America's Path

[DraconisRex]

Chavik:

Those of us with common verbage tend to use Money and Cash interchangably. Money includes assets which are not instantly liquidified, such as houses, land, notes, etc. While this is, admitedly, inaccurate, it is also normal.

"I go to Wal-mart to spend money." This is accurate, even with credit cards, because they consider it to be useful cash, even though it little more than a promisary (sp?) note from the credit card company (or its bank.)

I'lll have to do some research to back up my claim, because I have always been taught that the original US Money Laws required coinage only. Now I just need to back that up, and see what we get... Slept since then, you know?

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Geez! I learned more history off this board than I did from my history teacher for a whole year

---

I really wouldn't tell him/her that.

Did you get what you wanted? I admit I've gone off topic.

[ 12-20-2002, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Chavik ]

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

quote:

---

Geez! I learned more history off this board than I did from my history teacher for a whole year

---

I really wouldn't tell him/her that.

Did you get what you wanted? I admit I've gone off topic.

---

The sum-total of education is nothing more than communication and experience with a given subject. I cannot teach anyone anything they do not already have a basis in, or at least to the degree to where I can connect prior knowledge to the subject.

1, 2, 3, A, B, C, etc., are all building-blocks to knowldege (and make a fortune for Children's Television Network.) If you don't know that part, you can't read my post, which means you will learn little except that there are pretty, small pictures on your TV screen (we call that a monitor in-the-trade -- when you buy one, you watch your money go into a monitor fund, which in turn reduces your allowance for other things...)

[Kalshion]

Yea =D

Continue on if you wish you can go off topic if you wish but try to remain on topic... if there's one thing SC hates its when a topic goes off topic.

Just as long as you leave the racism,dicrimination and such to a low level. I don't want names to appear here, race's... well ok I'll accept that but please keep it civil =D

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalshion:

Yea =D

Continue on if you wish you can go off topic if you wish but try to remain on topic... if there's one thing SC hates its when a topic goes off topic.

Just as long as you leave the racism,dicrimination and such to a low level. I don't want names to appear here, race's... well ok I'll accept that but please keep it civil =D

---

Well, the thing is, with a name like America's Path, so long as it is discussing America, or the problems/solutions therein, it's hard to go completely off-topic... But I wouldn't push that point too hard if I was me....

[weegee_101]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalshion:

Geez! I learned more history off this board than I did from my history teacher for a whole year

---

More the reason I'm going upon my school board to demand they start teaching us important knowledge and not just knowledge we need to know to raise their standardized test score averages.

For those interested I'll release my research, theories, and actual speech when I'm done. Perhaps I'll record the school board meeting and put it on my website as well.

Going back on topic;

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

"Intended" isn't good enough. Jaguar and others decry any intepretation of the constitution other than what is written but constantly go back to the Federalist papers to try to say what was "intended". Guess what? Reading the Federalist papaers to see what was intended is just another way of interpreting the constitution. Intended don't count. Only what is written counts.

---

The gist of what I was saying all along.

I just re-read this entire topic. How the hell did we start discussing about the direction America was going in to debating about the interpretations of the constitution...

quote:

---

Originally posted by DraconisRex:

I'lll have to do some research to back up my claim, because I have always been taught that the original US Money Laws required coinage only. Now I just need to back that up, and see what we get... Slept since then, you know?

---

This is common teaching. The problem with most people now days is that they are taught generalizations. In some cases they are right, in others they are wrong. They are also taught to take everything literally. In some cases, such as legal documents, reading something literally is important.

Unfortunately, the constitution was written very vague. Not all points should be taken literally. This is also the reason for the differing viewpoints on the constitution.

Chavik is right, coinage in the constitution should be taken as the creation of tender, paper and coin. I remember reading that congress debated about this issue when they decided to start printing paper money. As is obvious, they decided that paper was constitutional.

I've been fortunate to have some decent history teachers. I've also been fortunate (IMO) to have interest in these matters, enough to read about them.

I'll see if I can find the book that has the information about congress discussing paper money.

[Raven]

Well darling, I have a good idea of how this turned into a constitutional debate. Jaguar was involved and the constitution somehow came up. That pretty much always ends in a constitutional debate.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Well darling, I have a good idea of how this turned into a constitutional debate. Jaguar was involved and the constitution somehow came up. That pretty much always ends in a constitutional debate.

---

Technically, we could be discussing things in Canada, the United States, Mexico, or anywhere in South America, based on the name of this thread. And we could toss in religion, politics, educational reform, etc. to make for a wonderful mismash of cockadoodle-duck.

While that may be interesting, it would be quite chaotic, and pointless. So, instead, let's talk about general social trends (as in the differences between different areas of the country) which will affect future generations of Americans, i.e., the path America seems to be taking.

Let's clear the playing field; what I want to see is what everyone thinks will happen if we don't make changes to the way we've been doing things, both politically and culturally, and what each of us thinks we need to do to correct these problems. We've spent a lot of time discussing what's wrong with America -- but what can we, The Shareholders of the Greatest Nation on Earth, actually do about it?

Start your post with "Commentary", to mark it as different from other discussions in this thread. Nobody needs to comment on what others say in their Commentary, since the idea is to air ideas and opinions at this point. When I get back from our Christmas vacation, I'll make my own post....

[Kalshion]

Hmmm *thinks* im only a teen, so I can't really do anything about it right now *as im called at my school, just a child*

But I beleave if we kick all the Democraps and Congrase's out of office and elect new people along with getting rid of other problems we might be able to find a solution...

Im all for freedom, but if this country starts turning into big brother *if you know what i mean* I will turn my alliegence toward something else and fight to get freedom back.

Its not the American people that are the problem * well ok maybe a few (eye's the bussiness empoyers)* but its people like the UN,Congress,Demoacritcs and all the others enchalata's*SP*

[weegee_101]

Education. Thats the solution.

There are still many American families out there that feel education is unimportant. Until we can convince them that education is important, we're set on the path we are currently headed.

Its not the Democrats or the Republicans, its the people that have set us in the direction we're headed. I'm sure most intelligent people here have read stuff on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. One of the key reasons the Romans started to fall was that citizens and officials started to loose interest in educating their children. While there were many other factors that led to its fall, such as the miscommunication between the seperate regions, and the corruptive wound caused by the Julio-Claudian emperors (Namely Nero).

Unity is also a key factor. As soon as people start to get a "I'm all that matters" mentality, we will begin to fall. Many of you should go over your posts, as many of you have that mentality. Its sad that we as a people have to be forced into a charity such as Welfare, but tell me, how many of you are willing to use 35%-40% of your salary to help the needy. Exactly, almost none of you. Poor and rich causes castes, and castes defer unity. While this is a trait of socialism, its important for the unity of our country. As soon as the unity as a whole falls too far, a bar in a place so dark we cannot see, the country is doomed to fall.

Now for my comments on other people's posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalshion:

Hmmm *thinks* im only a teen, so I can't really do anything about it right now *as im called at my school, just a child*

---

You can do something. Just the effort to try to make changes is what matters. Start educating yourself by going to the library and borrowing books on our country. I also strongly recommend reading books on democracy. Keep yourself open to suggestions, be a free thinker, and develop your own theories on the knowledge you gain.

quote:

---

Also posted by Kalshion:

But I beleave if we kick all the Democraps and Congrase's out of office and elect new people along with getting rid of other problems we might be able to find a solution...

---

Its only the "democraps" fault? Both parties are equally to blame.

There is a reason that George Washington warned of political parties. This eludes back to the point about unity. Political parties cause seperation of unity, which is what our country is about. We are the United States of America. We will stand united, and fall seperated.

On one last note, directed at you Kalshion, I strongly recommend not using unintelligent terms such as "democraps" during intelligent conversations such as these. It strongly degrades your character, and your intelligence, during discussions of matters such as these.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

On one last note, directed at you Kalshion, I strongly recommend not using unintelligent terms such as "democraps" during intelligent conversations such as these. It strongly degrades your character, and your intelligence, during discussions of matters such as these.

---

I would have to concur. I love to listen to G. Gordon Liddy and Sean Hannity just to hear what they have to say. However, both slam Democrats using slur-terms that I have a serious problem with. But then again, they're talk-show hosts, and that is expected of them to some degree.

Commanders -- I would urge each and every one of you to simply quit slurring the other side -- if you can't get your point across without slurs, your point is bad. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, because there are points to both I can't agree with fully. Does that make an Independent?

Yep! I am part of the American Party, which believes that hyphenated Americans are a lie (you're either an American or you're not -- just like pregnancy), Freedom of Speech and Religion both require responsibility for one's actions, and the Federal Government needs only to manage itself, and stay out of education, welfare, and state's rights -- this requires limited government. Congress should be a part-time job earning $20,000 a year (plus perks), instead of the hundred-thousands plus that it currently runs us. We now have secured national teleconferencing available -- explain to me again why all representatives have to be in DC?

[Kalshion]

Sorry its just thats what we call the democrats at my school. So I kinda figure'd I'd use that slang but I guess I can't now

What I hate is that there payed using OUR tax dollers. Tax dollers that are suppost to be used on improvements for the nations..

Ok here's an example

My school has enough money to upgrade its building, add new walls, clean up the parking lot.. and add new computers and such.

Yet they don't have enough money to get new books =( how sad it that?

very sad in my humble opinion.

each state to my knowledge has 2 representatives.. why there in DC is a mystery to me as well

[ 12-21-2002, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Kalshion ]

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Those of us with common verbage

---

Ummm, what's that mean? I have uncommon verbage?

quote:

---

tend to use Money and Cash interchangably.

---

Sure. You did not quote me directly so I can't tell what you were actually trying to say but I can take a guess.

Cash is actual physical monies, what you got in your pocket, or near enough to be readily accessible (maybe back at the house). Money is your total funds. It might be in the bank in a savings or checking account but it's still your money. It's not cash but it's money. Assets are something you own and that can be sold thus converted to cash or money. Wealth is the total accumalation of all this.

I will accept your definition that assets can be some of your total money but personally I would consider that part of wealth. I will accept the credit card thing because one realizes one has to pay that back so when they put it in the card they realize they are out some money.

That wasn't my problem. My problem was that you did not define "a tender" correctly. You tried to make that "semi paragraph" into sense but did not use the correct terms.

Tender can be an adjective, two verbs, or one of three nouns. None of which mean cash. None of which mean money. None of which even mean payment. To tender [in this particular case(as a verb)] only means to provide the assurance of payment but not the payment itself. To call it "a tender" changes it to a noun and thus changes it to the actual assurance of the payment but still not the payment itself.

Tender has other definitions (I'm still using Draconis' quote). It does not mean only to provide the assurance of a debt; it also means to satisfy a demand . As in tender a resignation.

This is why this particular clause of the constitution regarding the States makes it very clear that an assurance of paymentmay only be backed up by gold and silver coins.

[DraconisRex]

Chavik:

I'll accept what you said, especially since you restated my intent in my favor.

quote:

---

This is why this particular clause of the constitution regarding the States makes it very clear that an assurance of paymentmay only be backed up by gold and silver coins.

---

In case nobody has noticed, they're not doing that, which means the Constitution isn't being enforced, which means our Representatives, Senators, and President aren't doing their job.

That being the case, shall we privatise the federal government too? I just wish we had a Vote of No Confidence available, to kick out the lazy ones.

Well, I'm off to Vacation -- be out of pocket for at least a week. Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! 2003 it's a-gonna be!

[ 12-22-2002, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Chavik:

I'll accept what you said, especially since you restated my intent in my favor.

---

That states should have a balanced budget? That is certainly an intent I will go with. I'd hate for States to go belly up.

That paper money is illegal? No way.

quote:

---

In case nobody has noticed, they're not doing that, which means the Constitution isn't being enforced

---

(backing up payments of debts with gold and silver. )

But can you not make a law where legal tender is just as good as gold?

Heh, heh.

[Kalshion]

There are rumors spreading that paper money will become a thing of the past.... anyone beleave this?

Plus.. ... well crud i forgot what I was about to say next

[Charles Lindsey]

I don't think paper money will ever totally disappear, but I do think other forms of payment will become so convenient that paper money will be used much less often. I have already seen it happen in my own life. It is far easier to swipe your debit card then it is to count out cash. I use my debit card wherever a machine is available and save my cash (there's that word again hehe) for use at places that don't have a swiping machine.

I did have a bad experience just recently. I went to Target and picked up a few items and then got 15 gift cards. The cashier rang them all up and was ready to recieve my tender of payment. Unfortunately they had taken all the swiping machines out. I asked where it was and she replied " Oh I can swipe it for you." Well ok then, but I was wondering how I was going to get my code in without anyone hearing. She swiped the card and the machine refused the card because my card is a straight debit card and not one of those with the Visa logo on it. I had to break out the MAsterCard to tender payment

I didn't think that was cool. What is wrong with deducting straight from my account with a debit card? Why did it need a credit card logo? Uggghhh. Someone is in cahoots with someone about something.

To wrench myself back on topic.

America's Path:

Freedom of speech will never be seriously abridged.

The right to Bear Arms will continue to be restricted.

We will be very much more socialist in 50 years. Suits me. By that time I may need it.

[CommanderJohnson]

I agree with most of what Jaguar has said. I don't have enough time to read over all of the posts, but how about we look at the issue on a more theoretical level.

The United States Federal Government having a lot of power in regard to laws, taxes, etc is a bad idea. By passing more and more laws that apply to EVERYONE in the United States to benefit EVERYONE in the United States, doesn't make any sense. There will always be SOMEONE benefitting more from those laws than others, due to different tendacies and beliefs in different regions of the United States. The federal government should have VERY few responsibilities (the ones SPECIFICALLY given to them in the Constitution) and should be able to do them very well. "Everyone" never benefits. That's why we have STATE and LOCAL governments. In the USFG, there are 2 senators and a number of representatives from each state deciding on which minority opinion should be ignored. If all major laws, including welfare laws, school regulations, etc were passed on a LOCAL level, then most laws people are subject to would be laws that they need since local legislatures are made up of only people from the area the laws would apply to. Also, there would never be the danger of a "tyrannical national government". Sure, maybe right now we aren't being horribly oppressed by the USFG, but there is a RISK, no matter how small. Making that risk AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE is always a good idea, and giving power to local and state governments makes it THAT much harder for the USFG, especially the judicial branch, to do anything except realize whether or not a state or local law is unconstitutional.

That's my rant. Pretty much State power good, Federal power bad. And for people who want to disagree, please explain why, on a fundamental level, should the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT have the power it does now instead of STATE, COUNTY, and CITY governments? It only makes sense that local governments have local interests most in mind.