I don't think it's legal to use something besides the USD in America...
And, personally speaking, I don't really care what Utah does, they are along the same boat as Texas and Arizona. Break federal law just to see if the federal government will do anything.
There are 13 other states with similar legislation in play for the exact same thing. The states have the right to do this, the Federal government has been breaking the law for quite some time now, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. The Coinage Act of 1792 defines a dollar by law as 371.25 grains of fine silver (see below quote).
DOLLARS OR UNITS--each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver. http://www.constitut...coinage1792.txt
The U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 strictly forbids bills of credit, Federal Reserve Notes are bills of credit.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. http://www.usconstit...st_A1Sec10.html
Understand the the FED is not a government agency, neither is the IRS, they are private companies. The FED has never been auditied, their vaults are literally foreign soil, Alan Greenspan explained in the FED's FOMC meetings which they are required to have.
MR. TRUMAN. What happens in the Census data is that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is treated as a foreign country. [Laughter] And when a real foreign country takes some of the gold out of New York and ships it abroad, it counts first as imports and then as exports. However, the import side is not picked up in the Census data. So there you get the export side of it. MR. LAWARE. Great accounting! MR. BOEHNE. Great confidence building! MR. TRUMAN. That's because you haven't been filling out your import documents! MR. ANGELL. Let me run this by again. You mean a country owns gold and has it stored in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and if they ship it out, that's an export? MR. TRUMAN. And in the balance of payments accounts it also counts as an import, so it washes out. CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. The Federal Reserve Bank's basement is a foreign country. When they move it out of the basement into the United States, it's an import. Then, when they ship it out again, it's an export.
Check out the link to GATA, there links directly to the FED's own FOMC meeting minutes proving this is true. http://www.gata.org/node/8430
I think you are going to be surprised to see what has been true for 5000 years become true again. The Federal government is against the ropes and they don't have many options left. When the middle class wakes up to reality they are no longer middle class, change will finally happen.
When the middle class wakes up to reality they are no longer middle class, change will finally happen.
What middle class? It's the baby-boomer class and it is on it's way to retirement. True middle class job with pensions, benefits, and a career track are a thing of the past. The future is clear: A few incredibly wealthy executives, a handful of financial crooks, the politicians they pay, and a pulsating mass of minimum wage (if it manages to survive a potential republican majority) workers with fewer rights by the day. Eventually, we'll have a perfect oligarchy and the masses will be relegated to serfdom.
Completely off topic here, but why do poorer people have more kids. Every time I see a poorer person on Tv they have like 4-5 kids and it just brings them down more, yet families who are richer and have money only have 1-2? shouldn't it be the other way around I mean look at china half its population is poor as shit and yet they are the most over populated country. Sorry if this is completely off-topic but I want to know if you guys have any ideas as to why this is, someone mentioned earlier about overpopulating and it made me think of this.
Duh. Because poor people have nothing better to do then procreate. While the rich spend their time traveling the world.
Completely off topic here, but why do poorer people have more kids. Every time I see a poorer person on Tv they have like 4-5 kids and it just brings them down more, yet families who are richer and have money only have 1-2? shouldn't it be the other way around I mean look at china half its population is poor as shit and yet they are the most over populated country. Sorry if this is completely off-topic but I want to know if you guys have any ideas as to why this is, someone mentioned earlier about overpopulating and it made me think of this.
Duh. Because poor people have nothing better to do then procreate. While the rich spend their time traveling the world.
There are a lot of economic factors that go into how many kids people have in poor economies. Its got nothing to do with them having nothing to do.
When the middle class wakes up to reality they are no longer middle class, change will finally happen.
What middle class? It's the baby-boomer class and it is on it's way to retirement. True middle class job with pensions, benefits, and a career track are a thing of the past. The future is clear: A few incredibly wealthy executives, a handful of financial crooks, the politicians they pay, and a pulsating mass of minimum wage (if it manages to survive a potential republican majority) workers with fewer rights by the day. Eventually, we'll have a perfect oligarchy and the masses will be relegated to serfdom.
I'd agree with that mostly, there are still some middle class people though, I'd fall into that category. I think the growing Wall Street protests are showing people in the US are beginning to wake up.
When the middle class wakes up to reality they are no longer middle class, change will finally happen.
What middle class? It's the baby-boomer class and it is on it's way to retirement. True middle class job with pensions, benefits, and a career track are a thing of the past. The future is clear: A few incredibly wealthy executives, a handful of financial crooks, the politicians they pay, and a pulsating mass of minimum wage (if it manages to survive a potential republican majority) workers with fewer rights by the day. Eventually, we'll have a perfect oligarchy and the masses will be relegated to serfdom.
Believe it or not Proleteria... alot of the dissapearance of the middle class has to do with the government pushing higher education. In the past a college degree would guarantee you a good salary because you were in demand and you were qualified. Now, any jackass can get a "degree." Trust me, I mean any jackass... I can't even start to explain the kind of people I have had to tutor.....
I'd agree with that mostly, there are still some middle class people though, I'd fall into that category. I think the growing Wall Street protests are showing people in the US are beginning to wake up.
I fall into that catergory too, but it's because i'm a baby boomer in a tenured position. They couldn't fire me if they wanted to. And if they went under, the fed would still pay my pension among other things. Like I said, we (my generation) really did a great job of setting up fool-proof schemes. I think the wall street crowd is the beginning of such a realization, but it's certainly not got the whole picture, and I don't think the younger generation: ie. those graduating from college and highschool now, have enough momentum right now to make a dent in the issues even if they did.
We're entrenched in government high and low and it's going to take some serious grass-roots "time to stop fucking your grandkids," movements to turn things around. I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime, but I have been and will continue to be on the side of the young people who stand up against this deck stacked against them.
Believe it or not Proleteria... alot of the dissapearance of the middle class has to do with the government pushing higher education. In the past a college degree would guarantee you a good salary because you were in demand and you were qualified. Now, any jackass can get a "degree." Trust me, I mean any jackass... I can't even start to explain the kind of people I have had to tutor.....
It has to do with the same shit that began erasing the middle class as soon as it was created: commodity work becoming more efficient, more easily outsourced services, etc. In the past, an employer took you on to most jobs with a bachelors because they didn't need you to do anything but the narrow task you were trained for. These days you need at least a masters to get into a professional field and they expect you to not only know your material but also have amazing communication skills, fluency with any and all relavent computer software, and the number of job spots to fill has shrunk dramatically.
I agree that a lot of mid-tier and low-tier universities have become degre mills, but that's only half the problem. Graduates with masters+ degrees who have displayed complete competency, from top-ranked schools, are being forced to compete with a growing baby-boomer crowd with a lesser degree but 10-20 years of experience! They just can't compete with that in most sectors. These retirement-age boomers should be on their way out, but the sob-stories in the paper about poor Joe who is 60 years old and just lost his job seem to have pulled on the heart strings of employers and lawyers alike. Litigation from the AARP alone is crippling the chances of young grads to get their foot in the door.
Last year we had two adjunct professors strait out of Stanford University, PhD in-hand, and neither one got re-signed this year. My department has over a dozen tenured professors age 60-70+ who should be retired, they're just not budging. Some of them are well worth keeping on, widely published genius types who are pillars of the field, but others are just floating along with tenure and not doing anything to justify hogging up six-digit salaries over those new grads who would be paid less than 1/4 that. We desperately need new blood, but the special interest types for my generation are just rabid over any suggestion that we need to retire and turn-over the workforce. They will make sure that people my age are not out until they pack away millions more for our retirement funds just to watch the young people work minimum-wage and drown in debt.
I weep for those poor adjunt professors who are probably still bouncing from school to school making 15-20k per year with probably close to 200k in debt from their ivy league education. That simply shouldn't happen. They are brilliant kids and they deserve better than that.
It has to do with the same shit that began erasing the middle class as soon as it was created: commodity work becoming more efficient, more easily outsourced services, etc. In the past, an employer took you on to most jobs with a bachelors because they didn't need you to do anything but the narrow task you were trained for. These days you need at least a masters to get into a professional field and they expect you to not only know your material but also have amazing communication skills, fluency with any and all relavent computer software, and the number of job spots to fill has shrunk dramatically.
I agree that a lot of mid-tier and low-tier universities have become degre mills, but that's only half the problem. Graduates with masters+ degrees who have displayed complete competency, from top-ranked schools, are being forced to compete with a growing baby-boomer crowd with a lesser degree but 10-20 years of experience! They just can't compete with that in most sectors. These retirement-age boomers should be on their way out, but the sob-stories in the paper about poor Joe who is 60 years old and just lost his job seem to have pulled on the heart strings of employers and lawyers alike. Litigation from the AARP alone is crippling the chances of young grads to get their foot in the door.
Last year we had two adjunct professors strait out of Stanford University, PhD in-hand, and neither one got re-signed this year. My department has over a dozen tenured professors age 60-70+ who should be retired, they're just not budging. Some of them are well worth keeping on, widely published genius types who are pillars of the field, but others are just floating along with tenure and not doing anything to justify hogging up six-digit salaries over those new grads who would be paid less than 1/4 that. We desperately need new blood, but the special interest types for my generation are just rabid over any suggestion that we need to retire and turn-over the workforce. They will make sure that people my age are not out until they pack away millions more for our retirement funds just to watch the young people work minimum-wage and drown in debt.
I weep for those poor adjunt professors who are probably still bouncing from school to school making 15-20k per year with probably close to 200k in debt from their ivy league education. That simply shouldn't happen. They are brilliant kids and they deserve better than that.
... you are apparently ALOT older than I thought. However, I'm now getting worried since I know that you are a professor and your comment in the one thread about fooling around with frat boys .
I just feel so fortunate that my career path has nothing to do with a degree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
... you are apparently ALOT older than I thought. However, I'm now getting worried since I know that you are a professor and your comment in the one thread about fooling around with frat boys .
... you are apparently ALOT older than I thought. However, I'm now getting worried since I know that you are a professor and your comment in the one thread about fooling around with frat boys .
Why does that make you worried? Are you a gay frat boy with a time machine set to the late 1960's?
Woah.... you are in in your 60's?
Hahaha wouldn't you have loved that. A gay conservative.... all I would have to do to be even more cliche would run for office as a Christian anti-gay marriage candidate
However, no I'm not gay... or a frat boy. I didn't mean worried in a homophobic way... I meant worried as in I wonder how people are earning their extra credit in your classes... but it was meant to be a jest/tease.
Hahaha wouldn't you have loved that. A gay conservative.... all I would have to do to be even more cliche would run for office as a Christian anti-gay marriage candidate
Log-cabin Republicans and there are gay christians of both parties too, but I don't know that any oppose gay marriage, that would be self-defeating in an all-too-literal way.
However, no I'm not gay... or a frat boy. I didn't mean worried in a homophobic way... I meant worried as in I wonder how people are earning their extra credit in your classes... but it was meant to be a jest/tease.
If I had to think of one way that I could be fired, that would probably be it, haha. But, I have no such fetish and I could not dream of living with someone other than my husband (not that the state recognizes him as such, we were married in Canada) who has been by my side for over thirty years.
I feel like a frat would be a great place to find closet gays. Most of them seem to be very insecure about themselves. It seems to be why the idea of purchasing friends is so appealing. But that's probably for another thread.
Soo....Is Wallstreet suffering at all because of the protests?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I feel like a frat would be a great place to find closet gays. Most of them seem to be very insecure about themselves. It seems to be why the idea of purchasing friends is so appealing. But that's probably for another thread.
That was my general feeling from the 60's and 70's, but I can only assume that's how it still is. The institution has not changed in the least from what i've seen as an outsider (never actually joined a fraternity when I was in school).
Soo....Is Wallstreet suffering at all because of the protests?
I suppose that depends on who you ask, but if you asked me i'd guess not. I have read a lot of ideological wranging from the dems trying to tame the wild horse "occupy," movement for their own devices. I have also read a lot of laughably defamatory garbage from the reps trying to insist that they're all stalinist welfare queens. What I haven't read (and this is the telling part) is anything from wall street money-makers about why they might be just a little deserving of this outpouring of hate. They're lumping it 100% on Uncle Sam and hoping that nobody notices their complicity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Too mainstream?
i mean, i like occupations before they were cool. and GBs should know something about occupation.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
There are 13 other states with similar legislation in play for the exact same thing. The states have the right to do this, the Federal government has been breaking the law for quite some time now, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. The Coinage Act of 1792 defines a dollar by law as 371.25 grains of fine silver (see below quote).
The U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 strictly forbids bills of credit, Federal Reserve Notes are bills of credit.
Understand the the FED is not a government agency, neither is the IRS, they are private companies. The FED has never been auditied, their vaults are literally foreign soil, Alan Greenspan explained in the FED's FOMC meetings which they are required to have.
Check out the link to GATA, there links directly to the FED's own FOMC meeting minutes proving this is true.
http://www.gata.org/node/8430
I think you are going to be surprised to see what has been true for 5000 years become true again. The Federal government is against the ropes and they don't have many options left. When the middle class wakes up to reality they are no longer middle class, change will finally happen.
What middle class? It's the baby-boomer class and it is on it's way to retirement. True middle class job with pensions, benefits, and a career track are a thing of the past. The future is clear: A few incredibly wealthy executives, a handful of financial crooks, the politicians they pay, and a pulsating mass of minimum wage (if it manages to survive a potential republican majority) workers with fewer rights by the day. Eventually, we'll have a perfect oligarchy and the masses will be relegated to serfdom.
Duh. Because poor people have nothing better to do then procreate. While the rich spend their time traveling the world.
To be fair though, if I wasn't getting laid here, and I was rich, I'd be traveling trying to get laid in other countries.
Humans just like to have sex. Well a lot of animals do too.
Pumpkin Contest Submission:
http://habeasporpoise.deviantart.com/art/Diablo-3-Pumpkin-263477540
I'd agree with that mostly, there are still some middle class people though, I'd fall into that category. I think the growing Wall Street protests are showing people in the US are beginning to wake up.
Believe it or not Proleteria... alot of the dissapearance of the middle class has to do with the government pushing higher education. In the past a college degree would guarantee you a good salary because you were in demand and you were qualified. Now, any jackass can get a "degree." Trust me, I mean any jackass... I can't even start to explain the kind of people I have had to tutor.....
I fall into that catergory too, but it's because i'm a baby boomer in a tenured position. They couldn't fire me if they wanted to. And if they went under, the fed would still pay my pension among other things. Like I said, we (my generation) really did a great job of setting up fool-proof schemes. I think the wall street crowd is the beginning of such a realization, but it's certainly not got the whole picture, and I don't think the younger generation: ie. those graduating from college and highschool now, have enough momentum right now to make a dent in the issues even if they did.
We're entrenched in government high and low and it's going to take some serious grass-roots "time to stop fucking your grandkids," movements to turn things around. I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime, but I have been and will continue to be on the side of the young people who stand up against this deck stacked against them.
It has to do with the same shit that began erasing the middle class as soon as it was created: commodity work becoming more efficient, more easily outsourced services, etc. In the past, an employer took you on to most jobs with a bachelors because they didn't need you to do anything but the narrow task you were trained for. These days you need at least a masters to get into a professional field and they expect you to not only know your material but also have amazing communication skills, fluency with any and all relavent computer software, and the number of job spots to fill has shrunk dramatically.
I agree that a lot of mid-tier and low-tier universities have become degre mills, but that's only half the problem. Graduates with masters+ degrees who have displayed complete competency, from top-ranked schools, are being forced to compete with a growing baby-boomer crowd with a lesser degree but 10-20 years of experience! They just can't compete with that in most sectors. These retirement-age boomers should be on their way out, but the sob-stories in the paper about poor Joe who is 60 years old and just lost his job seem to have pulled on the heart strings of employers and lawyers alike. Litigation from the AARP alone is crippling the chances of young grads to get their foot in the door.
Last year we had two adjunct professors strait out of Stanford University, PhD in-hand, and neither one got re-signed this year. My department has over a dozen tenured professors age 60-70+ who should be retired, they're just not budging. Some of them are well worth keeping on, widely published genius types who are pillars of the field, but others are just floating along with tenure and not doing anything to justify hogging up six-digit salaries over those new grads who would be paid less than 1/4 that. We desperately need new blood, but the special interest types for my generation are just rabid over any suggestion that we need to retire and turn-over the workforce. They will make sure that people my age are not out until they pack away millions more for our retirement funds just to watch the young people work minimum-wage and drown in debt.
I weep for those poor adjunt professors who are probably still bouncing from school to school making 15-20k per year with probably close to 200k in debt from their ivy league education. That simply shouldn't happen. They are brilliant kids and they deserve better than that.
... you are apparently ALOT older than I thought. However, I'm now getting worried since I know that you are a professor and your comment in the one thread about fooling around with frat boys .
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
What is this, I don't even.
Dinosaurs will never be out of work.
Woah.... you are in in your 60's?
Hahaha wouldn't you have loved that. A gay conservative.... all I would have to do to be even more cliche would run for office as a Christian anti-gay marriage candidate
However, no I'm not gay... or a frat boy. I didn't mean worried in a homophobic way... I meant worried as in I wonder how people are earning their extra credit in your classes... but it was meant to be a jest/tease.
Log-cabin Republicans and there are gay christians of both parties too, but I don't know that any oppose gay marriage, that would be self-defeating in an all-too-literal way.
If I had to think of one way that I could be fired, that would probably be it, haha. But, I have no such fetish and I could not dream of living with someone other than my husband (not that the state recognizes him as such, we were married in Canada) who has been by my side for over thirty years.
Soo....Is Wallstreet suffering at all because of the protests?
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
That was my general feeling from the 60's and 70's, but I can only assume that's how it still is. The institution has not changed in the least from what i've seen as an outsider (never actually joined a fraternity when I was in school).
I suppose that depends on who you ask, but if you asked me i'd guess not. I have read a lot of ideological wranging from the dems trying to tame the wild horse "occupy," movement for their own devices. I have also read a lot of laughably defamatory garbage from the reps trying to insist that they're all stalinist welfare queens. What I haven't read (and this is the telling part) is anything from wall street money-makers about why they might be just a little deserving of this outpouring of hate. They're lumping it 100% on Uncle Sam and hoping that nobody notices their complicity.