Political Roundtable Part XXI

[payitforward]

I can see why SD20's references to the Rothchilds can be easily mistaken for outright antisemitism because the "the Rothchilds" are code for "the Jews" in various circles. However, I honestly don't think SD20 is referencing "the Jews" in his complaints. I think he is referencing the global banking cartel. Ever since the Government ceded authority for monetary policy to a private cartel of banks known as the Fed, the banking cartel has had profound, unchecked power to enrich themselves and their connected friends at the expense of middle class citizens. It's a legitimate concern.

SD20 can speak for himself, Nate.

Perhaps he thinks this "global banking cartel" is headed by, run by, reflects the interests of, or... something that implicates Jews. Or, maybe he doesn't think anything like that.

Either way, only he can weigh in on the subject; it's no good for you to interpret him in a way so thorough-going as to say what his words refer to.

TBH, I'm not sure there's a way to talk about abstract conspiratorial entities like the "global banking cartel" that doesn't eventuate in anti-Semitism. Why? B/c for such an invention to have impact, there has to be some projection of an intention behind it, meaning, in the end, some manipulative genius of evil. & Jews are always the first candidate to have this "honor" imputed to them.

Maybe it would be simpler to say that it's not a matter of what something "can be... mistaken for," but of the fact that there is no line of thought that starts with "global banking cartel" that doesn't end up at "the Jews."

In a way the thinking is no different from that of Racism in that the roles are created first & then people are put in them. For "me" (whoever that is) to be "smart," somebody else has to be "dumb" -- blacks are cast in that role. For "me" to be a victim (even though I'm "smart") the odds have to be stacked against me via a cabal of "conspirators" -- Jews are cast in that role.

None of this has the first thing to do with what happens in the world & is of no import at all in discussing "history" -- the events of which are characterized above all by "emergence" (i.e. their character has no important relationship to "intention" at any level). For someone who has the time & the interest, there's plenty to read (& plenty of other ways to learn) about emergence & complexity.

Ok... I checked in here, b/c the last post was by Nate (that's usually my reason). Checking back out. I'd rather argue about Austin Rivers than about the Rothschilds.

[Wizardspride]

Plenty of racists out there. In my experience, liberals hide it better than conservatives, who don't have to. But push the right buttons...

The 2008 democratic primary was an eye opener in that regard.

[Wizardspride]

This should be interesting....

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[TGW]

Sucks that you can’t have a real discussion on the Rothschild family or Israel without being call an anti-shemite. That family uses countries, including the United States as their personal militias and piggy banks. That’s a fact. But....let’s ignore that because they’re Jewish (fake Jews actually. Those people don’t even practice Judaism).

[montestewart]

Sucks that you can’t have a real discussion on the Rothschild family or Israel without being call an anti-shemite. That family uses countries, including the United States as their personal militias and piggy banks. That’s a fact. But....let’s ignore that because they’re Jewish (fake Jews actually. Those people don’t even practice Judaism).

You can have a real discussion on the subject. Begin with a disclaimer separating your discussion from the history of leveraging the Rothschild name into pogroms and the Holocaust. Distinguish your general issues with Rothschild banking as issues with bankers (who are not by definition Jewish), and distinguish your issues with Israel as issues with Israel, not issues with Jews. Make sure to distinguish your well-substantiated issues with the Rothschilds from the endless, careless, Rothschild/Jew-specific nonsense, and more akin to the kinds of things rich people and families of all kinds have been doing to everyone else since the beginning of time. Or don't, and be lumped in with STD. Your move.

PS: In your writing about about rich Jews supporting Israel, maybe you can educate STD about how much they support Trump. Why focus on the Rothschilds when you can focus on Sheldon Adelson?

[stilldropin20]

This - it is disingenuous unless you think the holocaust never happened. That the conversation is happening is either willful ignorance or just plain hate.

I can see why SD20's references to the Rothchilds can be easily mistaken for outright antisemitism because the "the Rothchilds" are code for "the Jews" in various circles. However, I honestly don't think SD20 is referencing "the Jews" in his complaints. I think he is referencing the global banking cartel. Ever since the Government ceded authority for monetary policy to a private cartel of banks known as the Fed, the banking cartel has had profound, unchecked power to enrich themselves and their connected friends at the expense of middle class citizens. It's a legitimate concern.

Well, I'm no friend of banks and bankers, but I call them "banks and bankers" so, hopefully, everyone knows who and what I am talking about.

thank you, Nate.

FTR i am strictly talking about bankers!! bankers bankers bankers! and specifically central bankers...of which supposedly the rothschilds removed from themselves from central banking in 2006. Small wonder the entire world banking system collapsed in 2008. but that is another discussion of which i am happy to have with anyone interested.

But ultimately....we have to be able to talk about this without bringing up the jewish people.[b] this has nothing to do with jewish people in general at all...in any way shape or form[/b]...but we must recognize centralized power in the form of finance, fractional reserve lending, and how that ability to finance States, countries, continents, and ultimately ideologies, forms of media, etc...how it guides us all...how it has formed our thought processes for generations at this point. Financed our education system rto a certain ideology that we all share...and many of us are questioning that education.

I hav ementioned here and other places that if i was in control of the entire world through finance...if i could pick winners in wars and trade...etc...I dont know that i could have done a betterb job...and with hindsight being 20/20 i still dont know that i could have done any better and i like to think of myself as a very altruistic person. Just being honest...So with that sais...lets assume that the rothschildshave held significant power over the last 200 years...I cant say where they made gross mis strep... and clearly many things were beyond their control and in fact a semi-global becoming fully global confluence of political influence...i dont know where they went wrong. That's as good of praise that SD20 is capable at 46 years old and have seen and experienced so much. So again...i jut dont see the need for anyone to rad into that any type of antisemitism at all. I'm tryin to say that given human nature...the rothcschilds have been responsible and done a good job. thats as good of praise as i am capable!

[doclinkin]

proud to say i also don't agree with SD20 on basketball

ok so what kind of basketball do you guys like and i'm calling out doclinkin on this as well as i see he gave you an and 1.

LOL because of your amusingly doofus theory that liberals love iso ball and conservatives love team ball. Its often funny watching you play orangutan Jackson Pollack just throwing shzt up on a wall to see what will stick, then calling it art. TAADAHHH!

I snorted out loud at work aloud reading that. Which is 100% why I championed your resurrection on here. You bring content, even while being so much a troll that you get in the way of your occasional nugget of truly held belief. I could be wrong but it reads that more than anything you just want to piss people off to get attention, or really to rile them up and ruin the comfort zone of the stuffy and stubborn. My feeling: 100% chance you'd be arguing the other side if you were surrounded by prim and disapproving conservatives. And would irritate them equally well. Its a specialized skill. Necessary. Mix things up, keep the ball in play. LOL you're the Dennis Rodman of message boards. Hall of Fame, fruit loop hair and all. Or Giant Thighs, Surgeon, Ships Diver, Luvabull lothario, whatever color you want to spray on your head on any given day. Just grinning about it. And1 to that muthafffffffrrrr

[stilldropin20]

proud to say i also don't agree with SD20 on basketball

ok so what kind of basketball do you guys like and i'm calling out doclinkin on this as well as i see he gave you an and 1.

LOL because of your amusingly doofus theory that liberals love iso ball and conservatives love team ball. Its often funny watching you play orangutan Jackson Pollack just throwing shzt up on a wall to see what will stick, then calling it art. TAADAHHH!

I snorted out loud at work aloud reading that. Which is 100% why I championed your resurrection on here. You bring content, even while being so much a troll that you get in the way of your occasional nugget of truly held belief. I could be wrong but it reads that more than anything you just want to piss people off to get attention, or really to rile them up and ruin the comfort zone of the stuffy and stubborn. My feeling: 100% chance you'd be arguing the other side if you were surrounded by prim and disapproving conservatives. And would irritate them equally well. Its a specialized skill. Necessary. Mix things up, keep the ball in play. LOL you're the Dennis Rodman of message boards. Hall of Fame, fruit loop hair and all. Or Giant Thighs, Surgeon, Ships Diver, Luvabull lothario, whatever color you want to spray on your head on any given day. Just grinning about it. And1 to that muthafffffffrrrr

LOL. What can we do? its a message board. we've only got one life to live. If i had other talents to entertain i would use them. we all use what we got. For my part, If i aim to stimulate any kind of thought along the way or the occasional laugh or even frustration to pique interest...so be it...thats better than stimulating no thought at all?

If I'm being honest, I truly want people to think. About things bigger than politics. But it kinda starts here (unfortunately?) as most politicalal boards/social media in general are bogged into a focus on the micro event of the day. Choose a side early, defend it ad nauseum and forever. I get it. We all truly feel like we want to belong in a certain box or we have a natural tendency to put ourselves in any given box to define our identity. I totally get it. Completely. Human/animal nature. But i truly am trying to move the political discussion into a broader sense of where we are at as a whole. Why we are here. What specific decisions/ideologies brought us here and more importantly why? And i think we have to go back a few hundred years minimally to put it all in perspective. Only then can we truly discover/uncover what to do next. I'd like to go layers and levels deeper than the standard version of history most of us accept as baseline "truth." i want to learn from others here and i think this group has a lot to offer me in terms of analysis...It would be wonderful if more posters get involved and stay involved. And each of them to accord themselves with who each of us are or rather the positions we have taken thus far.

In the grand scheme, it took over 100,000 for humans to finally have the tools to communicate globally. Language and the internet. Wow! But to first have meaningful dialogue globally we need to figure out where we are at tribally/locally. And whether we want to accept it or believe it, Americans are in this together for the foreseeable future. We are stuck with each other for better or worse. It makes sense that, in what will later be described as the archaic days of the internet, humans are mostly saying hi at first and then quickly arguing, feeling each other out, defining their space. But at some point the barriers will come down. the guards will have to drop and we will begin to listen to what what matters to each other and why...but the biggest part of having that understanding that is educating each other on some sort of history as to what brought us to this point. I think its important to figure out where we truly stand. and why and by what means. What forces/ideologies brought us here?

Believe it or not within the daily bickering of the politics du jour both sides are covering ground however slightly. They wont admit it but the liberals in this thread have all come to understand that (perhaps) it is very likely that some sort of dirty politics was being played by their side...the kind that is suppose to be unacceptable in free and fair elections. And conservatives have come to understand that perhaps our side stepped in some doodoo along the way. and keeps unnecessarily stepping in more of it. Political outsiders are both clumsy and made to look even clumsier and sometimes even by design.

As for bball, i didn't say that conservatives love team ball. what i said was that libs out number conserv's at least 5-1 and most posters on this site love either Lebron or Durant as their favorite player in most polls. so yes by default i did infer that it is likely that liberals prefer iso ball style of basketball. Or simply stated a singular hero. There is enough in classic and modern lit to support this theory and how one views sports and bball is likely an extension of the societal values that rule the day. That statement doesn't preclude conservatives from also preferring the exact same style or the singular hero. But it would be an interesting discussion to have. to tie those (basketball team building) values into our own belief systems for society at large.

Using this metaphor makes it an easy leap for bball nerds like us to take. basketball team= tribe. What kind of tribe do you truly want to be a part of? I would argue that perhaps those that prefer a basketball team with a singular hero(baller) also look for strong leaders in society to guide them (for better or worse).<-- A lot of this stuff is likely genetically pre wired for survival of any given species along the way. So I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with hierarchies and chains of command. I'm just saying that we all need to be honest with what we truly want and envision. Either way. Decisions will be made. for better or worse.

[nate33]

This - it is disingenuous unless you think the holocaust never happened. That the conversation is happening is either willful ignorance or just plain hate.

I can see why SD20's references to the Rothchilds can be easily mistaken for outright antisemitism because the "the Rothchilds" are code for "the Jews" in various circles. However, I honestly don't think SD20 is referencing "the Jews" in his complaints. I think he is referencing the global banking cartel. Ever since the Government ceded authority for monetary policy to a private cartel of banks known as the Fed, the banking cartel has had profound, unchecked power to enrich themselves and their connected friends at the expense of middle class citizens. It's a legitimate concern.

Well, I'm no friend of banks and bankers, but I call them "banks and bankers" so, hopefully, everyone knows who and what I am talking about.

Fair enough.

[stilldropin20]

I can see why SD20's references to the Rothchilds can be easily mistaken for outright antisemitism because the "the Rothchilds" are code for "the Jews" in various circles. However, I honestly don't think SD20 is referencing "the Jews" in his complaints. I think he is referencing the global banking cartel. Ever since the Government ceded authority for monetary policy to a private cartel of banks known as the Fed, the banking cartel has had profound, unchecked power to enrich themselves and their connected friends at the expense of middle class citizens. It's a legitimate concern.

Well, I'm no friend of banks and bankers, but I call them "banks and bankers" so, hopefully, everyone knows who and what I am talking about.

Fair enough.

i will stick to banks n bankers n central bankers from here to eternity. and strictly mean exactly that. there is no implication of any people other than banks n bankers.

[nate33]

I can see why SD20's references to the Rothchilds can be easily mistaken for outright antisemitism because the "the Rothchilds" are code for "the Jews" in various circles. However, I honestly don't think SD20 is referencing "the Jews" in his complaints. I think he is referencing the global banking cartel. Ever since the Government ceded authority for monetary policy to a private cartel of banks known as the Fed, the banking cartel has had profound, unchecked power to enrich themselves and their connected friends at the expense of middle class citizens. It's a legitimate concern.

SD20 can speak for himself, Nate.

Perhaps he thinks this "global banking cartel" is headed by, run by, reflects the interests of, or... something that implicates Jews. Or, maybe he doesn't think anything like that.

Either way, only he can weigh in on the subject; it's no good for you to interpret him in a way so thorough-going as to say what his words refer to.

TBH, I'm not sure there's a way to talk about abstract conspiratorial entities like the "global banking cartel" that doesn't eventuate in anti-Semitism. Why? B/c for such an invention to have impact, there has to be some projection of an intention behind it, meaning, in the end, some manipulative genius of evil. & Jews are always the first candidate to have this "honor" imputed to them.

Maybe it would be simpler to say that it's not a matter of what something "can be... mistaken for," but of the fact that there is no line of thought that starts with "global banking cartel" that doesn't end up at "the Jews."

In a way the thinking is no different from that of Racism in that the roles are created first & then people are put in them. For "me" (whoever that is) to be "smart," somebody else has to be "dumb" -- blacks are cast in that role. For "me" to be a victim (even though I'm "smart") the odds have to be stacked against me via a cabal of "conspirators" -- Jews are cast in that role.

None of this has the first thing to do with what happens in the world & is of no import at all in discussing "history" -- the events of which are characterized above all by "emergence" (i.e. their character has no important relationship to "intention" at any level). For someone who has the time & the interest, there's plenty to read (& plenty of other ways to learn) about emergence & complexity.

Ok... I checked in here, b/c the last post was by Nate (that's usually my reason). Checking back out. I'd rather argue about Austin Rivers than about the Rothschilds.

There is a real issue here. Our monetary system is run by an exclusive cartel of private banks. They have control of all credit creation. They are privately owned, not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and have not been audited by Congress. Since power over monetary policy was ceded to them in 1913, the dollar has fallen in value by 97% and our total debt load (public and private) is 300% of GDP. Not only is this debt a major impediment to future growth, this ability to create easy credit has probably led us to instigate more wars and take on far more responsibility in global intervention than we would have under a sane monetary system. Meanwhile, the biggest money center banks have risen to dominate our economy to a greater degree than any other sector (with the exception of technology) and they do so because of a monopoly over credit creation. They get to create money out of thin air, lend it, and get back interest. JP Morgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo all rank in the top 13 in U.S. market capitalization (and Citigroup used to be up there too).

And you are telling me we can't even discuss this because Jews?

[montestewart]

Well, I'm no friend of banks and bankers, but I call them "banks and bankers" so, hopefully, everyone knows who and what I am talking about.

Fair enough.

i will stick to banks n bankers n central bankers from here to eternity. and strictly mean exactly that. there is no implication of any people other than banks n bankers.

and a single joyful teardrop wends across the cheek of our great nation

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[TGW]

Sucks that you can’t have a real discussion on the Rothschild family or Israel without being call an anti-shemite. That family uses countries, including the United States as their personal militias and piggy banks. That’s a fact. But....let’s ignore that because they’re Jewish (fake Jews actually. Those people don’t even practice Judaism).

You can have a real discussion on the subject. Begin with a disclaimer separating your discussion from the history of leveraging the Rothschild name into pogroms and the Holocaust. Distinguish your general issues with Rothschild banking as issues with bankers (who are not by definition Jewish), and distinguish your issues with Israel as issues with Israel, not issues with Jews. Make sure to distinguish your well-substantiated issues with the Rothschilds from the endless, careless, Rothschild/Jew-specific nonsense, and more akin to the kinds of things rich people and families of all kinds have been doing to everyone else since the beginning of time. Or don't, and be lumped in with STD. Your move.

PS: In your writing about about rich Jews supporting Israel, maybe you can educate STD about how much they support Trump. Why focus on the Rothschilds when you can focus on Sheldon Adelson?

Fair enough Monte. I missed the original discussion, and only saw the responses (I have STD blocked so I can't see his nonsense anyway).

By the way, I have no problem with Jews who practice true Judaism. Jews, for the most part, are good people and I know a lot of them. It's the raging right-wing Zionists that I can't stand. The ones who treat Palestinians like trash and promote racism. Unfortunately, the Zionists have tricked people into thinking that if you don't support Israel's agenda, you're an anti-shemite, which is wholeheartedly incorrect.

[TGW]

This should be interesting....

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

I'm of the belief that anyone is better than Pelosi, but Clyburn is just an old, black, male version of Pelosi. What the hell is the point other than his skin color being different?

[Pointgod]

I can see why SD20's references to the Rothchilds can be easily mistaken for outright antisemitism because the "the Rothchilds" are code for "the Jews" in various circles. However, I honestly don't think SD20 is referencing "the Jews" in his complaints. I think he is referencing the global banking cartel. Ever since the Government ceded authority for monetary policy to a private cartel of banks known as the Fed, the banking cartel has had profound, unchecked power to enrich themselves and their connected friends at the expense of middle class citizens. It's a legitimate concern.

SD20 can speak for himself, Nate.

Perhaps he thinks this "global banking cartel" is headed by, run by, reflects the interests of, or... something that implicates Jews. Or, maybe he doesn't think anything like that.

Either way, only he can weigh in on the subject; it's no good for you to interpret him in a way so thorough-going as to say what his words refer to.

TBH, I'm not sure there's a way to talk about abstract conspiratorial entities like the "global banking cartel" that doesn't eventuate in anti-Semitism. Why? B/c for such an invention to have impact, there has to be some projection of an intention behind it, meaning, in the end, some manipulative genius of evil. & Jews are always the first candidate to have this "honor" imputed to them.

Maybe it would be simpler to say that it's not a matter of what something "can be... mistaken for," but of the fact that there is no line of thought that starts with "global banking cartel" that doesn't end up at "the Jews."

In a way the thinking is no different from that of Racism in that the roles are created first & then people are put in them. For "me" (whoever that is) to be "smart," somebody else has to be "dumb" -- blacks are cast in that role. For "me" to be a victim (even though I'm "smart") the odds have to be stacked against me via a cabal of "conspirators" -- Jews are cast in that role.

None of this has the first thing to do with what happens in the world & is of no import at all in discussing "history" -- the events of which are characterized above all by "emergence" (i.e. their character has no important relationship to "intention" at any level). For someone who has the time & the interest, there's plenty to read (& plenty of other ways to learn) about emergence & complexity.

Ok... I checked in here, b/c the last post was by Nate (that's usually my reason). Checking back out. I'd rather argue about Austin Rivers than about the Rothschilds.

There is a real issue here. Our monetary system is run by an exclusive cartel of private banks. They have control of all credit creation. They are privately owned, not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and have not been audited by Congress. Since power over monetary policy was ceded to them in 1913, the dollar has fallen in value by 97% and our total debt load (public and private) is 300% of GDP. Not only is this debt a major impediment to future growth, this ability to create easy credit has probably led us to instigate more wars and take on far more responsibility in global intervention than we would have under a sane monetary system. Meanwhile, the biggest money center banks have risen to dominate our economy to a greater degree than any other sector (with the exception of technology) and they do so because of a monopoly over credit creation. They get to create money out of thin air, lend it, and get back interest. JP Morgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo all rank in the top 13 in U.S. market capitalization (and Citigroup used to be up there too).

And you are telling me we can't even discuss this because Jews?

You literally just did in the paragraph preceding this. It's easy to talk about the problematic nature of central banks without bringing in some anti Semitic conspiracy theories.

[Pointgod]

:nonono:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

**** this guy. I remember before I was banned from the CA board there was some poster saying that he wasn't going to vote for Stacy Abrams because she wasn't likely to win anyway. This **** should piss off everyone that believes in Democracy regardless of political affiliation. I really hope the Democrats in Georgia turn out as a **** you to this **** Kemp. Just tells you exactly what type of Governor he'll be. This is why character matters despite all of people's talk about both sides blah blah blah. Hope all the people that claim some candidates aren't Progressive enough realize there's a bigger battle to fight.

[Pointgod]

This should be interesting....

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

I'm of the belief that anyone is better than Pelosi, but Clyburn is just an old, black, male version of Pelosi. What the hell is the point other than his skin color being different?

It seems like a challenge that Pelosi probably gave the green light for. I wouldn't dismiss him until we see the approach he would take. I actually don't see Pelosi as some ineffective minority leader, just more right wing talking points and scare tactics. If you want an ineffective speaker of the House look no further than Paul Ryan.

[nate33]

You literally just did in the paragraph preceding this. It's easy to talk about the problematic nature of central banks without bringing in some anti Semitic conspiracy theories.

PIF literally just said in the post that I quoted:

TBH, I'm not sure there's a way to talk about abstract conspiratorial entities like the "global banking cartel" that doesn't eventuate in anti-Semitism. Why? B/c for such an invention to have impact, there has to be some projection of an intention behind it, meaning, in the end, some manipulative genius of evil. & Jews are always the first candidate to have this "honor" imputed to them.

[nate33]

National Review

Zing!

Now, care to actually refute any of the points made in the National Review article? Points that are completely backed up by known facts.