Theophilos

That's what Constitutional Amendments are for. We have too many attempts to devise devious ways to get around, or all out avoid, the Constitution... because it's just too hard, or impossible, for Progressives to get what they want. They pass legislation, and take their chances with the courts that they keep stacking with Progressive Judges. I would love to hear, just once, our Congress say one time, all in unison... "Well, that's not our job"... that would be epic, and one for the history books. Hey Blade! I really liked "Olympus has Fallen"... awesome movie!... "London has Fallen" was not as good. No, that's not what the amendments are for... God forbid. A constitution is the highest law of the land, the very fabric of (order) of a nation. It should be handled with trembling hands especially in circumstances when wishes to amend it. Amendments should be few and far between, and even then outmost care should be taken that there throughly is a need for interference with the meaning behind the wording of a constitution. Remedy by way of amendments tends to be equally bad (if not worse) than inventions of activist ('progressive') judges. I have to note that you seem to have a very one sided view of the judicial branch... practice though, usually shows that the higher (in hierarchy) the court the more conservative its views...

II

Needs more work

I

...My problem with Progressives all boils down to the Constitution, our Republic, and the role of the Federal Government. Our Constitution was crafted to intentionally limit the power of the Federal Government. It is a contract between the American people and their elected Government that details exactly what power the Government is allowed to have. If you read it, you will find the words "Congress shall not" many times throughout the document. Through the years, many groups going by several different names, Progressives being one, have been chipping away at this contract for one purpose... to eliminate it. To people like me, it's treason. ... But a constitution is not an effigy left in time. It is a document that 'lives' and adapts to the society that it governs. It needs to adapt to better reflect its morals, its expectations, its dynamics, etc etc What a constitution should not do, and never means to do, is 'freeze' a certain view/interpretation in time. That would defeat the purpose of bothering to actually write it down. Clearly, a lot of discussion should be put towards how and to what extent individual provisions of the constitution may be interpreted to allow for the evolution of a given society, but that is a different topic altogether.

My wife and I make a pretty comfortable life. We spend the least amount of time possible doing that. We spend most of our time doing exactly what we want to do, at any given time. Example: She's on a 7 day cruise right now with her Mother, while I'm here talking with you. Reason I'm not there: I would rather chew glass than be trapped on a floating buffet, for 7 days, with my Mother-in-law. We avoid drama, keep a small circle of close friends, never interfere with anyone's lives, and make absolute sure that no one interferes with ours. We smile constantly. We love our lives, and spend no time on worry, indecision, or being "confused". We see Progressives as the biggest threat to our happiness. We do everything possible to prevent them from changing our lives... and we do it while smiling. That to me, is a great America, and that would make any country great. Sounds simple. Talk crap on lefties being miserable all you want, but for the most part, I think it might be because we don't live such simple lives. You strike me as someone who lives in a rural area and doesn't exactly go out of his way to meet people. Which wouldn't be bad. Just probably not the way many liberals live. IMO Hillary and Trump are both equally terrible in their own ways. The one thing I can give to Trump that I seriously like is his opinion toward Russia, which is in a way, personal to me. But in actual response to your comment, what exactly do you not like about progressivism? IMO, progressivism is our only hope as a species. Can I answer that too? I love everything that Wikipedia article lists... Unfortunately too many who call themselves "progressives" are happy to curtail free speech, brand opinions they don't like as "-ist" or "-phobe" and are generally very intolerant of opinions not closely mirroring their own. This has become somewhat mainstream behavior with the American left, Europe only being slightly better. Curtail free speech part... What specifically do you understand by that. I'm assuming you would agree that free speech is curtailed by definition, as it is always and without exception limited by inalienable rights of everyone else.

You can't see the pics? I can, I voted. Just first time I saw how involved you are with in the IA.

Uuuuuh, I see a lot of shiny IA tags. Very nice.

To be fair they seem to emulate the President-elect rather nicely... Perhaps then you should not complain, non? Trump more than likely isn't going to be anything near his 'candidate persona'. He is after all a 'sly-operator' who likes to win and knows all to well the 'real' DC and what it takes to get things done his way (a few decades lobbying for this or that had to have adequately prepped him). Which in by it self isn't anything bad. I would say the following, be your opinion of the President-elect good or bad, you owe him a chance by respecting the electoral college majority he received. He has a legitimate mandate and having done nothing 'in offico' yet, it appears petulant to codemn him.

III

Go away. Do some Council stuff or sthg I Go away. Do some Council stuff or sthg I

I

Firstly, you wish to discuss something, then behave courteously and respect your interlocutor... without unecessarily insulting them. Please do take a look at the previous page where you used words such as uneducated. That is what I was referring to. In a discussion about religion of all things, you should avoid insulting people (patronising counts as such as does unargumented dismisiveness, whether or not you meant it as such is perhaps a different question). My point had everything to do with what you said. Especially since you said something about interpretation and how it should be left to each individual. You are making arrogant claims that are factually incorrect, namely "that Christians do not follow" the Old Testament or Ten Commandments. You might not follow them, you Church might not follow them, but do resist the urge to impose your view on everyone else. Furthermore what does it mean to "follow", is it to do literally as it is written, is it to try and abide by the spirit in which it was intended, or something else? You can believe what ever you want, but do not claim that your views are shared by everyone... as a rule of thumb, they most likely are not. The only one playing dumb here is you apparently... As said above, I'm not fishing for anything, your personal belifs are your own and you may believe whatever you want. Having said that, that does not mean your beliefs or your views are imposed on the body of Christianity as a whole... Your staments Samus could have fooled me, objectively speaking, on whether or not you consider Catholics Christians (as I said above, thus the question). Was my question posed in a provocative way... yes it was. But I'm glad you cleared that up. No stereotypes here Samus, that is unless you want to see them, but that is up to you. I said the most important thing (to me anyway) on this issue above in a different reply, namely "When your heart is in Christ, the name of the path on which you follow him, isn't important". To be clear I didn't think anyone was out to get me, but that now that you mentioned it You need to calm down and realise I'm not trying to pin anything on you...

When your hart is in Christ, the name of the path on which you follow him, isn't important. The question with respect to the ten commandments is simply a question of whether or not one considers that the Old Testament is the veritable 'Word of God'? If yes, then it can not be unliked with the New Testament and with Jesus. Jesus spoke on the issue and his view on the matter was that of total and unconditional trust (as per the Scriptures. To be clear I'm commenting solely on the relation of the Old Testament to the New and Jesus, and give no opinion on whether or not one ought to follow it.

Christians do not follow the old testament, that's an uneducated statement. Christians obey by the rules laid out in the New Testament as Christ had already fulfilled the Old Testament. Read the two, there's a completely different demeanor. Say what now? The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its divinely inspired and has never been revoked... If you're going to quote me atleast make a point, or provide some form of explanation as to why you are quoting me. Never did I say it had been revoked. If you want to discuss something at least be courteous enough not to insult with the first thing you post. The point was made perfectly obvious, that you chose to ignore it, is your own fault. You said, and I quote: "Christians do not follow the Old Testament". A factually incorrect statement, for a great majority of Christians (assuming that one would define a Christian as anyone who professes faith in Christ and who has been validly baptized). Did I say you said that it was revoked? I didn't. I simply questioned your statement and provided information on the position of the Old Statement in Christianity. You can not fault other people for assuming something when you yourself make statements that erroneus. I am a Traditionalist Catholic myself. Dare I assume you would not consider me a Christian, given some of the views you expressed thus far? Note: Ignore spelling errors, auto-correct is what it is

Yeah... no. The 'democratic' traditions of UK led to the creation of first concentration camps in connection with 'scorched earth' policy, as but a first in line of many examples... So yes, by all means do give it some thought (before making claims of the sort above).

Christians do not follow the old testament, that's an uneducated statement. Christians obey by the rules laid out in the New Testament as Christ had already fulfilled the Old Testament. Read the two, there's a completely different demeanor. Say what now? The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its divinely inspired and has never been revoked...

I don't look into this; when "money" is simply printed or added to an account at a few keystrokes its funny money; you cant print your way to prosperity, if so Zimbabwe would be the third richest nation on the planet behind Hungary (Hungarian Pengo) and Wiemar Germany. It to me money creation is simply deficit spending and deficit spending has never ended well nor is there anything for me to think that this should otherwise change. If you had said that the EU, the Euro and by extension EU member states are backed up with nearly 10,000 tons of gold and that is a great back up plan I would agree with you. The UK is sat on a pathetic 300 tons thanks to "The Iron Chancellor" Gordon Brown (Labour) selling half of the UK gold reserves in a bear market, letting the market know in advance when, the volume to be sold and the price it was to be sold at was horrific and arguably criminally negligent. I view your post as a red herring; my view being for instance if Bank X got into trouble tomorrow the Central Bank of Country A simply deposits the capital required into the Bank X with a few keystrokes. Central Bank of Country A could let the bank rightly go bankrupt (as should be the fate of all failed enterprises) but the risk to the rest of the banking industry would be too great so the (any) government in my opinion would simply take the easy option and hand over the digital "money" again. I would be interested to know how much of the "capital requirements" that banks have to carry these days are made up of its customers money, to me the writing was on the wall when they had the bail in in Cypress and bank nationalisations in the late 2000's. As I said the ins and outs of capital requirements for the banks is something I have not looked into or to be honest care enough about to do so. I have already taken the opinion that it is likely to be multiple nuances built upon a bed rock of fiat currency. I question the fiat monetary system itself, my apologies if I come across as being dismissive here in my post; but I take the Greenspan view that there will always be enough money (fiat), we can guarantee any sum for as far out as you would like, but we (FED) cannot guarantee its purchasing power. BnT what I said has nothing to do with 'printing money'. We can have a separate discussion on whether or not QE or QQE or whatever you might wish to call it. Corrigenda: Weimar, Cyprus I wouldn't be so sure BnT, Gold is a fickle mistress... there are other reserves that are perfectly 'trustworthy'. Your 3rd paragraph has little to nothing to do with reality. The resolution process of failed or likely to fail credit institution or precautionary measures for, shall we call it, an ailing credit institution. Do not confuse "capital requirements" with "reserve requirements". The first are there to 'guard' against a credit institutions 'appetite for risk' and thus against over leveraging. The latter address the issue of customers' deposits that a credit institution must keep on hand or with the Central Bank. You are not dismissive BnT tbh I merely addressing the "rather unhealthy" link Of course, you do have a point in the last sentence... the Central Bank cannot guarantee purchasing power of fiat money. That is certainly true. I would argue that what you have said has everything to do with "money printing" and would be impossible without it. I view my third paragraph as being firmly planted in reality and in the realpolitik that encompasses our governments limited attention span and the monetary system as it exists. When the smell of a bank run on Northern Rock came about the UK Government wasted no time in nationalising the bank, when the contagion spread it wasted no time in injecting billions of liquidity (ie funny money) into those banks affected, Northern Rock and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) stand out. Barclays if I recall received billions in private investments from the Middle East so that it wouldn't have to co-tail the demands made of it by the UK government of the time for extra liquidity. The UK government was posting a budget deficit that year, the money came via loan or injection of capital via QE money printing. Either way the UK government could not afford it save for the magical printing press or selling its citizens yet to be born further into serfdom. The thing is banks appetite for risk is somewhat skewed by the unfortunate (lol) position they now almost universally find themselves up against being zero to negative interest rates which kills bank profitability and loans made prior to the 2008 failure. Most of those loans made before 2008 are bad, the banks cannot turn a reasonable profit anymore in the current environment without playing Russian Roulette on the stock markets and injecting capital there. I would argue that the current rules to the game (low to zero or subzero) interest rates are killing the banks and is actually pushing those institutions closer to riskier endeavors not pushing them on the path to righteousness. Again I will reiterate my "European Banks look unhealthy" and expand that to banks unilaterally look unhealthy; wholesale backed by nothing other than BNT rhetoric and the publicly listed share prices of European Banks (and banks in general) given that share and stock price seems a good enough yardstick to flog the BREXIT horse with lets get it out. Women are fickle creatures (they are ), as is gold. I would sooner have a fickle wife and some gold than a cool wife and a fist full of fiat. Regardless of how annoying that mistress is, fickle doesn't burn your house down and leave you with nothing; more you embrace a relationship and accept it for what it is knowing that whatever happens you leave with something other than a smoldering ruin which I believe the current monetary order offers. I would argue that what you have said has everything to do with "money printing" and would be impossible without it. I view my third paragraph as being firmly planted in reality and in the realpolitik that encompasses our governments limited attention span and the monetary system as it exists. Well you haven't 'argued' it yet BnT. You've stated it, but you haven't given me an argument in favor. With respect to the third paragraph you are making a generalized statement without knowing how resolution process' work, either on the Continent (read: in Eurosystem) or anywhere else. Discussing such a topic by resorting only to your perception on how such processes were allegedly carrie out in the UK is not really an argument nor has it anything to do with reality. Point in case the EU Commission Communication on State Aid and the latest judgment of the ECJ (19 July 2016). In view of that your point is moot. As I said we can exchange opinions on this, but for that you'll need to 'leave behind' what you think your (UK) government would do, as it has no practical value for a general debate on the issue. Not least because whatever you think your government would do in such a case only applies in the UK and even there not under the presumptions you seem to be making. Incidentally when you talk about liquidity, it doesn't come for free, it has a cost and it needs to be backed-up by top notch collateral. The thing is banks appetite for risk is somewhat skewed by the unfortunate (lol) position they now almost universally find themselves up against being zero to negative interest rates which kills bank profitability and loans made prior to the 2008 failure. Most of those loans made before 2008 are bad, the banks cannot turn a reasonable profit anymore in the current environment without playing Russian Roulette on the stock markets and injecting capital there. ​Actually you are quite wrong there, the objective data shows that bank profitability in the low (negative) interest rate environment has not (for now) been hurt and remains at the average levels over the horizon (over the last 5-7 years). Clearly, banks have found other avenues to deflect overall slowing profits, say by way of increasing service charges and the like. But the profits relating to the interest rate as such have been fairly stable. Women are fickle creatures (they are ), as is gold. I would sooner have a fickle wife and some gold than a cool wife and a fist full of fiat. Regardless of how annoying that mistress is, fickle doesn't burn your house down and leave you with nothing; more you embrace a relationship and accept it for what it is knowing that whatever happens you leave with something other than a smoldering ruin which I believe the current monetary order offers. Indeed they are, but that is why we love them after all

LI

XLIX Grats!

XLVII

XLV

XLIII

XLI

XXXIX