Follow
Donate to HeyBucket.com - Amount:

Welcome Anonymous !

Your Fastpitch Softball Bible
 

The Pub

Shocking!!

Off topic. Home for jokes and other misc. stuff.
Keep it reasonable.

by jonriv » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:42 pm

Monroe Doctrine

The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.


was there some European power trying to take over South America I was unaware of? :D

Roosevelt Corollary

Although the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was essentially passive (it asked that Europeans not increase their influence or recolonize any part of the Western Hemisphere), by the 20th century a more confident United States was willing to take on the role of regional policeman. In the early 1900s Roosevelt grew concerned that a crisis between Venezuela and its creditors could spark an invasion of that nation by European powers. The Roosevelt Corollary of December 1904 stated that the United States would intervene as a last resort to ensure that other nations in the Western Hemisphere fulfilled their obligations to international creditors, and did not violate the rights of the United States or invite “foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations.” As the corollary worked out in practice, the United States increasingly used military force to restore internal stability to nations in the region. Roosevelt declared that the United States might “exercise international police power in ‘flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence.’” Over the long term the corollary had little to do with relations between the Western Hemisphere and Europe, but it did serve as justification for U.S. intervention in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic.
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by blackwidow » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:52 pm

jonriv wrote:What if the property is heroin? nuclear material? people?

All of which were once legal to own........

Be careful of absolutes

Heroin and nuclear material I have no problem with. I am totally against the drug war and believe its a complete failure. Prohibition only creates a black market and more crime.
Besides, They are already owned by the elite anyway.
People should not be able to own other people but we are all owned. Just see what happens if you don't pay your taxes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
User avatar
blackwidow
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: riding a horse so high your complaints just sound like ant farts to me.

by PDad » Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:28 pm

jonriv wrote:Pdad- The $35 price came after the EO had already been in place which allowed the Feds to make a (paper) profit on the gold- the price paid for it was the mkt at the time.

The market rate in 1933 was over $26. The US government set its own price until it went off the gold standard and the "paper" profit from raising it to $35 funded the Exchange Stabilization Fund.

The official U.S. Government gold price has changed only four times from 1792 to the present. Starting at $19.75 per troy ounce, raised to $20.67 in 1834, and $35 in 1934. In 1972, the price was raised to $38 and then to $42.22 in 1973.
http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf

Frankly- Obama wasted a key time to enact some long term projects which could have been paid for by low interest debt while also utilizing the time to streamline operating expenses. Long term investments tend to lead to future revenue-something the president does not seemto understand

What sort of projects do you have in mind? Obama repeatedly proposed numerous stimulus projects (e.g. bridges, roads, schools). I'm very wary of any projects he - and Congress - would select based on his track record with green tech and healthcare.gov.
User avatar
PDad
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:52 pm

by ontheblack » Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:16 pm

jonriv wrote:
WRG to #4, all currency is fiat money. Semantically no currency is fiat, but if we look at the common usage of fiat to mean having no intrinsic value, then today all currencies are fiat currencies. In addition, we have a debt that rivals pre-war Germany. Holding greenbacks is pointless since Nixon took us off the gold standard completely in 1971.

That leaves assets.

All it takes is an April 1933 FDR-esque move to strip citizens of their wealth. For the record, the greatest theft of private wealth in the US was done with the stroke of a pen via Executive Order 6102./quote]

The Gold Standard always intrigues me- the assumption is that "all will be swell" under the gold standard. Except that the Great Depression and several Panics in the 1800's all came under the Gold standard. Nixon effectively took us off the Gold standard, but we had been defacto off of it since after WWII- Nixon just made it official

EO 6102 did not confiscate anything, required that the Gold be turned in to currency(compensation does not equal confiscation)

Wiemar Germany- really???? For one- our debt is actually lowe(per GDP) than other industrialized countries and our debt is at a low interest and ironically largely owed to ourselves. I agree that the current debt level is too high, but reject the notion that debt is necessarily bad. Long term things should be paid with long term money(debt) ie house-mortgage Also, unlike Weimar Germany, we are not saddled with unrealistic reperations that had to be paid in hard assets

It must be a sad frightening world for you.


I have become a fatalist. I dont do fear and I dont do greed. I also dont do guilt.

What I find sad are apologists who ignore history, or worse, spin it. What I believe to be frightening are the consequences of apologeticism as it pertains to the behavior of government.

You are in the banking industry so I am sure you understand the logic and need of FDR to confiscate gold in exchange for a paper currency in order to save a bankrupt banking system. The first step was PR. Savers were now called hoarders. This hoarding was now cited as one of the root causes of the Depression. Devaluing a currency helped the borrowers, but the savers were screwed over. FDR simply recapitalized bankrupt banks with gold it seized from the citizenry. You may have an issue with the terms seizure or confiscation, so it call it imminent domain if it makes you feel better. It is still the government forcing the public to give up private property. Compensation doesnt change what it is.
User avatar
ontheblack
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:27 pm

by jonriv » Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:28 pm

My feeling on this was that it was an important step and it affected a very small part of teh population and was a real problem. I do not feel that hoarding was a key driver of teh depression-could have been. I have always felt protectionism and isolationism were the real drivers that made the depression worse. I am also not a belieevr that FDR and the New Deal got us ourt of the depression- It took a mobilization from a World War- I do feel that FDR preveneted a revolution and us becoming either communist or facists- which was a real possibility at that time. The hoarding was done by some of the very wealthy and was a huge concern. This was a period with over 30% unemployment and the gap between the haves and have-nots was dangerously and potentialy reveliounarily wide- easy to look in retrospect, but remember gold at that time was currency-the govt was just exchanging for other currency.

Both my Grandparents kept there jobs during the depression- but at half pay. frankly I think few of us can really imagine how bad it was then- we should be embarrased by our current worries in comparison
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by exD1dad » Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:14 pm

Jonriv, you are correct in the main focus of the Monroe Doctrine being European influence in colonization, however my point of view has more to do with America not "meddling" in the affairs of other world powers IE: being the watchdog for the world (& or the provider of cash) while at the same time asserting a certain independence that benefits America & all it's citizens. All though we need to assert our power in other parts of the planet to best suit our overall needs it my humble opinion that our foreign policy should take a back seat to domestic policy, especially in terms of monetary aid we give away worldwide when we have so many suffering & an infrastructure that badly needs fixing.

Obviously it was a bad example but historically I have nothing else to compare what I believe our leaders should do & that is help Americans who need it most & deserve it. The jobless, the homeless the veterans. We need to fix our problems at home IMHO
"It's not giving up if you discover you've been chasing the wrong destiny" -Morley LA street artist who posted this on Melrose Avenue in Jan '14
User avatar
exD1dad
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:58 am

by blackwidow » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:17 pm

Back to the subject and the latest reports..

How Police Became a Standing Army
By JOHN PAYNE • January 2, 2014
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... ding-army/

No Refusal Checkpoints planned for New Years Eve
http://www.wbir.com/story/news/local/20 ... e/4214757/

Cleveland celebrates New Year’s Eve with full body patdowns on the public square
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/clev ... eckpoints/

Connecticut gun owners are rushing to register certain firearms and ammunition that will be considered illegal contraband in the new year.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12 ... rs-chills/

Checkpoint Ahead.jpg
Checkpoint Ahead.jpg (49.05 KiB) Viewed 3916 times


~Peace
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
User avatar
blackwidow
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: riding a horse so high your complaints just sound like ant farts to me.

by Sid Barrett » Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:21 pm

Widow,
As a near 20 year veteran of one of the largest SWAT teams in So Cal, I can promise you that your lovely article on Police and the standing army is a complete piece of fabrication. I understand your relentless desire to limit the scope of government and at times I agree with you. However, when you cite crap like that, which was probably chosen at random from the internet, and use it to bolster your political agenda, it fuels many bucketeers beliefs and or comments that you are paranoid and /or delusional.

There is no judge in the state of California who will waive the "knock and notice provision" in a search warrant or authorize it for night service just so bad guy can get in a few extra flushes and dispose of his weed. If a judge chooses to waive those provisions, they are done so entirely for the safety of the officers involved in the service of the warrant. Believe it or not, some times bad guys who hurt or kill others, will sleep with their guns under their pillows. Many times these bad guys tell their family and friends that they are not going back to prison and would rather shoot it out with the cops. Thus, when we are aware of this kind of information, it is often in our best interest to surprise bad guy before he has a chance to arm himself. Extra flushes never enter into the equation. This, of course, is only one fallacy with your article. There are more.

If you want to have a "meaningful" conversation on the topics, then you should cite meaningful or truthful articles,
User avatar
Sid Barrett
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:37 am

by blackwidow » Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:22 pm

If you want to have a "meaningful" conversation on the topics, then you should cite meaningful or truthful articles,


Would you mind giving me an example of a meaningful truthful article?
Thanks
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
User avatar
blackwidow
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: riding a horse so high your complaints just sound like ant farts to me.

by Sid Barrett » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:33 pm

Anything written by Sun Tzu.....or Dave Grohl.

BTW, the evil government can legalize every drug tomorrow, but that will still not eliminate the so called "war on drugs." Nor will it eliminate or lesson the violence that is associated with it. Something about addiction and guns....they just don't seem to go very well together. In my vast experience, and no, I am not being sarcastic, addicts often make rash and poor decisions. After all, there is a reason they are addicts. Often times those decisions involve violence and the well being of others. Making it legal for those addicts to possess their drugs, or worse, giving their drugs to them for free, will not eliminate those poor and rash decisions....or reduce the amount of violence associated them.
User avatar
Sid Barrett
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Pub

cron