Born Again American! A MUST SEE Video!

[blindsage]

Those two books I suggested actually approach the same issue from vastly different points of view and yet the arrive and similar conclusions The Assent of Money is actually written by a Harvard Professor. The reason I suggested them is to show how these disparate POVs are now converging and what was considered "conspiracy" at one time, is now becoming main stream. At least part of what Griffin says is true...and I don't agree with everything he's got to say. As far as contradictions and distortions go, I'd very much like for you to have a go and point them out. It's easy an easy thing to say...

I haven't read the Assent of Money, but from what I hear and read it is a legitmate academic book, whether I would agree with it or not. I honestly haven't read Griffin's book either, but it doesn't take a whole lot of reasearch to find out what's in it and what kind of arguments he makes, especially when you've read a lot of other books and have studied a good deal of economic theory and history. I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of the Fed, but if you're going to critique it properly then it's history, function, and actions should be presented truthfully.

Also, I'd check out what eating you about this. I've basically said that people are being scammed and that we all need to wake up. It's a call to action and read more about this subject. What's wrong with that? If I come off as authoritative, its because I beleive I've put in the time to understand how this actually works. So, what's going on with 'tude?

What eating me is the approach. You don't come off as authoritative. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you just reply with a condescending "well you don't know because you haven't studied what I've studied" attitude. You're getting a response to that. Again, just because you've studied doesn't mean your the only one, or that your opinion is an inevitable result of the things you've studied. Scholars disagree on things they've studied in immense detail all the time, why would your studies be any different?

 

[blindsage]

You really have looked at this stuff? What have you read? What did it say? What conclusion did you draw? Why is it different then mine? Why not simply explain your point of view and "educate" me on why you think what you do. I've put a lot of time and effort into learning about this stuff. These opinions are the culmination of learning that started fifteen years ago. If you can look at the same material and deduce something different, I'd be extremely interested in how you arrived where you did.

Because you don't approach any of your conversations this way. People respond the way you present yourself and you rarely present yourself as an open and willing to discuss and debate kind of person. It's a lot of pronouncements about how things "are" and when people disagree you just brush them off as not knowing. I can quote from a library of books as well, but what you read and what you do with the knowledge are two different things.

I'm a critic of our government, the current financial/economic system, and the exploitation by elites as well, but you not only have to look at these things honestly, you also have to be honestly willing to engage in open discussion about things and be willing to learn from others, not just teach them.

Celtic Crippler and I have had a few debates on these kinds of things, but we actually debate from the get go (and probably talk a little ****) and it is honest debate, there is no "no, no you don't understand, read a book and then come talk to me."

 

[celtic_crippler]

People aren't that hard to predict.

Agreed. Most often they'll resist change. Most often they'll choose the handout over having to work for it. Most often they'll trade freedom for what they percieve as security. Most often they won't think for themselves.

...just a few observations. I'm sure you have more.

If so, then you're a sheep and cannot be a shepherd regardless. (Unless you're not human.)

There's a good article on that. I believe it's actually posted on this forum somewhere... about how most are sheep and the sheep dogs are rare.

Did I say the civil war was about slavery? I love it when you put words in my mouth CC. It's HOT. :whip1:

You didn't have to and what makes you think I put words in your mouth?

You said, "I get the impression you feel the wrong side won the Civil War"

And I said, "And you would be right. I'm not naive enough to think that the Civil War had anything to do with anything so noble as ending slavery. It wasn't, and even the most elementary historian knows that. It was about what we're discussing here...power and money. You don't have to agree of course, you can go on believing what the public schools taught you in 5th grade and go on believing what you've been spoon fed."

..making the point that people are too lazy to seek out truth and prefer to accept what they're spoon fed instead. Not only that, but will vehemently hold onto those mistruths regardless of the evidence presented because to change would upset the foundation of every belief they have. It's too uncomfortable ... how's the saying go? Ignorance is bliss?

It's quite difficult to overcome years of programming and even more difficult for many to deal with the harsh reality of things when the alternative is much more pleasent. Red pill or blue pill, Neo?

 

[Makalakumu]

I haven't read the Assent of Money, but from what I hear and read it is a legitimate academic book, whether I would agree with it or not. I honestly haven't read Griffin's book either, but it doesn't take a whole lot of research to find out what's in it and what kind of arguments he makes, especially when you've read a lot of other books and have studied a good deal of economic theory and history. I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of the Fed, but if you're going to critique it properly then it's history, function, and actions should be presented truthfully.

That's what these books do and it's kind of hard to put it in a nutshell because there is so much information. In the span of this thread, I've summarized some points made by various people I've read and, based on the research these people have done, it certainly fits the criteria that you've laid out. So, what's your beef? If you think that this analysis is incorrect in some way, state your case.

What eating me is the approach. You don't come off as authoritative. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you just reply with a condescending "well you don't know because you haven't studied what I've studied" attitude. You're getting a response to that. Again, just because you've studied doesn't mean your the only one, or that your opinion is an inevitable result of the things you've studied. Scholars disagree on things they've studied in immense detail all the time, why would your studies be any different?

It sometimes is easy to tell when someone really doesn't know what you are talking about or that a person would benefit from reading this or that book. Why is it condescending to suggest that they read some of the sources in which have helped one derive their opinion? It's not like I'm saying "your poopy poopy stupid you should read a book and actually get a brain." I'm like, "Dude, check this out, it will help you see where I'm coming from." On top of that, I spell it out pretty clearly what I'm trying to say in the medium of communication that we are using...most of the time...LOL!

Because you don't approach any of your conversations this way. People respond the way you present yourself and you rarely present yourself as an open and willing to discuss and debate kind of person. It's a lot of pronouncements about how things "are" and when people disagree you just brush them off as not knowing. I can quote from a library of books as well, but what you read and what you do with the knowledge are two different things.

I'm a critic of our government, the current financial/economic system, and the exploitation by elites as well, but you not only have to look at these things honestly, you also have to be honestly willing to engage in open discussion about things and be willing to learn from others, not just teach them.

Celtic Crippler and I have had a few debates on these kinds of things, but we actually debate from the get go (and probably talk a little ****) and it is honest debate, there is no "no, no you don't understand, read a book and then come talk to me."

Look, I've been around MT for a long time and have had many thoughtful discussions with people here. I think this thread is being read in an emotional and overly personal way. If you're offended, I apologize. Now, back to the discussion at hand.

 

[Marginal]

Agreed. Most often they'll resist change. Most often they'll choose the handout over having to work for it. Most often they'll trade freedom for what they percieve as security. Most often they won't think for themselves.

They'll take what they can and hurt who they can until someone tells them they can't.

There's a good article on that. I believe it's actually posted on this forum somewhere... about how most are sheep and the sheep dogs are rare.

It's crap.

You didn't have to and what makes you think I put words in your mouth?

Setting up the strawman you did kinda requires it.

You said, "I get the impression you feel the wrong side won the Civil War"

Which means, you think the South should have been able to break away from the union.

And I said, "And you would be right. I'm not naive enough to think that the Civil War had anything to do with anything so noble as ending slavery. It wasn't, and even the most elementary historian knows that. It was about what we're discussing here...power and money. You don't have to agree of course, you can go on believing what the public schools taught you in 5th grade and go on believing what you've been spoon fed."

Which fails because I never said the civil war was about slavery.

..making the point that people are too lazy to seek out truth and prefer to accept what they're spoon fed instead.

Which is not what I was saying even though you insist I did because you once again read whatever you wanted to in my statement.

Not only that, but will vehemently hold onto those mistruths regardless of the evidence presented because to change would upset the foundation of every belief they have. It's too uncomfortable ... how's the saying go? Ignorance is bliss?

That's nice. Again, when did I say the civil war was about slavery? Spoon feed me this.

It's quite difficult to overcome years of programming and even more difficult for many to deal with the harsh reality of things when the alternative is much more pleasent. Red pill or blue pill, Neo?

They're both Nyquil pills. Take red or blue because your cold doesn't care what time of day it is.

 

[celtic_crippler]

They'll take what they can and hurt who they can until someone tells them they can't.

It's crap.

Setting up the strawman you did kinda requires it.

Which means, you think the South should have been able to break away from the union.

Which fails because I never said the civil war was about slavery.

Which is not what I was saying even though you insist I did because you once again read whatever you wanted to in my statement.

That's nice. Again, when did I say the civil war was about slavery? Spoon feed me this.

They're both Nyquil pills. Take red or blue because your cold doesn't care what time of day it is.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Marginal]

Thanks for proving my point.

Lazy as always.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Lazy as always.

Typical. Resort to name calling when your (hesitates to even use the word) logic fails miserably.

Give me something substantial to respond to other than "it's crap" ...

With points like that who could argue with you? I mean, damn... that's so well thought out and reasonable. What was I thinking? You're such a scholar. :lfao:

I'm not going to get into a flame war with you. It's not my fault you're frustrated because you can't supply a decent retort. Your post did prove my point about how people vehemently hold onto what they believe regardless of any logic, reason, or evidence to the contrary so my response was adequate enough. IMHO. :shrug:

 

[Marginal]

Typical. Resort to name calling when your (hesitates to even use the word) logic fails miserably.

:uhyeah: I suppose this is all far easier than admitting you're wrong about your wild presumptions on my thoughts on the civil war. (Stuff like this is why I've never considered any exchange with you to be an argument, much less a discussion.)

The sheep vs sheepdog is pointless. You want to view yourself as a hero shaping the unshorn masses. Fine. Use the essay to sneeringly dismiss anyone who disagrees with your point of view. You got it wrong however.

This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Gents, play nice will ya. Holiday cheer and all that stuff.


And anyway, I thought I was the resident Civil War nutter?

Thank you.
Happy Holly Daze.

 

[Marginal]

And anyway, I thought I was the resident Civil War nutter?

Thank you.
Happy Holly Daze.

The funny thing is, every time the civil war popped up in my classes from middle school onwards, the teachers always went over the causes. (Both middle school and high school even spent time on the secession debate.) They never said "it was about slavery" all in a rush to get to the teapot dome scandal etc.

That this is an issue to debunk makes me wonder... Who stops at fourth grade history?

 

[MA-Caver]

That this is an issue to debunk makes me wonder... Who stops at fourth grade history?

I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of people do. There are some who are total history nuts and some who are just ehh who cares? and probably a lot who are somewhere in between.

I like history but honestly don't know as much as I feel I should.

 

[Marginal]

I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of people do. There are some who are total history nuts and some who are just ehh who cares? and probably a lot who are somewhere in between.

Even if one barely pays attention, they should know more than what they might read off a happy meal box.

 

[MA-Caver]

Even if one barely pays attention, they should know more than what they might read off a happy meal box.

Yeah true but they would know only of current history right? 9/11, the war on terrorism, tsunami, etc. I'm sure bits and pieces would be in there as well... a Civil War, a Revolutionary War, WWII & I , etc... major history.

But IMO what should be of interest are the people that created history and what they had done to make it. This may help influence those who will create more history in the next few years.

Revolutions are usually started with a murmur anyway... there have been a few murmurs lately.

 

[celtic_crippler]

:uhyeah: I suppose this is all far easier than admitting you're wrong about your wild presumptions on my thoughts on the civil war. (Stuff like this is why I've never considered any exchange with you to be an argument, much less a discussion.)

The sheep vs sheepdog is pointless. You want to view yourself as a hero shaping the unshorn masses. Fine. Use the essay to sneeringly dismiss anyone who disagrees with your point of view. You got it wrong however.

Still waiting for a half way decent retort. It's sad that I have to point this out, but saying "You're wrong" is not a valid retort. It's simply juvenille. What's your next post going to be? "Your momma"? :lfao:

Do you ever back up anything you post with anything other than your opinion? No offense, but your opinion is not that valuable. Unless I missed the Bio on how you hold multiple Phd.'s in History, Political Science, etc, etc.

The funny thing is, every time the civil war popped up in my classes from middle school onwards, the teachers always went over the causes. (Both middle school and high school even spent time on the secession debate.) They never said "it was about slavery" all in a rush to get to the teapot dome scandal etc.

That this is an issue to debunk makes me wonder... Who stops at fourth grade history?

Even if one barely pays attention, they should know more than what they might read off a happy meal box.

Boy...I'm really having to bite my tounge right now... as tempting as this is, I will not violate the forum rules by taking advantage of the door you just left wide open. :erg:

I will say thay you apparently don't keep up with current events either. Civil War History curriculum has been largely removed from many schools; it's barely addressed to any extent. Unless you decide to further your education past high school, you likely won't learn anything significant about it. You could just read the Wiki version and probably learn more...

Yeah true but they would know only of current history right? 9/11, the war on terrorism, tsunami, etc. I'm sure bits and pieces would be in there as well... a Civil War, a Revolutionary War, WWII & I , etc... major history.

But IMO what should be of interest are the people that created history and what they had done to make it. This may help influence those who will create more history in the next few years.

Revolutions are usually started with a murmur anyway... there have been a few murmurs lately.

That would require one to take it upon themselves to actually learn History, preferably as unbiased as possible in order to focus on the actual facts instead of opinion. It also requires one to question what is being spoon fed to them by the status quo. Two qualities that seem to be lacking in many.

We can always hope... the resources are out there if one chooses to make the effort.

 

[Marginal]

Do you ever back up anything you post with anything other than your opinion?

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[shesulsa]

Hey guys ... take it easy, eh?

 

[MA-Caver]

I just watched the video again... got tears in my eyes.

Ya'll watch it again and lets look at what it's trying to say.