Arizona making gold legal tender

[BaalChatzaf]

No, but it is a simple one.

How much do you trust the intentions and integrity of others?

[KacyRay]

No, but it is a simple one.

How much do you trust the intentions and integrity of others?

That's a bit of an impossible question to answer, as asked.

That would be like asking "Do you find others attractive?" or "Do you love others?" or "Do you think others are evil?"

The answer to all those questions is: In some cases, yes. In some, no. And there's spectrum on which those answers exist as well.

the answer to your specific question is - it depends on who you're talking about, how well I know that person, and what I know about them.

[Serapis Bey]

"And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. "

Robert Baratheon confronts Kacy Ray in public (true story!):

Nice of you to use media that I cannot watch.

Well I didn't really have a choice, do I? Would you rather I desist from posting it due to your internet limitations, much in the same manner you demand I stop calling you a liberal because you find it disrespectful?

Do you at least see the screen shots? It's the scene from Donnie Darko where Jake Gyllenhall's character confronts Patrick Swayze's character in the high-school auditiorium. If you recall, Swayze's character was a motivational speaker type whose whole theory revolved around the choice between Love and Fear.

(Don't Grumpy Cat me. Are you Grumpy Catting me right now? Stop Grumpy Catting me.)

[KacyRay]

No, I can't see the screen shots. I see "NETWORK ACCESS MESSAGE: This page cannot be displayed" and all the useless advice it offers on how to try to make it work.

I only vaguely remember the scene from Darko.

I don't expect you to tailor your internet habits around my limitations.. but at least consider them when posting something that seemed like I was actually involved in it! Your caption was that it was a public confrontation between RB and myself. I couldn't have known you were joking.

Anyway, as I said in another thread... I find it fascinating that, as many times as your third eye has been squeegeed open, you still cling to fear. Doesn't it exhaust you?

[syrakusos]

So, Serapis Bey thinks that KacyRay is "the fucking anti-Christ." Wow... But let's talk about what is important to me. Following my Post 8 comments above, no one attempted to argue my points on legal tender. Also, no one took up the question of whether and to what extent any of the 50 states is better than the federal government at protecting or even respecting your rights. So, in the absence of disagreement, do those points stand?

[KacyRay]

So, Serapis Bey thinks that KacyRay is "the fucking anti-Christ." Wow... But let's talk about what is important to me. Following my Post 8 comments above, no one attempted to argue my points on legal tender. Also, no one took up the question of whether and to what extent any of the 50 states is better than the federal government at protecting or even respecting your rights. So, in the absence of disagreement, do those points stand?

Heh... he probably doesn't think I'm the anti-christ. Not in a bad way, anyway..

I think your points in comment 8 stand just fine. I think the tendency to favor state government over Federal Government over Federal Government stems from a steady trend in the Federal Government overstepping its bounds little by little over the last ... couple hundred years or so?

But yes, state government can be every bit as oppressive as federal government.

And you're right about the legal tender. I can trade you a chicken for a car quite legally.

[Serapis Bey]

Also, no one took up the question of whether and to what extent any of the 50 states is better than the federal government at protecting or even respecting your rights. So, in the absence of disagreement, do those points stand?

I tend to side with Dennis on the issue of secession.

It's true that a State can be oppressive, but it can also be liberating. And the SAME thing applies to the Federal government.

Why is one better than the other?

The United States had a pretty good run there for a while, being all "freedom loving" and "liberty loving" and cohesive, etc.

It's amazing when you think about it, given the size of this country, how things sort of ran like clockwork for a period of time.

No doubt you Objectivists attribute this to "reason" and philosophies of "liberty" and whatnot.

I would posit that the greatness and stability that once existed was a testament to the homogeneity of the culture -- both in the sense of there being a certain racial/ethnic cohesiveness which reflected certain temperamental traits towards communitarianism, and leftover strains of Christian goodwill.

Of course, you don't believe in the existence of races, so it's probably all a mystery to you.

Technology and immigration has altered the underlying stratum of this country and things are beginning to tear at the seams.

We are told that Diversity is an unalloyed Good, and should be celebrated.

I agree.

I think now that we have competing tribes and ideologies, it only makes sense for people who are liberty minded to form their own communities and have the right to EXCLUDE those who might think otherwise.

I would feel better living in some white Christian State that perhaps bans abortion, than the clusterfuck of a city I live in now. (Miami)

My 2 cents.

[KacyRay]

Also, no one took up the question of whether and to what extent any of the 50 states is better than the federal government at protecting or even respecting your rights. So, in the absence of disagreement, do those points stand?

I tend to side with Dennis on the issue of secession.

It's true that a State can be oppressive, but it can also be liberating. And the SAME thing applies to the Federal government.

Why is one better than the other?

The United States had a pretty good run there for a while, being all "freedom loving" and "liberty loving" and cohesive, etc.

It's amazing when you think about it, given the size of this country, how things sort of ran like clockwork for a period of time.

No doubt you Objectivists attribute this to "reason" and philosophies of "liberty" and whatnot.

I would posit that the greatness and stability that once existed was a testament to the homogeneity of the culture -- both in the sense of there being a certain racial/ethnic cohesiveness which reflected certain temperamental traits towards communitarianism, and leftover strains of Christian goodwill.

Of course, you don't believe in the existence of races, so it's probably all a mystery to you.

Technology and immigration has altered the underlying stratum of this country and things are beginning to tear at the seams.

We are told that Diversity is an unalloyed Good, and should be celebrated.

I agree.

I think now that we have competing tribes and ideologies, it only makes sense for people who are liberty minded to form their own communities and have the right to EXCLUDE those who might think otherwise.

I would feel better living in some white Christian State that perhaps bans abortion, than the clusterfuck of a city I live in now. (Miami)

My 2 cents.

Sounds like the KKK is the next logical step for you, brother. If only they'd have you.

[Brant Gaede]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/01/arizona-returning-to-gold-rush-roots-with-bill-making-gold-legal-tender/?test=latestnews

Arizona is returning to its gold rush roots with a bill that would make precious metals legal currency.

The GOP-led Senate gave final approval Tuesday to the bill that could make Arizona the second state in the nation to recognize gold and silver as legal tender. If signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, the measure would take effect in 2014.

Utah became the first state to allow gold or silver payments in 2011.

*****

There are many views held by Mike Church [siriusXM radio host] that I don't agree with but he seems to be a leader on issues of state rights.

The eventual dissolution of the USA into regional powers and some individual states seems likely given the failure of the federal government in so many areas of governance - not the least of which is the failure to obey the Constitution.

Church noted the other day that the civilian populace arming up has no precedent in US history since the election of Lincoln in 1860. Either the government is coming after our guns and/or the government has become a potential enemy. In any case the situation has many parallels to those that lead to Civil War I.

The Progressives won't allow their power to be diminished so they are likely to prefer Civil War over putting the federal government back in its place under the Constitution. It is likely too late for the states to reassert themselves under the 10th Amendment.

Dennis

You are driving yourself to drink. The economic reality of the Federal government spending itself into oblivion over the next ten years will reveal the future--one you do not know but are speculating on.

--Brant

unleash the drones!

[Brant Gaede]

I'm curious how you see your life going after this Armageddon takes place.

I expect to be part of the 10% or more killed when the socialists take power - the 10% number coming from Obama's friends in The Weather Underground. After they have control another 5% [their own base] will be killed when they don't like the authoritarian hand of socialism around their neck either. This doesn't take into account the hundreds of millions around the world who will die of starvation as the export of US crops is interrupted - causing skyrocketing commodity prices.

The US is the last stand for freedom and Western civilization - going to another country might buy you a few years or none at all.

In general those who constantly post Progressive talking points don't need to know anything about the plans of those who do not support Progressives.

Dennis

The socialists are in power and you are not dead.

--Brant

but it's not socialism--that's Israel(?)

[Serapis Bey]

Sounds like the KKK is the next logical step for you, brother.

That might be true if the KKK actually existed in anything approaching it's boogeyman status in the Progressive mind.

The KKK is dead.

La Raza, on the other hand, is being aided and abbeted by the Cathedral.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm curious how you see your life going after this Armageddon takes place.

I expect to be part of the 10% or more killed when the socialists take power - the 10% number coming from Obama's friends in The Weather Underground. After they have control another 5% [their own base] will be killed when they don't like the authoritarian hand of socialism around their neck either. This doesn't take into account the hundreds of millions around the world who will die of starvation as the export of US crops is interrupted - causing skyrocketing commodity prices.

The US is the last stand for freedom and Western civilization - going to another country might buy you a few years or none at all.

In general those who constantly post Progressive talking points don't need to know anything about the plans of those who do not support Progressives.

Dennis

I don't think anyone in here asks questions because they "need to know". I think it's because we are in a discussion forum.

But thanks for being explicit. I was afraid that people might think I was being overly harsh or engaging in ad homs when I refer to folks like you as alarmists who prophecy impending doom for the entire world. Thankfully, by explicit statement, you've agreed that this is exactly what you believe.

Can you, ah... put this catastrophic takeover into a general time-frame? Say... give-or-take 10 years?

It's not "doom"--it's going to be a gross readjustment. The human race will continue to advance until that asteroid hits. The question is what will happen to our US of A? I'm hopeful; with jejune Canada to our north and defensible Mexico to our south, a big dose of fascism will carry us through to the glories of Empire and our final dissolution 666 years from now.

--Brant

waiting for Caesar

[Brant Gaede]

First, you should get some facts. Gold has always been a small part of Arizona history, and was last actively mined in 1998. So, it is not far back to "return" to.

Wikipedia here: In 2006, all of Arizona's gold production came as a byproduct of copper mining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining_in_the_United_States#Arizona

One "Legal tender" is only a declaration of that this or that issue of the government is intended as money in payment and will be accepted by the government in payment. If you have ever seen a UK Gold Sovereign, then you know that it has no statement of value on it. Similarly, the US Gold Eagles originally had no "dollar" value on them. They were, however, intended as money, to be used by the government in payment. They would be accepted by the government in payment in return, for taxes, duties, purchase of public lands, etc. By comparision, the Congressional Medal of Honor looks a lot like a coin. So do the Inaugural Medals, the medal given to Lindbergh, and many others. They are not legal tender. So, too, with paper, does the government issue tons and tons of paper documents. Only some are "legal tender."

Contrary to myths created by right wing dreamers, you are not required to accept "legal tender" in payment; and refusing it does not negate the contract. "We accept no bills larger than $20" is a common sign all over America today. It is perfectly legal. And you still have to pay for what you buy. And it must be in a form of money that they want to accept: FRNs, gold, apples, horses,...

Making gold "legal tender" is a symbolic act of no semantic importance.

Two American states are every bit as oppressive as you dream that only the Federal government is. Dennis L. May himself here posted a rant against some small town Texas police who tried to take a soldier's rifle. He claimed that they must have been Big City Marxists. No, they were just police. We have them, sheriffs and deputies, district constables, state police, rangers, the State Department of Public Safety, a d slew of independently commissioned "peace officers." We have no shortage of law enforcement in Texas.

And we have a government as active as that of Massachusetts. They have their fingers in everyone's pie. Every business is regulated. The government sells bonds and gives the money to special businesses with special relationships. We have a $3 Billion Cancer Institution (CPRIT) scandal going, but only the leftie Austin Chronicle complains about the $5 billion given to the Formula One Racers over 10 years (1 down; 9 to go).

The difference is that Texas has a different culture than Massachusetts, just as New Hampshire is different from Vermont, and New Mexico is different from Arizona. New Mexico has a part-time legislature and they are nonetheless dirt poor. When the Southwest Territory was stolen from Mexico, it was divided North-South. After the Civil War, that north-south thing was painful, so they divided the Southwest Territory East-West. Same land: a huge god forsaken wilderness. But for whatever reasons, New Mexico is poor and Arizona is prosperous. But it has nothing to do with "rights" or "constitutions" and a lot to do with intangibles of culture.

Three States violate your rights. The 8th Amendment provision against torture was incorporated to the states only in 1936. (See Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, (1936).) The 1st Amendment provision for freedom of religion applied to the states finally in 1997. (See Silverman v. Campbell, et al. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Argued October 3, 1996, 1996. Decided May 27, 1997.) (In fact, the State of Massachusetts collected taxes on behalf of the Congregational Church until 1840.) And we all know how the City of New London, Connecticut, stole private property and gave it to Pfizer Pharmaceuticals.

States do not have rights. If I advocated for research into ESP, someone would point out the logical contradiction in "extra" sensory perception. Fair enough. We need also to remember that states do not have rights.

Arizona has Phoenix. New Mexico has Albuquerque. That's like Arizona not having Phoenix, but only Tucson. New Mexico is close to Texas is close to oil. Arizona is close to California fun. Arizona also has a beach in Rocky Point, Mexico, if you don't want to drive to San Diego. Arizona has Colorado River water. New Mexico has what? Arizona has the Grand Canyon and once had Barry Goldwater. New Mexico sucks.

--Brant

Phoenix is a major metropolitan area because of water from the Salt River watershed--water is the major determinant of SW prosperity and population respecting state differences

[Serapis Bey]

Also, no one took up the question of whether and to what extent any of the 50 states is better than the federal government at protecting or even respecting your rights. So, in the absence of disagreement, do those points stand?

Mark Steyn, for one, warns of a secession if this country continues crawling towards socialism.

[BaalChatzaf]

Also, no one took up the question of whether and to what extent any of the 50 states is better than the federal government at protecting or even respecting your rights. So, in the absence of disagreement, do those points stand?

Mark Steyn, for one, warns of a secession if this country continues crawling towards socialism.

Any State the attempts secession will be visited by Federal troops and members of its government will be subject to charges of treason and insurrection. That last time States tried this there was a war that crippled or killed over 4 percent of the population.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Serapis Bey]

Also, no one took up the question of whether and to what extent any of the 50 states is better than the federal government at protecting or even respecting your rights. So, in the absence of disagreement, do those points stand?

Mark Steyn, for one, warns of a secession if this country continues crawling towards socialism.

Any State the attempts secession will be visited by Federal troops and members of its government will be subject to charges of treason and insurrection. That last time States tried this there was a war that crippled or killed over 4 percent of the population.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob, honest question: do you think U.S. troops would be willing to fire upon American citizens?

( I can see it now: Kacy popping his head out of tank and demanding that Robert Baratheon and I be a part of their Benevolent Grand Experiment)

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob, honest question: do you think U.S. troops would be willing to fire upon American citizens?

( I can see it now: Kacy popping his head out of tank and demanding that Robert Baratheon and I be a part of their Benevolent Grand Experiment)

between 1861 and 1865 that is exactly what happened. Why can't it happen again?

[Serapis Bey]

Bob, honest question: do you think U.S. troops would be willing to fire upon American citizens?

( I can see it now: Kacy popping his head out of tank and demanding that Robert Baratheon and I be a part of their Benevolent Grand Experiment)

between 1861 and 1865 that is exactly what happened. Why can't it happen again?

Umm... maybe because the issues at stake in the present are utterly different than those during the lead up to the Civil War?