| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Bluegill
1000+ Penny Miser Member
USA
1964 Posts |
|
|
theo
Penny Hoarding Member
USA
588 Posts |
 Posted - 01/06/2010 : 02:47:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bluegill
You must be logged in to see this link.
"Gerald Celente says this could be the beginning of World War III. He says no one can wipe out Iran, if they think they can they better read up on their persian history and realize that they have been around a long time and they are not going anywhere."
Did he mean Afganistan? Persia doesn't exactly have a great record of resisting invasion. Alexander the Great took the Persians out in a few years in the 4th century B.C. and nine centuries later the Byzantines destroyed the Persian army and sacked their capital which allowed them to be taken over by the moslems. Also I believe Iran spent much of the 20th century being a vassel of Great Britain and the West. France has been around a long time too, but that didn't stop them from being invaded by the Romans, Vikings, English and, of course, the Germans.
I understand that war with Iran would be difficult and could potentially get out of control, but I would hope that Celente would give his suscribers more insight than the unsupportable myth that Iran is unconquerable. Anyone who really understands history knows that no nation or people is unconquerable including the U.S. |
 |
|
|
Bluegill
1000+ Penny Miser Member
USA
1964 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2010 : 17:27:27
|
I agree. I’m not sure if he was alluding to Persia’s resilience that in spite of being to conquered and occupied, they are still around in some form or another.., or something else. He does need to elaborate some more on that one.
My main disagreement with him however, is his prediction of a 3rd political party. Or at least what he believes this “Progressive-Libertarian Party” he talks of will be. It comes across as if he doesn’t understand the definition of either word.
They are total polar opposites. We already have a Progressive Party. Have had so for about a century now... It is the umbrella Party for the 2 factions we call Republicans and Democrats.
They hijacked both parties near the end of the 19th century. The party is also referred to as Collectivists and Statists. Bottom line, they are Communists, Socialists, Fabians, Leninists and Stalinists. They believe the State is the omniscient entity, and the citizens are just chattel.
Teddy R., FDR, W. Wilson, all early Progressives. Every politician since then has been a Progressive. Even Hillary Clinton proudly claims to be an “Early 20th Century Progressive”.
Pre- hijacked Democrats, also know as Classic-Liberals, became Libertarians.
Sadly though, too many modern “Libertarians” are anything but. I always here about left leaning and right leaning Libertarians. Nonsense. You’re either a Libertarian or your not. Libertarians don’t lean towards either flavor of Collectivism (Progressivism).
This “Progressive-Libertarian” party will end up being be just that. Another faction under the Progressive umbrella... Instead of having a 2 headed serpent, we will end up having Ghidra, the 3 headed monster.
More of the same old, same old. I don’t see this as being a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Lemon Thrower
1000+ Penny Miser Member
USA
1588 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2010 : 12:30:14
|
gross oversimplification but here goes:
the right wants economic freedom but social issues regulated (drugs, sex, etc.)
left wants freedom on social issues, but wants economic issues regulated.
a Libertarian is supposed to want freedom on both sets of issues.
there are few pure libertarians. most are former members of the right or left and are sort of in the middle.
most moderates in the u.s. are people who are not libertarian and simply have not expended the mental energy to have well thought out beliefs about anything. that's why it was relevant that Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin were sexually attractive. |
Buying:
Peace/Morgan G+ at $15.00
copper cents at 1.3X
wheat pennies at 3X
|
|
|
|
theo
Penny Hoarding Member
USA
588 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2010 : 14:44:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Thrower
gross oversimplification but here goes:
the right wants economic freedom but social issues regulated (drugs, sex, etc.)
left wants freedom on social issues, but wants economic issues regulated.
a Libertarian is supposed to want freedom on both sets of issues.
there are few pure libertarians. most are former members of the right or left and are sort of in the middle.
most moderates in the u.s. are people who are not libertarian and simply have not expended the mental energy to have well thought out beliefs about anything. that's why it was relevant that Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin were sexually attractive.
As a conservative I have always believed that people should have liberty up to the point where they hurt others. My right to swing my arms ends where your nose begins. However, I believe that individuals should have to face the consequences of their actions. For example, not for discussion is not only objectionable because it takes innocent life. It also allows those who are sexually irresponsible to escape the consequenses (and benefits) of creating a life. I don't know many conservatives who believe that promiscuity should be illegal. |
Edited by - theo on 01/07/2010 14:46:48 |
|
|
|
Lemon Thrower
1000+ Penny Miser Member
USA
1588 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2010 : 15:49:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by theo
quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Thrower
gross oversimplification but here goes:
the right wants economic freedom but social issues regulated (drugs, sex, etc.)
left wants freedom on social issues, but wants economic issues regulated.
a Libertarian is supposed to want freedom on both sets of issues.
there are few pure libertarians. most are former members of the right or left and are sort of in the middle.
most moderates in the u.s. are people who are not libertarian and simply have not expended the mental energy to have well thought out beliefs about anything. that's why it was relevant that Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin were sexually attractive.
As a conservative I have always believed that people should have liberty up to the point where they hurt others. My right to swing my arms ends where your nose begins. However, I believe that individuals should have to face the consequences of their actions. For example, not for discussion is not only objectionable because it takes innocent life. It also allows those who are sexually irresponsible to escape the consequenses (and benefits) of creating a life. I don't know many conservatives who believe that promiscuity should be illegal.
To say that one’s rights end where another’s rights begin is a Libertarian concept.
What I mean about regulating social activity is drugs, gay marriage, or immigration. not for discussion is often mentioned but that’s not a good example because you have the life of the unborn person. In fact, the famous Roe case recognized this. Roe said that after a fetus is viable (very late term in 1973, but not necessarily so today), it has its own rights which the State can protect by making not for discussion illegal. Roe also said that early in the pregnancy, the fetus does not have its own rights and that making not for discussion illegal interferes with the mother’s rights. My only point being that the fetus as a person makes this a poor example.
|
Buying:
Peace/Morgan G+ at $15.00
copper cents at 1.3X
wheat pennies at 3X
|
|
|
|
theo
Penny Hoarding Member
USA
588 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2010 : 21:13:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Thrower
quote:
Originally posted by theo
quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Thrower
gross oversimplification but here goes:
the right wants economic freedom but social issues regulated (drugs, sex, etc.)
left wants freedom on social issues, but wants economic issues regulated.
a Libertarian is supposed to want freedom on both sets of issues.
there are few pure libertarians. most are former members of the right or left and are sort of in the middle.
most moderates in the u.s. are people who are not libertarian and simply have not expended the mental energy to have well thought out beliefs about anything. that's why it was relevant that Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin were sexually attractive.
As a conservative I have always believed that people should have liberty up to the point where they hurt others. My right to swing my arms ends where your nose begins. However, I believe that individuals should have to face the consequences of their actions. For example, not for discussion is not only objectionable because it takes innocent life. It also allows those who are sexually irresponsible to escape the consequenses (and benefits) of creating a life. I don't know many conservatives who believe that promiscuity should be illegal.
To say that one’s rights end where another’s rights begin is a Libertarian concept.
What I mean about regulating social activity is drugs, gay marriage, or immigration. not for discussion is often mentioned but that’s not a good example because you have the life of the unborn person. In fact, the famous Roe case recognized this. Roe said that after a fetus is viable (very late term in 1973, but not necessarily so today), it has its own rights which the State can protect by making not for discussion illegal. Roe also said that early in the pregnancy, the fetus does not have its own rights and that making not for discussion illegal interferes with the mother’s rights. My only point being that the fetus as a person makes this a poor example.
I guess the A-word is not a subject that can be discussed here. I'm not sure I understand this policy, but I suppose the site admin. has his reasons.
Anyway, its interesting that you brought up gay marriage. I support the right of homosexuals to enter into a legal partnership with each other (civil unions) giving them all of the legal rights of marriage. However to make "gay marriage" legal would potentially force many churches (which may view not for discussionactivity as a sin) to marry homosexuals to avoid violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. However I believe that forcing these churches, synagogues or mosques to change or ignore their beliefs violates their 1st amendment (free exercise) rights. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Gerald Celente Predictions for 2010.
Forum Locked
