating peace. But our presence in Iraq, while now necessary because of the 2003 invasion, will solve nothing. Not a goddamned thing.

 

I know we have actives and vets on this board, and I want you all to know that I respect you. I tried to serve and was not accepted. (Unlike a certain former commander-in-chief, I admitted my inhaling. No Navy for me.) That has nothing to do, though, with whether the US belongs in Iraq. We don't. We never did. We never will. We don't belong in Iran, either. We DO belong in Afghanistan, and to the extent that Al Qaeda has filtered into Pakistan, maybe there, too. But we don't do well with addressing real problems in this country; we look for the buck. The buck isn't in Afghanistan.

 

The Middle East will be peaceful when it wants to be. Not before, and not after. 1300 years after the dawn of Christianity, Europe was a complete mess. 1300 years after the dawn of Islam, the Middle East is the same way. Some things only can be addressed by Time, and not by men and women.

 

In response to your 1st point. I've said a few times that I thought we never should have went into Iraq, but you have it backwards. Whats "immaterial at this point" is how we got there. What matters is, we're there. So we might as well make the best of it. Baghdad in particular, and Iraq as a whole, is more stable now than it has been in decades. You are just flat out wrong. And to say that having a force in Iraq, a country who, god willing, we will be able to look apon as an ally in the future will not be advantageous if we go to war with Iran is just ignorant. But I don't see you as being ignorant wich can only mean your being an a$$hole.

 

In response to your martin luther king reference I have no comment. For all I know you may be right.

 

In response to your "I tried to serve but was not accepted" comment, I speak for all servicemembers when I say to you to shut the fuk up. Not me personally, but all of us. We understand that the military is not for everybody. We are fighting two wars and you may die, it's not for everyone, we get that. What we absolutely can't stomach is ###### like you who say "I wanted to but......" Guess what? Most of us tried weed at some point. We knew that telling our recruiter that would stop us from getting in(Just like you did). So you know what we did? WE DIDN'T TELL OUR RECRUITER WE SMOKED WEED!!! You're the kind of person we hate worse then them fukkers trying to kill us.

 

 

Eleven throwin' down the heavy. Good stuff.

 

Really? Which "good stuff" of his do you agree with? Why?

 

Agreed, great post.

 

See above, same questions....

[Eleven]

In response to your 1st point. I've said a few times that I thought we never should have went into Iraq, but you have it backwards. Whats "immaterial at this point" is how we got there. What matters is, we're there. So we might as well make the best of it. Baghdad in particular, and Iraq as a whole, is more stable now than it has been in decades. You are just flat out wrong. And to say that having a force in Iraq, a country who, god willing, we will be able to look apon as an ally in the future will not be advantageous if we go to war with Iran is just ignorant. But I don't see you as being ignorant wich can only mean your being an a$$hole.

 

In response to your martin luther king reference I have no comment. For all I know you may be right.

 

In response to your "I tried to serve but was not accepted" comment, I speak for all servicemembers when I say to you to shut the fuk up. Not me personally, but all of us. We understand that the military is not for everybody. We are fighting two wars and you may die, it's not for everyone, we get that. What we absolutely can't stomach is ###### like you who say "I wanted to but......" Guess what? Most of us tried weed at some point. We knew that telling our recruiter that would stop us from getting in(Just like you did). So you know what we did? WE DIDN'T TELL OUR RECRUITER WE SMOKED WEED!!! You're the kind of person we hate worse then them fukkers trying to kill us.

 

 

 

1. Until the people no longer are controlled by fundamentalists, no army will stabilize Iraq. What do you think happens when we leave? Or are we there forever? The people themselves have to have the will to stand up to fundamentalism and move past it--because no matter how many fundamentalist leaders are imprisoned or killed, there always will be more. It's an ideological change that needs to happen.

 

2. Martin Luther, not Martin Luther King, Jr. Different guy. Maybe the rest of the post makes more sense when you take that into consideration.

 

3. Hate me all you want, but I wasn't being drafted; I was looking for a job. I was excited about it, too. I certainly wasn't trying to get out of something; why would I have been there in the first place? I was asked a question, I answered it. I've answered the same question the same way throughout my adult life, and I wasn't going to lie to some Navy recruiter. And given the nature of my application, there was virtually no chance I would have seen combat action, so it's not cowardice that kept me honest. Your last sentence is ridiculous, seems alcohol-fueled, and pretty much destroys your credibility. I've had many friends in the military, and not one of them seemed to hate me more than people who were trying to kill them. Maybe they just were good actors, though. Moreover, my point was to assure readers that I am not anti-military, not to discuss my personal credentials.

 

Your post not only failed to inform, but also it was unnecessarily personal and hate-filled.

[SwampD]

In response to your 1st point. I've said a few times that I thought we never should have went into Iraq, but you have it backwards. Whats "immaterial at this point" is how we got there. What matters is, we're there. So we might as well make the best of it. Baghdad in particular, and Iraq as a whole, is more stable now than it has been in decades. You are just flat out wrong. And to say that having a force in Iraq, a country who, god willing, we will be able to look apon as an ally in the future will not be advantageous if we go to war with Iran is just ignorant. But I don't see you as being ignorant wich can only mean your being an a$$hole.

 

In response to your martin luther king reference I have no comment. For all I know you may be right.

 

In response to your "I tried to serve but was not accepted" comment, I speak for all servicemembers when I say to you to shut the fuk up. Not me personally, but all of us. We understand that the military is not for everybody. We are fighting two wars and you may die, it's not for everyone, we get that. What we absolutely can't stomach is ###### like you who say "I wanted to but......" Guess what? Most of us tried weed at some point. We knew that telling our recruiter that would stop us from getting in(Just like you did). So you know what we did? WE DIDN'T TELL OUR RECRUITER WE SMOKED WEED!!! You're the kind of person we hate worse then them fukkers trying to kill us.

 

 

 

 

Really? Which "good stuff" of his do you agree with? Why?

 

 

 

See above, same questions....

You forget that Iraq already was an ally of the U.S. We propped up Saddam and poured millions of dollars in weapons to him. That is the MO of the Bush/Chaney war machine. Prop up a leader, then say they are out of control and take them down. Making billions on both sides of it. It's what they did in South America, and more importantly it's what they did in Afganistan. People forget that Bin Laden was our ally against the USSR. It's what they do.

 

 

And I'm pretty sure that Eleven was talking about Martin Luther, who nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Catholic church, not Martin Luther King.

[SwampD]

In my opinion, George W. Bush was the worst president in my lifetime. It is going to take longer than the term(s) of this president to recover from the policies put forth by him. IMO. I don't care if you agree or not. It's just my opinion.

I just had to revisit a an earlier post of mine. Isn't it interesting that in a thread about the current state of the union, all we are talking about are the actions of the former administration?

[FogBat]

Obviously we won't agree on Carter vs. Obama. While GWB surely had his faults, Carter never had to deal with a 9/11 and I stand by my opinion. Even today Carter continues to embarrass himself, i.e., his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

As for me being pessimistic. I call it pragmatism. I was factual, cited examples, and refrained from gutter language & slander. I pointed out Barry's track record & rhetoric over his first year in office, and made the observation that he had a chance to rally everyone behind him with a different tone & messaging at the SOTU, which did not happen. The air of condescension & lecturing was typical Obama & fell flat in my book - pretty much more of the same that we have seen over the last year.

Have you read this book? From what I read in it, Carter has to be THE WORST POTUS/ex-POTUS we've ever had. He makes Millard Fillmore look good.

[Hank]

1. Until the people no longer are controlled by fundamentalists, no army will stabilize Iraq. What do you think happens when we leave? Or are we there forever? The people themselves have to have the will to stand up to fundamentalism and move past it--because no matter how many fundamentalist leaders are imprisoned or killed, there always will be more. It's an ideological change that needs to happen.

 

2. Martin Luther, not Martin Luther King, Jr. Different guy. Maybe the rest of the post makes more sense when you take that into consideration.

 

3. Hate me all you want, but I wasn't being drafted; I was looking for a job. I was excited about it, too. I certainly wasn't trying to get out of something; why would I have been there in the first place? I was asked a question, I answered it. I've answered the same question the same way throughout my adult life, and I wasn't going to lie to some Navy recruiter. And given the nature of my application, there was virtually no chance I would have seen combat action, so it's not cowardice that kept me honest. Your last sentence is ridiculous, seems alcohol-fueled, and pretty much destroys your credibility. I've had many friends in the military, and not one of them seemed to hate me more than people who were trying to kill them. Maybe they just were good actors, though. Moreover, my point was to assure readers that I am not anti-military, not to discuss my personal credentials.

 

Your post not only failed to inform, but also it was unnecessarily personal and hate-filled.

 

1. I agree with much of what you say. I have no idea what will happen when we pull out of Iraq, nor do you, all we can do is guess. What I do know is that Iraq will have an Army/Police force like they've never had before. Iraq will never be like America, nor should it be, but the Iraqi people will be a hell of a lot better off then when they were under Saddam's rule.

 

2. Please excuse my ignorance.

 

3. You're right, my last post was alcohol fueled, apologies. No, I don't hate you, that was wrong of me to say, and alcohol fueled as you pointed out. The base of my point though I stand behind, it really bothers us when people say things along the lines of "I wanted to do my part to help out but I couldn't get in because........" Noone is obligated to join the service, and I don't judge people who don't. But prior to the economy going south we were hurting, about the only people who wanted to get in that couldn't were convicts and the learning disabled. After the economy went south we got a large influx of people (The army is actually full, hard to believe but true), but thats not exactly the greatest thing either. We have alot of people who joined because they couldn't find anything better, wich is fine, but many of them have no interest in being a Soldier and living the Army Values, wich is not fine. Bottom line is, getting in is not hard, and you must have known that telling your recruiter you got high years ago would keep you from getting in, so you must not have wanted it. Saying you wanted to but your "honesty to the recruiter" stopped you is insulting and infuriating and I'd rather not hear/read it.

 

You forget that Iraq already was an ally of the U.S. We propped up Saddam and poured millions of dollars in weapons to him. That is the MO of the Bush/Chaney war machine. Prop up a leader, then say they are out of control and take them down. Making billions on both sides of it. It's what they did in South America, and more importantly it's what they did in Afganistan. People forget that Bin Laden was our ally against the USSR. It's what they do.

 

 

And I'm pretty sure that Eleven was talking about Martin Luther, who nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Catholic church, not Martin Luther King.

 

I don't dispute a word you say about Bush/Chaney, but they are no longer in office, lets give the new guy(Whom, again, I did not vote for) a chance.

You did not answer my questions...

[Hank]

 

Your post not only failed to inform, but also it was unnecessarily personal and hate-filled.

 

I forgot address this. Your right, it was unnecessary, and I apologize.

[nfreeman]

It's rare when we agree, DeLuca. But I guess that we usually spar on less important matters, like hockey.

 

Look, whether the US is there or not, is largely immaterial at this point. What we were told, and why we supposedly are there, is false. Completely. It was a fraud, and it was a fraud designed to maximize money for certain people at the expense of many, many lives. And with my apologies to anyone who is serving there, I don't think the US is going to stabilize Baghdad, much less the country or the region. And I do not think we will have an advantage when war with Iran comes. The entire region needs its own reformation, a la Martin Luther, without foreign involvement. If the region (1) didn't have oil, and (2) wasn't threatening Israel (that's a whole ball of wax best left undiscussed here), the US wouldn't be there.

 

Afghanistan, of course. Pursue our attackers. But we have not found them, because our forces have been diverted. (And I know, a land war in the Afghan region is nearly impossible. I was "awake" during the 80s.)

 

A good revolution comes from within. I truly hope that one day, the Iranian and Iraqi peoples have the courage to take care of their countries, and their business. I truly hope that one day, rich countries in the region stop building indoor ski resorts (I'm looking at you, UAE) or just gaining money for the hell of it (and now, I'm looking at you, SA), and look towards creating peace. But our presence in Iraq, while now necessary because of the 2003 invasion, will solve nothing. Not a goddamned thing.

 

I know we have actives and vets on this board, and I want you all to know that I respect you. I tried to serve and was not accepted. (Unlike a certain former commander-in-chief, I admitted my inhaling. No Navy for me.) That has nothing to do, though, with whether the US belongs in Iraq. We don't. We never did. We never will. We don't belong in Iran, either. We DO belong in Afghanistan, and to the extent that Al Qaeda has filtered into Pakistan, maybe there, too. But we don't do well with addressing real problems in this country; we look for the buck. The buck isn't in Afghanistan.

 

The Middle East will be peaceful when it wants to be. Not before, and not after. 1300 years after the dawn of Christianity, Europe was a complete mess. 1300 years after the dawn of Islam, the Middle East is the same way. Some things only can be addressed by Time, and not by men and women.

I don't agree with much of this, but I do agree with some of it and I appreciate the mature tone and the thoughtfulness. To me it again demonstrates that reasonable people can disagree on important matters.

 

In response to your 1st point. I've said a few times that I thought we never should have went into Iraq, but you have it backwards. Whats "immaterial at this point" is how we got there. What matters is, we're there. So we might as well make the best of it. Baghdad in particular, and Iraq as a whole, is more stable now than it has been in decades. You are just flat out wrong. And to say that having a force in Iraq, a country who, god willing, we will be able to look apon as an ally in the future will not be advantageous if we go to war with Iran is just ignorant. But I don't see you as being ignorant wich can only mean your being an a$$hole.

 

In response to your martin luther king reference I have no comment. For all I know you may be right.

 

In response to your "I tried to serve but was not accepted" comment, I speak for all servicemembers when I say to you to shut the fuk up. Not me personally, but all of us. We understand that the military is not for everybody. We are fighting two wars and you may die, it's not for everyone, we get that. What we absolutely can't stomach is ###### like you who say "I wanted to but......" Guess what? Most of us tried weed at some point. We knew that telling our recruiter that would stop us from getting in(Just like you did). So you know what we did? WE DIDN'T TELL OUR RECRUITER WE SMOKED WEED!!! You're the kind of person we hate worse then them fukkers trying to kill us.

Hank, I really appreciate your service, your sacrifice and your bravery. I live in NYC, aka target #1 for the bloodthirsty lunatics, and I have a family and I strongly believe that fighting those MFs over there is keeping us, including my kids, safe here. I also agree with most of what you've written about Iraq. But I don't think you needed to attack 11 here.

[Hank]

I don't agree with much of this, but I do agree with some of it and I appreciate the mature tone and the thoughtfulness. To me it again demonstrates that reasonable people can disagree on important matters.

 

 

Hank, I really appreciate your service, your sacrifice and your bravery. I live in NYC, aka target #1 for the bloodthirsty lunatics, and I have a family and I strongly believe that fighting those MFs over there is keeping us, including my kids, safe here. I also agree with most of what you've written about Iraq. But I don't think you needed to attack 11 here.

 

Thank you, it really is nice to be appreciated.

 

Yes, I was wrong for attacking 11, I've acknowledged that and apologized.

[deluca67]

The differences between the two wars are large and many. I agree that the location is strategic, and that fact coupled with the oil is most likely why we took an interest in Iraq while ignoring similar situations worldwide. The only similarities you can offer between the two wars is that we don't/didn't belong in either country. I don't mind saying I'm disappointed. Through the years of being a member of this board I've developed a higher expectation of you in supporting your position/opinion and I feel let down. Your better than this. At least I thought you were....

If that is all you have taken from that? Then it is I who feels disappointed.

[SwampD]

I don't dispute a word you say about Bush/Chaney, but they are no longer in office, lets give the new guy(Whom, again, I did not vote for) a chance.

You did not answer my questions...

I thought Eleven pretty much covered it that's why I didn't go further. With all the great work that our troops are doing there, I just don't see a change happening until the people themselves are ready. A propped up leader forced upon the Iraqi people by a foreign country won't work. It didn't with Saddam and he was "our" choice. Is Baghdad really more secure now than under his rule? He had the fundamentalists pretty under control. It's just that WE couldn't control HIM.

 

 

On a completely different note. It really bothers me that official death counts only include U.S. citizens, as if Iraqis aren't actually people. Our bombs weren't just dropping on Saddam's guard in open fields. We destroyed a lot of infrastructure and killed a lot of innocent people (some estimates are near 100,000 people during Shock and Awe only).

 

I just have a problem when people complain about our President spending money on a stimulus package that actually goes to Americans (even if it is in the form of kickbacks) but have no problem spending the same amount of money when it goes towards blowing up brown people.

[Guest Sloth]

You misunderstand me. I believe in live and let live. My concern is more of a logistical/administrative level. Say I get a new private who is openly gay, where do I put him? Men room together, and women room together. The quick answer is that he's a man so he rooms with a man. But is it that easy? I don't know. Sexual preferance is a little different issue than religious denomination or skin color. Can/should I force a straight man to share a room with an openly gay man? We have instances of sexual assault in the Army, we try to prevent it as best we can but it still happens. If I was to put a man and a woman in the same barracks room and there was an incident it would ruin my career. Do I open myself up to the same possibility if I put a gay man and a straight man in the same room? If I give a gay man his own room than I open myself up for an I.G. Complaint. There are so many questions that I don't have answers to.

 

You gave legitimate examples to support your argument, and I am in complete agreement. Something else to think about is "team chemistry." When a unit is on patrol in the streets of Baghdad and they have an openly gay man, what type of chemistry would they have? Would they be able to communicate at the level their supposed to? Would they look at the gay man differently? Could a straight man have no care for a man who is gay? Would their performance, their lives, be hindered by having an openly gay man in their unit?

I'll say it, I do not support homosexuality. It is a choice to be gay. And a number of people share the same opinion. This is why the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy should continue to be practiced in the military.

Let me say this. I do not have any type of hatred for a person who is gay. I simply disagree w/ the choice they made. If I was in the military, I wouldn't let it effect my ability to work with the gay person. However, there are people who do hate/dislike gay people. And these people would not feel comfortable working with a gay person in the military.

[PASabreFan]

To me, the issue of war and public opinion comes down to some common sense.

 

1. If you support the war and are of age, did you go enlist to fight?

 

2. Did you encourage your of-age son or daughter, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter to enlist?

 

3. Do you support a draft where anyone of age can be forced to serve?

 

If sons and daughters of power, money and influence -- say the Bush Twins -- were at risk of losing life and limb and innocence, many of these senseless adventures would not happen.

[Eleven]

1. I agree with much of what you say. I have no idea what will happen when we pull out of Iraq, nor do you, all we can do is guess. What I do know is that Iraq will have an Army/Police force like they've never had before. Iraq will never be like America, nor should it be, but the Iraqi people will be a hell of a lot better off then when they were under Saddam's rule.

 

2. Please excuse my ignorance.

 

3. You're right, my last post was alcohol fueled, apologies. No, I don't hate you, that was wrong of me to say, and alcohol fueled as you pointed out. The base of my point though I stand behind, it really bothers us when people say things along the lines of "I wanted to do my part to help out but I couldn't get in because........" Noone is obligated to join the service, and I don't judge people who don't. But prior to the economy going south we were hurting, about the only people who wanted to get in that couldn't were convicts and the learning disabled. After the economy went south we got a large influx of people (The army is actually full, hard to believe but true), but thats not exactly the greatest thing either. We have alot of people who joined because they couldn't find anything better, wich is fine, but many of them have no interest in being a Soldier and living the Army Values, wich is not fine. Bottom line is, getting in is not hard, and you must have known that telling your recruiter you got high years ago would keep you from getting in, so you must not have wanted it. Saying you wanted to but your "honesty to the recruiter" stopped you is insulting and infuriating and I'd rather not hear/read it.

 

 

 

I don't dispute a word you say about Bush/Chaney, but they are no longer in office, lets give the new guy(Whom, again, I did not vote for) a chance.

You did not answer my questions...

 

 

Tell you what: apology accepted. And I would have loved the Navy position. I mean it. I don't want to make this thread about me, so I sent you a PM explaining what happened. I'll bet if you read it, you'll see exactly where I'm coming from.

[Hank]

If that is all you have taken from that? Then it is I who feels disappointed.

 

Okay, I'll try again...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The two points.

 

1) Vietnam - Both "wars" were/are way to costly, financially and in lives. Both were attempts to colonize a country that due to it's geographical/strategic location. To me the only difference is that the US overwhelmed a hapless ill prepared "army" is they can be called that. I have no doubt the if the objective was achieved in Vietnam as it was in Iraq the US would have commenced with colonization as was the plan of the Bush administration.

 

2) "Winning" is achieving the primary goal. A US controlled colony in the region as well as control of Iraqi oil. The Middle East will not allow for a US controlled colony and future violence as the US goes forward is assured.

 

 

All wars are too costly in money and lives lost (although it could be argued that it was a war that led us out of the great depression), and I readilly agree that we should not have gone to either place. I also conceed that part of the reason for going to Irag was stategic location, I really don't know if it was the same for Vietnam.

 

I still don't see other parallels though. Iraq is a completely different war, against a completely different enemy. The TTP's between the two are nothing alike. The reaction on the homefront is vastly different. People don't call me a baby killer and spit on me, they thank me for my service. You speculate on what would/could have happened in Vietnam, but thats all any of us can do. You may be right. Then again, maybe not. We'll never know. But what is undisputable is how different the outcome of the two wars are(will be?).

 

Admittedly, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I still dont see how they are the same war. And you've still done nothing to support your belief that they are, at least from what I see.

 

Maybe I have blinders on, or maybe I'm just too involved with the current conflict to see it. Somebody, anybody, if you can see why Deluca thinks the Iraqi war parallels the Vietnam war please enlighten me.

 

As far as your definition of winning goes, I disagree. Who knows, you may end up being right, but I hope not.

[Saudi Arabia Rob]

The two points.

 

1) Vietnam - Both "wars" were/are way to costly, financially and in lives. Both were attempts to colonize a country that due to it's geographical/strategic location. To me the only difference is that the US overwhelmed a hapless ill prepared "army" is they can be called that. I have no doubt the if the objective was achieved in Vietnam as it was in Iraq the US would have commenced with colonization as was the plan of the Bush administration.

 

2) "Winning" is achieving the primary goal. A US controlled colony in the region as well as control of Iraqi oil. The Middle East will not allow for a US controlled colony and future violence as the US goes forward is assured.

 

The crux of your argument the US was going to "colonize" either country undercuts any logic in your debate. We had only one true "colony" in our history...the Philippines and I think any logical person can see there were no designs to colonize anything, regardless if you think either war was justified or not. I've spent over seven years in the Middle East and there is only one solution to our Middle East dilemma...get off of oil. However, I don't think that's going to happen in our lifetime.

[FogBat]

Here's something that has not been addressed as far back as I can remember, regardless if it's SOTU or anywhere else on the Beltway: a sound money policy and an abolishment of the central bank (aka the Federal Reserve).

 

I certainly didn't hear about it during the Bush years, and I am not holding my breath that Obama will ever discuss it.

 

Had Ron Paul been elected President, that would have probably been one of the first things he would have implemented. Something like this has been done before in the US, and it looks like it might happen again - but not because Congress approved it.

 

For more information, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking

[tulax]

Here's something that has not been addressed as far back as I can remember, regardless if it's SOTU or anywhere else on the Beltway: a sound money policy and an abolishment of the central bank (aka the Federal Reserve).

 

I certainly didn't hear about it during the Bush years, and I am not holding my breath that Obama will ever discuss it.

 

Had Ron Paul been elected President, that would have probably been one of the first things he would have implemented. Something like this has been done before in the US, and it looks like it might happen again - but not because Congress approved it.

 

For more information, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking

I haven't heard too much about this recently, and I work closely with a financial institution client as part of my job. From what I see, and I haven't looked into the case for free-banking besides the wiki article, it seems like a free market approach would be a "high risk, high reward" type strategy. I'll admit that the Fed, especially during the Greenspan era and continuing to the Bernanke era, deserves a fair share of the blame for the recession we're in because of the lack of balance applied to the markets. However, I do feel Bernanke did a pretty good job of stabilizing this economy so that it didn't completely hit rock bottom. Besides, proposing a "market-driven" regulation policy at this stage in the game doesn't seem like a very good idea. Not when citizens are incensed when they hear the words Wall Street bonuses.

[FogBat]

I haven't heard too much about this recently, and I work closely with a financial institution client as part of my job. From what I see, and I haven't looked into the case for free-banking besides the wiki article, it seems like a free market approach would be a "high risk, high reward" type strategy. I'll admit that the Fed, especially during the Greenspan era and continuing to the Bernanke era, deserves a fair share of the blame for the recession we're in because of the lack of balance applied to the markets. However, I do feel Bernanke did a pretty good job of stabilizing this economy so that it didn't completely hit rock bottom. Besides, proposing a "market-driven" regulation policy at this stage in the game doesn't seem like a very good idea. Not when citizens are incensed when they hear the words Wall Street bonuses.

You make some good points.

 

The problem is not with what you said. The problem began when Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. He later regretted opening that particular Pandora's Box. No wonder Andrew Jackson HATED the very concept of a central bank!

 

More on the Federal Reserve Act...

[Eleven]

Finally. Go, Go, Go, Go , GO!!!!!

[SabresRepublic]

What is there to be conflicted about? We need to erase the religious based fear that somehow ###### men and women are evil. The same people that want to tell you that homosexuals are destroying this country are the same that said blacks are evil and will destroy the country when they take over. It is the basis of organized religion and the republican party, they sell three things, fear, fear and fear.

 

I am NOT a registered Republican nor do I consider myself religious. However, I do believe that all individuals should connect with their spiritual side! Your blanket statement about the religious is so ridiculous I wonder what you are trying to say!

 

Most religions promote Life, Liberty, Property and free will association. That said, men and women are necessarily good for they are the harbingers of Life, Liberty and Property.. To equate the majority of religious with cults that actually promote death, anarchy and destruction is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater - don't be evil!!! Finally, from what I understand about religions, their central tenet seems to be that men and women and therefore all life on earth is created in the image of something more powerful than everything else put together.

 

As far as homosexuals destroying the country? When their behavior and politics undermine natural law and therefore life unsuspecting minds should be alerted to the designs that may be anathema to Life, Liberty, Property! A predator is a predator regardless of gender or orientation.

The real issue is that recruiting unsuspecting minds to lifestyles that may shorten their life expectancy is where the battle will continue as in good vs evil. It is NOT a war against individuals who are homosexuals. It is a war against homosexuals who violate the rules that we've established over millenia!

 

If Blacks are fomenting Liberation Theology, anarchy and destruction than there is a problem. However, the majority do NOT and they love the Life, Liberty, Property that started this huge undertaking of human governance unparalleled in human history.

 

It's like a conversation I had with someone about illegal alens and their ability to partake in our country's endeavors. I said,"If they are here to help us form a more perfect Union, then they are welcome! If they are here breaking our laws they need to go!"

 

And your final blanket statement is so outlandish I will only say that you have a major chip on your shoulder!

[FogBat]

I am NOT a registered Republican nor do I consider myself religious. However, I do believe that all individuals should connect with their spiritual side! Your blanket statement about the religious is so ridiculous I wonder what you are trying to say!

 

Most religions promote Life, Liberty, Property and free will association. That said, men and women are necessarily good for they are the harbingers of Life, Liberty and Property.. To equate the majority of religious with cults that actually promote death, anarchy and destruction is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater - don't be evil!!! Finally, from what I understand about religions, their central tenet seems to be that men and women and therefore all life on earth is created in the image of something more powerful than everything else put together.

 

As far as homosexuals destroying the country? When their behavior and politics undermine natural law and therefore life unsuspecting minds should be alerted to the designs that may be anathema to Life, Liberty, Property! A predator is a predator regardless of gender or orientation.

The real issue is that recruiting unsuspecting minds to lifestyles that may shorten their life expectancy is where the battle will continue as in good vs evil. It is NOT a war against individuals who are homosexuals. It is a war against homosexuals who violate the rules that we've established over millenia!

 

If Blacks are fomenting Liberation Theology, anarchy and destruction than there is a problem. However, the majority do NOT and they love the Life, Liberty, Property that started this huge undertaking of human governance unparalleled in human history.

 

It's like a conversation I had with someone about illegal alens and their ability to partake in our country's endeavors. I said,"If they are here to help us form a more perfect Union, then they are welcome! If they are here breaking our laws they need to go!"

 

And your final blanket statement is so outlandish I will only say that you have a major chip on your shoulder!

Wow! I couldn't have said this any better myself. Great post!