TakeYouToTasker

I feel like I've had this discussion with you before. The government issues currency, but currency, even fiat currency which is used as the global marker for trade, is not the same thing as wealth. It is a marker for wealth used to grease the skids of exchange by making it easier and more convenient. That is all. Even the dollar is backed by something tangible. "The full faith and credit of the United States", which is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "the promise of future units of labor produced by Americans". Debt incurred by the government represents labor which must be undertaken at some point in the future. A cheeseburger today, with the promise to pay tomorrow. So, no, the government does not "create wealth". But rather, as GG says, it redistributes it both in a linear way, and across time from the future. Wealth is created exclusively by combining capital with labor.

No, it doesn't. That's like arguing that babies come some the Simmons mattress factory because they made the bed you ***** in.

GG and others are doing a fine job of dismantling the rest of your argument, so I'll just take issue with this part, which as of yet has gone unattended. The reason we have become reliant on two income families is due to feminism and women's rights. Full stop. Understand, I'm not arguing against women's equality, but everything is directly tied to economics. When women entered the work force, en mass, it doubled the supply of labor, but had little effect on the demand for goods and services, so wages declined as workers lost their bargaining power provided by labor scarcity. Over time, this has led to a situation where two incomes are required, where one used to suffice.

So, in addition to your belief that the FBI (not a even law giving body, but the enforcement arm of the Executive) should justly criminalize foreign policy positions which disagree with FBI leadership; you also believe that the FBI should conduct criminal investigations on private citizens without any prior evidence of wrongdoing. Dangerously. Stupid.

Post it publicly, along with the screen name of the poster making the accusation, coward. Any negatives being shown are self inflicted. I'm not here to tell anyone what to think, but am willing to offer advice on how to think to those who inquire. I've given you the keys, and shown you the door. It's up to you to open it and see what's on the other side. If you choose to keep the door closed, while pontificating about what your sure is on the other side in ignorance, and demanding I tell you; then that's up to you. It's not a reputation I'd want, but if that's who you are as a man, so be it.

No, this is what is actually happening on the border. I've addressed this here many times before, and you'd know that if you were anything other than a drive by poster. I encourage you to stick around and learn something. On that note, yes, it's very admirable. I'll elaborate as I respond. This issue is with our immigration policy, our border situation, and the various laws which have created an environment in which predators and sociopaths can prey on the weak and enrich themselves in the process. Human trafficking is a multi-billion dollar annual industry, and like all other industries it has powerful industry leaders which lobby for their interests within the governments of nations in which they operate. Money is funneled into off-shore accounts (this is the importance of revelations like The Panama Papers) for those reaping financial rewards, while some other politicians are directly complicit in participation in activities related to human trafficking and child sex slavery themselves. In addition, the powerful have actively sought under-prosecution, and non-investigation of crimes related to human trafficking and child sex-slavery as anything but would begin to tug at the strings which unravel their web. To those ends, yes, "America" is absolutely complicit; but things are changing. Since the advent of the Trump Presidency an unprecedented amount of work has gone into the breaking up and prosecution of human trafficking, child sex slavery, and pedophilia rings. Thousands and thousands of arrests are taking place, including high profile cases. People who had prior been protected by the system, and it's growing daily. There are thousands of sealed indictments teed up. This isn't a very good example, as a) there is not Constitutionally protected right to own slaves or ***** children, and b) building a wall is only part of the solution. The wall only addresses major human trafficking corridors in the US, which are difficult to patrol, by forcing the slavers towards ports of entry and areas which are easier to patrol. The wall is a tool not a panacea. And yes, not all human trafficking will be ended with it's implementation, but it will be a big step in breaking up the industry, and will be a massive step towards human freedom. Because of the logistics of human smuggling, the easiest way to get them into the country is through our largely unprotected border with a third world country. It is far more difficult to bring them in through designated ports of entry which have security check points. Again, the wall is not a panacea, but rather is a tool, and only part of the solution. As to the nature of the trafficking situation on the border: First, two articles, one from a left leaning site, one from a right leaning site: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ana-davila/drug-cartels-where-human-trafficking-and-human-smuggling-meet-today_b_7588408.html  https://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/02/the-trafficking-of-children-at-the-mexican-border-001504697.html Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico  Various government and international organizations: https://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/library/2011/human-trafficking-sex-tourism-and-child-exploitation-southern-border   https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/protect/trafficking http://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Mexico.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/human-trafficking The situation at our southern border is entirely bound to this. Final point: The President did not shut down the government. The President is trying to negotiate with Congressional Democrats, nearly all of which, within the last 5-10 year window had argued that we need a wall on the southern border. He has offered concession on many points that Democrats wish to see movement on, and he wants wall funding in exchange. That's how deal brokering and compromise work. The President get some of what he wants, the Democrats get some of what they want, and they both capitulate to the other on various points to get a deal done. Democrats have drawn a line in the sand, and have said that they will get all of what they want, and that the President should agree to CR funding after which they can negotiate. The Democrats have proven that they will not operate in good faith, and the President has no reason to give up the leverage he has in hand to bring them to the table. In the process, he's forcing the Democrats to take untenable political stands on issues that matter to the American people; and they will lose this fight, and lose it badly.

As would the CEO of just about every component company of the DOW.

I'm becoming more and more sure every day that Trigglypuff was put in charge of the bad word filter.

There have been dozens of them posted here across multiple threads, the two primary being the Deep State thread and the Trump Russia thread. I've taken you far enough, and am not interested in telling you what to think. I've told you how to think, and have directed you to do the work for yourself after being kind enough to point you in the right direction. You can either go on this adventure yourself, or not. I've done my job. If you refuse to do yours, it's a reflection on you, rather than me. As an aside, you're making yourself look stupid in this thread. I'd encourage you to stop doing so.

You have no understanding of international business, multi-national corporations, or corporate financing; the President didn't do anything untoward or even unusual in seeking favorable financing deals. I reject your premise. The baseline outcome is that you do, in fact, seek to criminalize foreign policy differences. Your stupidity is dangerous.

Everyone and no one at the same time. All major media outlets are guilty of lies of omission (and in many case outright fabrications) for the purpose of driving a narrative. These narratives are cobbled on top of selective, out of context truths, and bolstered by fabrications. They are not "reporting news", but rather are attempting to create it for the purpose of driving public sentiment. They are part of the entrenched power structure. No one in the major media does investigative journalism any more. There's no money or power in it. The money and power are in protecting the power structures and the power elite which hide behind them. Real investigative journalism is done by small independents and former reporters whom work on their own these days.

You are criminally stupid. You hold strong opinions which you vocally refuse to educate, and chastise others for not doing your own homework for you. You are everything that is wrong with America right now. I'm growing tired of reading your vapid content.

Your largest critique of President Trump, which you have claimed is criminal in nature, has been his differing geo-political stance as related to Russia from his unipolar globalist corporatist predecessors; and you then claimed that it does not fall outside the just purview of the FBI to investigate a President for exercising his due Constitutional (legal) authority. The only logical derivative of these stances is that you believe that the FBI should be capable of criminalizing foreign policy positions their leadership is in disagreement with.

No one, except Greg in his most recent post, which was deserved, has insulted you. You've demonstrated ample evidence that you are intellectually lazy, and have no desire to independently read through reported facts across multiple outlets, and publicly available primary source legal documents, to form educated positions; and instead prefer to defer to "oracle outlets" to do your duty as an informed and responsible citizen for you. The information is all available, and has been provided to you. You're only counter has been, "if this is true, then when aren't my preferred oracle outlets confirming this?" This is stupid, and is a complete abrogation of your responsibilities as a citizen.

What about my inference was wrong?

Do you believe holding foreign policy views which differ from those of unipolar globalist corporatists should be criminalized?

I ran this through an online translator (I was going to say "babelfish" but the site no longer exists. I am disappoint.)

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. The major reason for the shutdown is the President's drive to end modern human slavery and child sex trafficking along our southern border. Our border with Mexico is one of the global hubs of human trafficking, and the people being trafficked are the most vulnerable and fragile sort. They are isolated, don't speak the language, are separated from their family networks by thousands of miles, and are in poverty. They have no almost no advocates, and scant few chances for salvation. The President is standing tall for the smallest among us, working to deliver them from slavery; he is not, himself, a slaver.

You aren't understanding his question. Allow me to translate: "I'm not interested in doing the necessary work of wading through all of the relevant facts and information surrounding the case in order to form an educated position. I would instead prefer to outsource the work of doing so to a "news agency", who will tell me what to think. Which such "news agency" should I defer to?"

You don't argue with ideologues, because they are true believers who can't be swayed by the introduction of new information. What you do is you savagely attack and tear down their ideology, making it so obviously unappealing to the general public that they discard the ideologue.

"Let them eat cake."

Best of luck to you tomorrow, sir. I know you're as prepared as humanly possible, so go out and kick some ass.

It's confirmation bias. People have a tendency to wall off, or make exceptions for, bad behavior from people espousing viewpoints they endorse; and to highlight those same examples of bad behavior as further examples of malfeasance from those they disagree with. If your point is that doing so is wildly hypocritical, I agree with you. I'd say that the majority of the individuals here posting well thought out original content are classically liberal, or have libertarian leanings; with the second largest population being right leaning, though I admit I could be wrong about that. With that said, my general sense is that, from a legislative perspective, while the board is very right leaning economically it is left leaning/centrist on social issues. I would posit that considering both this and my prior point that it's reasonable to expect right leaning bias from such a site. I tend to push through and read the content I find interesting from posters I find compelling. I have a quite sizable percentage of our sub-community on ignore, and a larger amount whose opinions I gloss over. The standards for my readership are largely: "prove it to me" in terms of quality. I have no desire to read dozens of pages of "secret Muslim" or "Russian collusion". If I want to talk to stupid people with poor opinions I can attend more family reunions, or start spending my time in bars. So, while there may well have been a myriad of posts about President Obama being ineligible for office, I didn't read them. The only argument I engaged in along those lines was the Constitutional crisis being manufactured under which it was established that no one has the standing to challenge Presidential eligibility. (I'm long on process, and largely disinterested in individual outcome.) Bias mills reflect bias. All you can do, if you choose to read the content of individuals demonstrating hypocrisy, and to engage them, is to tear down their arguments and put a mirror in front of them. It's the only thing any of us can do if we want to change minds. Which is exactly what you should be doing. Define what you believe in, and then call balls and strikes, as you see them, from both our elected officials, and from people espousing opinions about their actions and words. Everything in regards to politics should be granular, and if a case is to be made for evacuating various criticisms, then it should be made on a logical basis. I appreciate the sentiment, and it is mutual.