What happens their happens here, not the other way around. What happens there affects the world, its economy, and all of its people. America is a world leader. I have as great an interest in this as you do.
Show me an example of vitriol? You'all just talk and spit venom and never ever do I hear or see any facts.
Nationwide "End the Fed" Protests ... Libertarian Candidate Sues to Break Into Presid
There will be nationwide protests this weekend calling for an end to the Fed
The “official” End The Fed 2012 website lists protests at the following Federal Reserve Banks:
Salt Lake City
(There are 12 main Federal Reserve Banks, but quite a few additional branch offices.) Or check out this Facebook page.
Remember, numerous economists say that we must end or substantially rein in the Fed.
Most Americans agree.
Both liberal and conservative protesters – Occupy and Tea Party alike – have railed against the unchecked power of the Federal Reserve.
Indeed, the support among the public and House for auditing the Fed is almost 100% … but Democratic Senate leader Reid has vowed to kill an audit (even though he previously supported it).
Third Party Candidate – Who Is On the Ballot In All 50 States – Files Lawsuit Demanding Inclusion in Presidential Debates
The American people are sick of both the Republican and Democratic party, and yearn for something different. See this, this and this.
No wonder … the mainstream Democratic and Republican parties agree on most matters which affect American lives the most directly. Here, here, here here and here. And – as this 4-minute video shows – they both ignore the desires of their own bases.
Obama and Romney are virtually indistinguishable on most core issues. For example: jobs, freedoms and favoring fatcats instead of the little guy.
The Founding Fathers warned – at the very birth of our nation – against a two-party system as being destructive to liberty.
For example, the Republican and Democratic parties have long formed Gentlemen’s agreements – through the “Presidential Debate Commission” – on what topics are “off-limits” (and which journalists can even ask questions) during presidential debates:
The Presidential Debate Commission (PDC) is run by former chairmen of the Democratic and Republican parties. The debates almost always exclude third-party candidates.
Gary Johnson is looking to change that.
The Libertarian candidate for president – who will be on all 50 states’ ballots this election, and who is currently polling at around 5% of the vote – Johnson (and his vice presidential running mate, retired judge Jim Gray) have filed an antitrust lawsuit against the PDC for excluding them from the debates:
The Gov. Gary Johnson/Judge Jim Gray Campaign has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Democrats, Republicans, & the Commission on Presidential Debates for antitrust and anticompetitive acts. The voters deserve competition!
The lawsuit comes after the PDC’s failure to respond to the following letter from Johnson last month:
Dear [Commission Member]
I am writing to request that the national Commission on Presidential Debates reconsider your current – and exclusionary – requirements for participation in this Fall’s all-important Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates.
I am well aware of the history and genesis of the Commission, including the reality that it was created largely by the respective national leadership of the Democrat and Republican Parties. While I respect and understand the intention to provide a reasonable and theoretically nonpartisan structure for the presidential debate process, I would suggest that the Commission’s founding, organization and policies are heavily skewed toward limiting the debates to the two so-called major parties.
That is unfortunate, and frankly, out of touch with the electorate. You rely very heavily on polling data to determine who may participate in your debates, yet your use of criteria that are clearly designed to limit participation to the Republican and the Democrat nominee ignore the fact that many credible polls indicate that a full one-third of the electorate do not clearly identify with either of those parties. Rather, they are independents whose voting choices are not determined by party affiliation.
That one-third of the voters, as well as independent-thinking Republicans and Democrats, deserve an opportunity to see and hear a credible “third party” candidate. I understand that there are a great many “third party” candidates, and that a line must be drawn somewhere. However, the simple reality of our Electoral College system draws that line in a very straightforward and fair way – a reality that is reflected in your existing criteria. If a candidate is not on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to be elected by the Electoral College, it is perfectly logical to not include that candidate in a national debate. If, on other hand, a candidate IS on the ballot in enough states to be elected, there i s no logic by which that candidate should be excluded.
Nowhere in the Constitution or in law is it written that our President must be a Democrat or a Republican. However, it IS written that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes – or at least 50% – cast by electors, and that any candidate who does so, and otherwise meets the Constitution’s requirements, may be President.
As the Libertarian Party’s nominees for Vice-President and President, Judge Jim Gray and I have already qualified to be on the ballot in more than enough states to obtain a majority in the Electoral College, and we are the only candidates other than the Republican and Democrat nominees to have done so, or who are likely to do so. In fact, we fully intend and expect to be on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
However, the Commission has chosen to impose yet another requirement for participation: 15% in selected public opinion polls. Unlike your other requirements, this polling performance criterion is entirely arbitrary and based, frankly, on nothing other than an apparent attempt to limit participation to the Democrat and the Republican.
Requiring a certain level of approval in the polls has nothing to do with fitness to serve, experience or credibility as a potential President. Rather, it has everything to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars available to and spent by the two major party candidates, the self-fulfilling bias of the news media against the viability of third party candidates, and an ill-founded belief that past dominance of the Republican and Democrat Parties should somehow be a template for the future.
In all due respect, it is not the proper role of a non-elected, private and tax-exempt organization to narrow the voters’ choices to only the two major party candidates – which is the net effect of your arbitrary polling requirement. To the contrary, debates are the one element of modern campaigns and elections that should be immune to unfair advantages based upon funding and party structure. Yet, it is clear that the Commission’s criteria have both the intent and the effect of limiting voters’ choices to the candidates of the two major parties who, in fact, created the Commission in the first place.
Eliminating the arbitrary polling requirement would align the Commission and its procedure for deciding who may participate in the critical debates with fairness and true nonpartisanship, which was the purported intent behind the Commission’s creation. As of right now, eliminating that requirement would not disrupt the process or make it unmanageable. Rather, it would simply allow the participation of a two-term governor who has more executive experience than Messrs. Obama and Romney combined, who has garnered sufficiently broad support to be on the ballot in more than enough states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College, and who, without the help of party resources and special interests, has attracted enough financial support to qualify for presidential campaign matching funds.
I urge and request you to remove the partisanship from the debates, and allow the voters an opportunity to hear from all of the qualified candidates – not just those who happen to be a Democrat or a Republican.
Everyone, as I said before - rude behavior is not tolerated, so even though this is a political thread, you had better not be rude.
Silver Dragon has been temporarily banned for 3 days due to his last post. I already posted a warning several pages back in this thread about rude behavior.
sysforex - Please tone down the frequency of your postings of "news" related items and try to keep them strictly about facts and not about an agenda.
I enjoy having a political discussion on the forum with other members of the community. But I will shut it down entirely if this is the kind of behavior I am to expect.
Due to time constraints, please do not PM me if your question can be resolved or answered on the forum.
Need help? 1) Stop changing things. No new indicators, charts, or methods. Be consistent with what is in front of you first. 2) Start a journal and post to it daily with the trades you made to show your strengths and weaknesses. 3) Set goals for yourself to reach daily. Make them about how you trade, not how much money you make. 4) Accept responsibility for your actions. Stop looking elsewhere to explain away poor performance. 5) Where to start as a trader? Watch this webinar and read this thread for hundreds of questions and answers. 6) Help using the forum? Watch this video to learn general tips on using the site.
If you want to support our community, become an Elite Member.
My apologies for hijacking the thread and upsetting so many people. I really have no business in this thread anyways. I am a bored human being. I will spam the twitter world henceforth, apologies again. Did not intend to be vitriolic.
Syxforex, as a self-proclaimed libertarian, if you believe that Mitt Romney is more of a threat to personal liberty and economic freedom than Barack Obama, I think you need to stop and reconsider your logic.
The following user says Thank You to furytrader for this post:
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).
............Chinese proverb/the Chicago way
Original Chinese Proverb:
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.
2012 White House Revision:
Give a man a welfare check, a free cell phone with
unlimited free minutes, cash for his clunker, food
stamps, section 8 housing, free contraceptives,
Medicaid, ninety-nine weeks of unemployment, free
medicine, and he will vote for Democrats the rest of
his life; even after he's deceased.
Interesting debate but a couple of things I learned from OT sections of other forums to which I subscribe (for motorcycle and firearms enthusiasts, respectively), which are not as well moderated as futures.io (formerly BMT) are first, not to take too seriously opinions about politics or religion posted on the Interwebz; and second, not to participate in them
The following 3 users say Thank You to bnichols for this post:
The two biggest threats to my personal liberty at the moment are Monsanto seeds and the war on drugs.
Romney is backed by Monsanto. He's been a key builder of the Monsanto business and he wants to push for their perceived rights to own the world's food supply. No person and no corporation has this right, in my opinion.
Romney and the Republicans support an expanded war on drugs where Obama is friendlier to the States that want to legalize pot and end the war.
Both of these issues affect me personally, from where I sit. Both work against my personal freedoms as a human being on mother earth. So at the moment, for me, Romney is the bigger threat to my personal freedom.
Ron Paul broke with the Republicans on both of these issues. He actually believes in personal freedom and doesn't just use it as a brand in a corporate election campaign.
Anyways, I don't want to be tarred and feathered again so I will stop replying.