“I am not sure of the gold standard as it was back during Nixon, but I would like to see money get pegged to something so that one private bank can’t just cut all our money’s value in half because they can just print more money.”

You think tying currency to a commodity fights inflation?

Go study the history of Spain, early 16th century. I’ll wait. Protip: It is not without reason that the entire planet left a commodity-based currency after centuries upon centuries of established tradition.

“@Elizabeth: What am I hating on that prevented people from fixing their homes? Marriage has been around far longer than the idea of insurance. Or are you talking about The Fed? The main problem with The Fed is that by increasing the money supply with TARP, QE1 and QE2, The Fed has lowered the overall value of everyone’s dollar. This causes inflation which is nothing but a hidden tax that harms people who save their money and the poor. What Bush, Obama, Bernanke, Geithner and the rest of both administrations did was a damn travesty against the poor and the lower middle class.”

Actually, inflation helps a number of the poor right now, because the poor have debts. Debtors benefit when the value of their debt drops. That doesn’t mean inflation is a net good, but it isn’t automatically TEH EBILZ for everyone either.

Being able to do what you want on weekends is not something that suddenly goes ‘poof!’ when you marry. Some people like to have relationships where they know what the other person is doing, if you are saving money (and the environment) by only owning one car per couple then you may need to accommodate the other person in your plans. If you have kids, you may need to negotiate each others needs too. It isn’t marriage that takes away your free time, it’s the other obligations that go with having a family, and people all negotiate it differently. The main problem is the fiction that there’s a one size fits all kind of relationship out there that everyone should endeavor to be in…

I’m waiting, NWO.

@Anti-Lyn (otherwise known as Lyn)
“I care about men NWO, I was responding to someone who appears to be an MRA and MRAs tend to think that having measures in place to stop women and children being destitute is communism or some crap. They tend to be totally for all of the measures protecting men from being made destitute. Therefore, it makes sense that I would think that protections for women and children are more important than an MRA. This does not therefore immediately mean that I don’t think men should be able to access good food, clean water and housing. I do think all human beings should have access to the things which they require for survival.”

I have yet to see women, feminists, the MSM, charities, The State, or any private organisation save MRA organisations ever, ever, ever say, “lets all save the men and children.” Or “lets ensure the welfare of men and children.” Or “men and children are dying in a foreign land.” Or “men and children are starving anywhere in the world.” I doubt I ever will.

“@Elizabeth: It really depends on the lifestyle a man has that really determines if marriage is compatible with him. For me, I value my independence and I see marriage as a way to “break” men into family life. Marriage basically domesticates men like you domesticate a house pet. ”

So how’s that work with lesbians? Am I domesticating her? Is she domesticating me? What if the only family we want is the family we already have, and each other?

“For some men, they don’t see it that way and truly want to find a wife and have kids and do all that stuff. More power to them. Everyone should actively seek out what they want in life and if he wants to be married and enjoys family life then I wish him all the best.”
No, that doesn’t sync up at all. You can’t say marriage is a way to domesticate men, and it exists to break them into family life, and THEN say it’s just a normal thing someone wants. You took an actual stance on what it is *meant to do*, and what it actually does; those aren’t subjective. To say that marriage would hamper your freedom somewhat is likely true, and to say you value that freedom more than anything else is fair; but you can’t claim marriage is just there as a tool to control men in some fashion, then back out and say “But hey that’s cool, lots of guys want to love a family and…”

“What can I say…I like the idea of saying, “l want to go X this weekend” and not have to plan it or make sure it matches up with her plans…I want to just go.”
Dude, it isn’t a marriage you’re trying to avoid then. It’s any sort of serious relationship. There is no way to maintain serious and close contact with someone and then expect to not ever have to communicate your intentions, see if they match, etc.

@Rutee: If you look when the Dollar was not controlled by the Fed, there was very little inflation and a dollar in 1860 was still worth a dollar in 1870 mainly because it was pegged to gold. The two largest increases to inflation are: The actual creation of the Fed and taking us off the gold standard.

Gold has been used for over a millennium as a store of value (which is all the US dollar really is). It has served humanity well so I don’t think it seems appropriate to bash it when it has got us this far.

Inflation may initially help people with their debts but then costs rise (more money in the system) and then wages need to rise to equal it out. Then if wages don’t rise, then everyone’s standard of living goes down. Claiming inflation is helpful is what has caused America to be the debtors we are today. We don’t value saving our money because it is worth the most the minute we earn it. 5 years down the road, inflation could have taken a 10% chunk out of your savings. Hence it is more logical to spend the money as you earn it, thus creating a system were we live paycheck to paycheck and finance our lives on credit cards.

You’re a vile little person, to look at it this way with your lover. A truly vile little human being. Randroids have defective emotions; I’d be happy if my girlfriend were safer. Fuck the costs, money is less important than her.

No shit. If his argument is “I don’t want to marry my girlfriend because I might have to help her with medical expenses at some point in the future” she needs to run, not walk, the hell out of that “relationship” right now. I have helped total strangers with their medical expenses; I can’t fathom not wanting to do so with a loved one. It’s such an empathy fail that I’m having a hard time imagining what qualities his has that could possibly redeem him.

“@Rutee: If you look when the Dollar was not controlled by the Fed, there was very little inflation and a dollar in 1860 was still worth a dollar in 1870 mainly because it was pegged to gold. The two largest increases to inflation are: The actual creation of the Fed and taking us off the gold standard.”
Not sure if trolling or just stupid. I just told you to go examine the world at large, starting with one of the moments in history that best illustrates the problem with commodity-based currency, and you’re still talking about just America, in just one time period. The price of gold is not static; tying currency to it doesn’t prevent inflation unless gold actually remains stable. Ditto any other commodity. Spoiler Alert: Those commodities are not actually stable.

“Gold has been used for over a millennium as a store of value (which is all the US dollar really is). It has served humanity well so I don’t think it seems appropriate to bash it when it has got us this far.”
Um, no, it didn’t serve humanity well. It served gold mine owners well. And right now, as it’s actually valuable for non-decorative uses, as a vital material in the creation of electronics; only a moron removes actually useful materials in the name of a ‘stable currency’ they won’t even get.

“Inflation may initially help people with their debts but then costs rise (more money in the system) and then wages need to rise to equal it out. Then if wages don’t rise, then everyone’s standard of living goes down.”
And if wages go up, then the value of debts goes down. I’m aware of the pitfalls; I’m also aware that horrible things aren’t obligated to happen. Further, the baseline foolish assumption of the economy for longer than non-commodity currency, that of a perpetually increasing market, requires inflation; this isn’t new. It’s a feature; talking about it like it’s buggy by default, without implicating the system at large, is either stupid or dishonest.

“Claiming inflation is helpful is what has caused America to be the debtors we are today. We don’t value saving our money because it is worth the most the minute we earn it. Hence it is more logical to spend the money as you earn it, thus creating a system were we live paycheck to paycheck and finance our lives on credit cards.”
Buddy, you talk to many debtors and poor people, do you? Living paycheck to paycheck is not some sort of calculated choice to manipulate inflation.

Um…OK, NWO, but normally I only salivate for bacon, and only if it comes from my girl Beth.

*don’t talk to many, that is.

If you look when the Dollar was not controlled by the Fed, there was very little inflation and a dollar in 1860 was still worth a dollar in 1870 mainly because it was pegged to gold. The two largest increases to inflation are: The actual creation of the Fed and taking us off the gold standard.

omigod i was going to bust out some stats to disprove your horseshit claims about the stability of gold but then i realized that you think the 1860s are a representative period of american history where nothing out of the ordinary happened and all i can do is laugh

Gold has been used for over a millennium as a store of value (which is all the US dollar really is). It has served humanity well so I don’t think it seems appropriate to bash it when it has got us this far.

you seriously cant think of anything thats changed in the past thousand years? the newfound utility of gold as a conductive metal, the rise of a global economy, massive population growth, the collapse of barter as a major element of economics, electronic banking? is this all news to you? you know about the internet, right?

‘it worked for charlemagne’ is generally a pretty dumb argument. y’know what else worked for charlemagne? horses. better toss out your car, little lost goldbug.

@Anti-Lyn (otherwise known as Lyn)
“Yes, but NWO, you’re forgetting thousands of years of history again. Women have usually been forced to look after children, and pending technological advances which recreate the womb, women have also had to gestate children and give birth to them. Also, history, medicine, law (just as a few examples) have tended to be all about men. History that completely ignores what women were doing, men’s health, law that cannot fathom that a body can contain two people. Feminists are trying to redress the balance, given that women’s experiences have been so excluded from discourse. Therefore it makes sense to have charities which help women and children given that they are disadvantaged. ”

A feminist lie you’ve been indoctrinated to accept as fact. Women were never oppressed. Here are pretty much the occupations available for those thousands of years. Stone-cutter, carpenter, mason, shipbuilder, blacksmith, farmer, cook, seamstress, childcare.

Now in order to compete with the best men doing those physical labor jobs, there was no Big Daddy Guv to lower the standard so you only had to lift a 35lb brick or log or whatever. You’re equating the air-conditioned car/office work and completely non physical world of today with long ago. That is not the case.No one flipped open their laptop and huffed that it’s a little warmer in the office than you’d prefer. The jobs women were capable of were cook, seamstress and childcare.

And as far as education went, only the elite were educated and the women elite were educated as well where the peasant men weren’t. And for every little girl that was promised in marriage there was a little boy promised as well. Women were never oppressed, it’s a fucking feminist lie. It is all propaganda that’s been stuffed down your throat as if it’s gospel. Women were never oppressed.

“I don’t know I am not a lesbian.”
And yet, you felt the need to announce to all women what their intentions for marriage are. How’s that working out for you, by the way? Let’s see.

“Second, my viewpoint of marriage is not the same as everyone else’s (as we can clearly tell from this thread alone). I see it as a way to “break a horse in” while other men do not. It is fairly normal and socially acceptable to get married…is it not? My viewpoint is the different and a non-mainstream one. So I think it is perfectly ok to say that marriage is something that most people do…yet I think it is a bad move because of my whole domesticating piece.”
Look, this weaselly bullshit might work with wishy washy MRAs, but it ain’t gonna fly here. You’re making specific claims about it’s intent and utility. Specific claims that are not born out if you actually speak to mothers, wives, and girlfriends. That’s not what it’s for. Again, I don’t care if you don’t want ot get married; it’s probably for the better, you seem to be a terrible person. But you’re specifically trying to say what marriage is for here.

“I think I have a good relationship with my girlfriend. We spend time together, enjoy each others company, go to events, etc… Needless to say, I would be unhappy in a marriage, which would make my gf unhappy, which isn’t something I want to do.”
Well, I can believe it if you’re dating someone as amazingly self centered and ‘spontaneous’ (read: lazy in all forms of relationships, not just intimate love ones), but… what you said there? It’s not connected to marriage, at all.

Oppression is not being allowed to have sex with 15 year-olds girls. I mean, duh.

right, i forgot, gold can never fail, it can only be failed

the women elite were educated as well where the peasant men weren’t

Bullshit. Women were not allowed to attend most universities until… somewhere in the early 19th century, IIRC, and it did depend on the institution. Most universities didn’t offer women degrees until the early 20th century. Women in science have constantly been ridiculed, kept from publishing, or have had their research stolen outright.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

Every single one of these amazing women had to fight to be allowed to learn, teach or publish in their chosen field. Franklin and Curie made discoveries that have directly impacted every life on Earth, despite all of this.

Actually I think I was most appalled at the lack of understanding of why TARP was necessary-even though I think it was poorly handled, I do think it was necessary after Bush acted true to his ideological view of the world.

“In all fairness, he might have gone to bed.”

NWO? Nah, can’t be! He only gets three hours of sleep a week, because he has to work for a living. Not like you ladies. Because of VAWA and the laws imposed by the feminist-run, Rockefeller-funded government, good hard-working MEN have to stay at the milk machines until their fingers bleed, while you ladies are busy eating bonbons and getting pedicures in your silky robes.

Globalization has just caused a larger demand for gold. More people + roughly the same amount of gold = higher gold prices.

WHAT A FANTASTIC FUCKING IDEA! CONSTANT DEFLATION MEANS WE NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT EVER BEING OUT OF DEBT AGAIN!

Not to mention the idea of handing over control of the money supply to a handful of foreign governments in countries that control most of the gold mining industry! It’ll be just like Middle Eastern oil, only shinier!

And the massive wave of economic stability that would come with the changeover, as enough gold has to be bought to back up the trillions and trillions of dollars in floating US currency! Because our economy is far to stable!

I stand in awe of your godlike intellect. I can’t think of anything that would do nearly as good a job of crippling the US economy as that, but I’ll just have to keep trying. Until then, my hat is off to you, sir! DEATH TO AMERICA!

I fooled around with a 15-year-old girl once. Of course, I was a 16-year-old girl at the time… and neither of us were all it’s cracked up to be, I suspect. So am I immune from oppression now? :D

Per NWO, as a woman, you have never been oppressed and likely never will be. Only white males such as myself have ever experienced real oppression.

Won’t somebody please think of the white males? Or the mite whales?