Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Marcus Aurelius · 03-02-2010, 07:55 PM

I don't need to stock up on gold and canned goods. If anarchy comes I'll use my guns to take it from them. The way I see it, it's free storage.

ANONONE · 03-02-2010, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

. . .and the founders were smart enough to see it. . .

Well, I would not use that broad term. You really mean to say Jefferson and Madison. Sadly, they only listened to the smartest man in the room, Alexander Hamilton, for about twenty years.

Just imagine if we had kept his wisdom longer:

The National Bank was to be a private company.
The National Bank would have to have it's charter reviewed every twenty years.
States would be free to charter however many intrastate banks they wished, but the federal one would set the common form of paper currency--if we had listened to Jefferson we would still be handling hundreds of scrips and scraps as currency.
The National Bank would be immune to idiotic meddling from the government and would also avoid any appearance of impropriety, because it would:

be forbidden to buy government bonds.
have a mandatory rotation of directors.
neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization.

Foreign involvement in the influence of policy of the National Bank would not be permitted in any form.
That the Secretary of the Treasury would have complete oversight and would be free to remove government deposits, inspect the books, and require statements regarding the bank's condition as frequently as once a week.

Hamilton was amazing and if we had kept his pure form of the organization we would not have all these problems, but Wolcott (who was really a puppet of Jefferson and Madison) screwed the pooch and got us into our first pesky floating debts and the inflation cycle.

With all that said, I am not sure how all the this banking talk has much to do with Ansley's original post. I tend to agree with her. I am not sure we should have thrown out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to old fashioned chivalry. Just because it shares a few common letters with chauvinism, it does not mean such mannerisms are bad.

BTW: If it gets as bad as Marcus suggests, I think you would rather have silver than gold. I could be wrong, but while gold looks pretty, aren't there more practical uses for silver?

terbul · 03-02-2010, 08:12 PM

I think Marcus has said that Smith and Wesson, Winchester, Glock, and the others will have way more value than either silver or gold.

charlestudor2005 · 03-02-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terbul

I think Marcus has said that Smith and Wesson, Winchester, Glock, and the others will have way more value than either silver or gold.

Especially if they are used in negotiating a commercial enterprise out of their liquidity.

Marcus Aurelius · 03-02-2010, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terbul

I think Marcus has said that Smith and Wesson, Winchester, Glock, and the others will have way more value than either silver or gold.

Yep.

TexTushHog · 03-02-2010, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

I don't know why any woman would want to be equal to a man.

Then you don't know many women.

I work with extremely successful professional women all the time. And I can assure you that none of them want to go back to having no choices other than being a housewife, which, whether you realize it or not, seems to be the state of affairs that ya'll are advocating. I've got one daughter in law school and a step daughter equivalent who is deciding on which med school to attend. And neither has the least interest in being just a housewife or giving up her profession to stay at home.

Frankly, this entire discussion is stomach turning to me. And shocking.

Katy Alexander · 03-03-2010, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Frankly, this entire discussion is stomach turning to me. And shocking.

Now you know how my poor mom feels

Rudyard K · 03-03-2010, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Then you don't know many women.

I work with extremely successful professional women all the time. And I can assure you that none of them want to go back to having no choices other than being a housewife, which, whether you realize it or not, seems to be the state of affairs that ya'll are advocating. I've got one daughter in law school and a step daughter equivalent who is deciding on which med school to attend. And neither has the least interest in being just a housewife or giving up her profession to stay at home.

Frankly, this entire discussion is stomach turning to me. And shocking.

I think you're turning her statement into something it is not. She didn't advocate no choices, she simply said she doesn't know why they would make such a choice. But changing the nature of another's statement is a typical lawyer's trick...and only effective on the uninformed. The narrowmindness of the elite, is no different than the narrowmindedness the elite tries to portray upon others.

For my mind, the woman who knows and appreciates the service that I endeavor to do for her, is more likely to be the woman I want to serve. Likewise, the woman who desires to be a service to me, is more likely to be the woman I would wish to have serve me. It is, afterall, our service to one another that builds the strong relationship.

Those women who choose to serve otherwise, should be free to do so...and reap the rewards (and responsibilities) of that choice. I think Ansley's original post (and NB's and other's that follow) just is adding food for thought that maybe there are some women who think that is a poor choice. And for many of us men, we'd rather choose our mates from those women who believe such as her.

I'm not sure why that is stomach turning and shocking. Unless, of course, you simply don't have the stomach for views other than your own.

Marcus Aurelius · 03-03-2010, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I think you're turning her statement into something it is not. She didn't advocate no choices, she simply said she doesn't know why they would make such a choice. But changing the nature of another's statement is a typical lawyer's trick...and only effective on the uninformed. The narrowmindness of the elite, is no different than the narrowmindedness the elite tries to portray upon others.

For my mind, the woman who knows and appreciates the service that I endeavor to do for her, is more likely to be the woman I want to serve. Likewise, the woman who desires to be a service to me, is more likely to be the woman I would wish to have serve me. It is, afterall, our service to one another that builds the strong relationship.

Those women who choose to serve otherwise, should be free to do so...and reap the rewards (and responsibilities) of that choice. I think Ansley's original post (and NB's and other's that follow) just is adding food for thought that maybe there are some women who think that is a poor choice. And for many of us men, we'd rather choose our mates from those women who believe such as her.

I'm not sure why that is stomach turning and shocking. Unless, of course, you simply don't have the stomach for views other than your own.

Very well said sir.

WTF · 03-03-2010, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Then you don't know many women.

I think as RK implied , it was a poor choice of words. I agree with you, women should have a choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Frankly, this entire discussion is stomach turning to me. And shocking..

As is this. I would think your daughters would want the choice of a career, whether that be a housewife or Doctor. All you did was what Nic did, which was to put down a choice you do not agree with. I think both of you should strip down and make-up!

Marcus Aurelius · 03-03-2010, 05:32 AM

The part I liked is when RK pointed out the lawyers Neuromuscular facilitation.
Better known as muscle memory. The brain is not a muscle but let's bridge the gap shall we? It's disgusting and vile. (Insert bottom of the ocean joke here.)

WTF · 03-03-2010, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

The part I liked is when RK pointed out the lawyers Neuromuscular facilitation.
Better known as muscle memory. The brain is not a muscle but let's bridge the gap shall we? It's disgusting and vile. (Insert bottom of the ocean joke here.)

Lawyers are no different than anyone else.

We all forget to think there are more than one side at times.

Marcus Aurelius · 03-03-2010, 05:39 AM

Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever.
I believe you are ignorant.

WTF · 03-03-2010, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever.
I believe you are ignorant.

Are you offering to fix me? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, how about one of your famous poems or tributes.

Now be nice MA, TTH had a nice point and so did RK. You and I on the other hand are pointless.

Marcus Aurelius · 03-03-2010, 06:07 AM

The point RK made struck a sore cord is all.