On the right, martyrdom is for everyone

Full meltdown day #5 of ysuups current tantrum

47.2 k of worthless #2

. . . but it's not for everyone. That's why we have all these Democratic Socialist nut jobs running around thinking they can make valued changes for life in America. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Why can't Democratic Socialists make valued changes? What values in America are irreversible? The banking system needs to change, I would argue. Maybe not as eloquently as a Social Scientist or a National Security expert.

Cyber security is as important as pork and soybean trade.

Why can't Democratic Socialists make valued changes? What values in America are irreversible? The banking system needs to change, I would argue. Maybe not as eloquently as a Social Scientist or a National Security expert.

Cyber security is as important as pork and soybean trade. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Democratic Socialist are advocating changes outside of the United States Constitution and the rule of Law. Those aren't valued changes. They want to eliminate certain types of speech which is in contrary to the First Amendment they want to dictate which firearms and how much ammo a citizen can posses that is in contrary to the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution are rules for the Government to follow. By altering , eliminating them in any way changes their responsibilities. Government works for us, we don't work for it.

Why can't Democratic Socialists make valued changes? What values in America are irreversible? The banking system needs to change, I would argue. Maybe not as eloquently as a Social Scientist or a National Security expert.

Cyber security is as important as pork and soybean trade. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Your shallow gibberish knows no end. It constantly reminds me of why I have disdain for this forum - there is a complete absence of intelligent liberal voices.

Wtf do you understand about the banking system? Is a loan an asset or a liability on a bank's balance sheet? How about the provision for loan losses - what's that about? How many OAEM classifications are there? What are the pros/cons of being state-chartered versus federally chartered?

What should we do about Fannie and Freddy? Do you even know who/what they are? Republicans want to change the system and the dim-retards don't.

You couldn't get to first base in any discussion of banking. You're a fraud and everyone knows it.

But yeah, banks need to hire more drag queens!!

Democratic Socialist are advocating changes outside of the United States Constitution and the rule of Law. Those aren't valued changes. They want to eliminate certain types of speech which is in contrary to the First Amendment they want to dictate which firearms and how much ammo a citizen can posses that is in contrary to the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution are rules for the Government to follow. By altering , eliminating them in any way changes their responsibilities. Government works for us, we don't work for it. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Working within the Constitution, the people can come together to make the libel laws, firearms possession and controlled substance distribution and access better for everybody. It's messy, but every single person has a voice and should be heard. As trite as that may be.

Every circumstance is different. State to state. Municipality to municipality. The Constitution is a guide. Not a rule book. Slavery. Alcohol. Education. Voting. All "rules" that were amended. Laws will change.

Working within the Constitution, the people can come together to make the libel laws, firearms possession and controlled substance distribution and access better for everybody. It's messy, but every single person has a voice and should be heard. As trite as that may be.

Every circumstance is different. State to state. Municipality to municipality. The Constitution is a guide. Not a rule book. Slavery. Alcohol. Education. Voting. All "rules" that were amended. Laws will change. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The Constitution aren't Laws but rules set forth by the framers of this country for Government to follow. The Constitution was written in such a manner as to thwart the possibility of the Government becoming tyrannical. I am not interested in giving the Government an edge by making changes that may ultimately screw citizens in the long run.

Any form of social analysis that aims to be useful to society must evolve in ways that enhance social welfare, equity, racial and gender justice, and environmental sustainability. For too long, much of economics failed that test — yet its interaction with the ruling class elevated it to a powerful perch.

The Constitution aren't Laws but rules set forth by the framers of this country for Government to follow. The Constitution was written in such a manner as to thwart the possibility of the Government becoming tyrannical. I am not interested in giving the Government an edge by making changes that may ultimately screw citizens in the long run. Originally Posted by Levianon17

We are the Government. If your representative isn't working in your best interest, they shouldn't be there long. The framers had no sense when it came to total representation.

Two-thirds of a man? Women? Could one argue the Constitution was already tyrannical? Supporting colinial independence against the King meant commercial dependence on invisible labor cost.

The more diverse the citizenry, the more chaotic the interpretation. People of color, women and openly gay legislators are passé changes. Now we have Muslim leaders who speak for their community. Do you think the founders envisioned that future?

I read the article as pointing out the shock to the system that the POTUS is riding a wave of. It's divisive and, unfortunately, it works. For now.

Indeed.

It's been a convenient crutch for the right for decades, ever since Jesus handed the fucking constitution to Washington on Mount Sinai.

LOL!

A generation of economists helped get us into this mess. A new generation can get us out.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...h-taxes-policy

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

So let's start by putting economists like Paul Krugman in a stockade in the public square for public ridicule, shall we? He's the brilliant libtard economist who urged the Fed back in 2002 to "create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble"! But of course you wouldn't know about that since you know even less about economics than you do about banking.

Too bad you didn't even TRY to answer my handful of elementary banking questions. I can't give you credit for trying. You would rather hide behind some uselessly polemical Jared Bernstein Vox piece that you also don't understand. That way you won't trip over your own shallow thoughts and meager attempts to elaborate. Better to remain silent and let others assume you're an idiot than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Of course you won't let your lack of knowledge and understanding of a subject impart a tad of humility. You'll still dive right in and parrot whatever the libtard/progressive talking point happens to be at the moment. "The banking system needs to change" duh! But don't ask me what exactly I'm talking about!

You're a fraud and everyone fucking knows it.

Indeed.

It's been a convenient crutch for the right for decades, ever since Jesus handed the fucking constitution to Washington on Mount Sinai.

LOL! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

We are the Government. If your representative isn't working in your best interest, they shouldn't be there long. The framers had no sense when it came to total representation.

Two-thirds of a man? Women? Could one argue the Constitution was already tyrannical? Supporting colinial independence against the King meant commercial dependence on invisible labor cost.

The more diverse the citizenry, the more chaotic the interpretation. People of color, women and openly gay legislators are passé changes. Now we have Muslim leaders who speak for their community. Do you think the founders envisioned that future?

I read the article as pointing out the shock to the system that the POTUS is riding a wave of. It's divisive and, unfortunately, it works. For now. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

That's right the people are the Government and the President and members of Congress work for us, the people. Now how much power do you want to give these people?

Indeed.

It's been a convenient crutch for the right for decades, ever since Jesus handed the fucking constitution to Washington on Mount Sinai.

LOL! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're walking on thin ice.

That's right the people are the Government and the President and members of Congress work for us, the people. Now how much power do you want to give these people? Originally Posted by Levianon17

Only the power to do what we, the people, agree to give them. Do you think the POTUS has the power to do whatever he wants?

The Committee learned that the DNI was withholding from the Committee an authorized and protected whistleblower disclosure involving an “urgent concern,” which is defined by law as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information.”

Only the power to do what we, the people, agree to give them. Do you think the POTUS has the power to do whatever he wants?

Chairman Schiff Issues Subpoena for Whistleblower Complaint Being Unlawfully Withheld by Acting DNI from Intelligence Committees


https://intelligence.house.gov/news/...DocumentID=688

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Although President's have lots of power they can't just do whatever they please and that goes for the people of this country as well. In fact this is a country of Laws not men.