So it's gonna be Obama with a landslide!

[RickJ]

Obama is a democrate and therefor lets the states themselves figure it out. So no gay marriage in texas and no death penalty in new york.

It's more complicated than that.

The democrat party supports bigger, more intrusive government in all areas.  An overwhelming majority of the US population prefer the traditional definition of marriage.  In fact this is true in just about every single state.  Even in California there was a law passed by voter initiative that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The republican party attempted (and I believe succeeded, but not sure) to do the same thing on a federal level.  There are many federal laws that refer specifically to marriage, spouse,  and married couple/individuals.  For example there are different tax rates depending if you are single or married, when a person dies their spouse is entitled to a portion of the deceased person's social security benefits, and etc.  There is also a "full faith and credit" provision in the constitution that says that the states have to honor each other's laws.  So for example one can obtain a drivers license from the state of New York and drive cross country to California with out having to have a drivers license from each and every state along the route.  So this would mean that the federal government wouldn't have to recognize gay marriage with regard to it's laws and that individual states wouldn't have to recognize gay marriages from other states.

The last really explains why this is being attempted on a state by state basis. What has been happening is that groups have been filing lawsuits in liberal/lef leaning states like California where they can find a sympathetic judge who will rule the status quo unconstitutional.      Then once it's legal in one state people can go there get married and then move to where ever they want thus circumventing the local laws.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Then once it's legal in one state people can go there get married and then move to where ever they want thus circumventing the local laws.

As you mentioned earlier in your post, RickJ, by the Constitution other states do not have to recognize the marriage if a majority of the voters voted against it (unless it's a federal mandate, which shouldn't ever happen really).  There is actually a long-standing law in Arizona (where I live) that recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and this voting period they tried to introduce a new law saying much the same thing (but with loopholes, and we won't even go into the duplicate-law cancellation issue).  I voted against it because there's already such a law and it's a waste of time and tax payer money to spend another second on it.  Also, democrats are as notorious as republicans for infringing on states' rights regarding lawmaking.  It's just another reason why many people are beginning to refer to them as republicrats, really.


Is anyone else as interested as I am about this planned 'private discussion' about the new currency in the US on November 15?  Anyone who has been paying attention has seen this coming for years because the bankers, and especially the Federal Reserve, do not want to relinquish their power over the currency by returning to the gold standard.  Their solution, therefore, will be to try and convince the public that unifying the currencies of America, Canada, and Mexico will save us, which is just hogwash if you read the specifics and pay attention to the relative value of these currencies.  This isn't conspiracy, it's happening right now and it's another step towards a completely unified world economy (which will gradually lead toward a single government).  If you are as opposed as I am to any further loss of national sovereignty then I suggest you start doing some research into the issue before the media engine begins tossing out sweet-sounding half-truths and scare tactics.  Note that it's not my intention to demonize the people behind this push; I'm sure many of them believe what they are doing is a great idea, but for someone like me who holds the Constitution and national sovereignty in high esteem it's a preposterous notion that, rather than fixing any of the problems in the system, will just create more regulation and problems.

If anyone would like to discuss this with me privately I'd be more than happy to share what I have read on the subject and point them to a couple of books.  Also, if you want to just argue/disagree with me that's fine too, as long as your mind isn't shut.

[Snarky]

I am willing to bet $50 (or the equivalent sum in ameros) that there will be no discussion of a joint North American currency at G20 on November 15. I am also somewhat mystified by the idea that the only two options are (a) return to the gold standard, or (b) create a new currency.

What are your sources, ProgZ? Googling the topic real quick, everything I find indicates that there is no basis for these theories, and that no public official has ever expressed any ambitions in this direction. Besides, I don't know of any mainstream economic thinkers (the people who shape bankers' and Feds' thinking) who support the idea of a North American currency union. (Because of the huge differences between the three different economies, which would make it impossible to set one monetary policy that would make sense for all three.) If the claim is that they ("They" being the Fed, other bankers, and the media, apparently) are planning all of this in secret, how is that not a conspiracy theory?

A World Government? I don't see how that's a remotely realistic prospect within the foreseeable future. Look at what's happened in the EU: the desire by some Eurocrats for even just a federal European state has met with immense resistance (the proposed Constitution had to be watered down to essentially just a statement of existing facts, was still rejected by public referenda, was replaced by the even more anodyne Lisbon treaty, and still failed to be ratified by referendum in Ireland), attempts to harmonize foreign policy has been a dismal failure (even in cases of obvious common interest, as in relations with Russia), and the EU is still very much a collection of separate states pursuing their individual national interests. And that's within a region that is incredibly homogeneous (politically, culturally, economically) relative to the rest of the world. I can't even imagine what a government that would attempt to rule both Belgium and Afghanistan, Haiti and China, Algeria and Argentina would look like.

I just don't find either the evidence or the reasoning at all convincing.

[Nacho]

Maybe it' s a coincidence, but I in some forums the other day they were discussing that the "sollution" for some countries (USA, specifically) was to come back to the gold pattern and take some european countries (Greece, Belgium, Portugal, Spain and Italy, I think) out of Euro.  I think that the "November 15th" thingie is an internet urban legend, but sounds interesting... As Snarky said, Prog, sources, please?

[PixelPerfect]

.

[RickJ]

Marriage

As you mentioned earlier in your post, RickJ, by the Constitution other states do not have to recognize the marriage if a ...

ProgZ thanks the additional info.  We do have a point of confusion or disagreement though between us.  I don't really want to start a long debate but would like to comment for the benefit of our non-US friends who may be listening.  The US  constitution which says that states do have to honor each others laws, which would also include marriage.

Wiki - Article IV, Section 1 of the United States ConstitutionArticle IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. ...

So normally a marriage executed in one state would be valid in every other state.  However, a federallaw was passed in 1996 called the Defense of Marriage Act that says:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Quite frankly, if not for AIDS and employer paid health benefits I don't think anyone would be interested in this at all.  Like the old cliche says "just follow the money".

Currency
I wasn't aware of this thanks for bringing it to my attention.   I don't think anyone in the US would like this at all nor do I think it would be all that popular in Mexico and Canada either.  Just look at how resistant people are to using dollar coins.  I also hold the Constitution and national sovereignty in high esteem and believe it's important to do so.

A World Government? I don't see how that's a remotely realistic prospect within the foreseeable future. Look at what's happened in the EU: the desire by some Eurocrats for even just a federal European state has met with immense resistance ...

In the US we have the benefit of 50 laboratories (i.e. states) that are all competing with each other and experimenting with slightly different laws and policies.  If one state comes up with a great idea that in fact works and is of benefit then other states soon adopt similar laws or policies.   The federal government is supposed to be limited in it's authority.  Sovereignty lies with the people first, then to individual states, and then to the federal government.  Over time the federal government has usurped more and more power and is what ProgZ alludes to when he mentions "States rights"

IMHO, most people who have a leftist or socialist point of view would rather have a strong central government  or "one big government"  because nearly all such policies require that everyone be forced to participate.  It's usually claimed that everyone has to participate or else it won't work.  I think these kinds of things don't work regardless of participation and that it's just a means of eliminating alternative that are potentially more successful.   If the ex Soviet Union encompassed the entire world how would the people have known that they were poor and that their system was an embarrassing failure?   

I am not that knowledgeable about the EU but I do have a couple observations from the point of view of an outsider.   Political labels and categories do not translate well from country to country.   From what I read about the first vote on the EU constitution the French rejected because it wasn't socialist enough and the British rejected it because it was to socialist.  I am sure it was more complex than this but it does illustrate the problems faced by the EU movement.  Also I believe in practice the EU federal system is more top down than the US federal system. 

[Paper Carnival]

Sure, reality will set in before long when people realise that Obama isn't Jesus and can't work miracles.

And also before people realize that Obama isn't the Antichrist either (and I'm not speaking metaphorically).

[Disco]

I wasn't aware of this thanks for bringing it to my attention.   I don't think anyone in the US would like this at all nor do I think it would be all that popular in Mexico and Canada either.  Just look at how resistant people are to using dollar coins.  I also hold the Constitution and national sovereignty in high esteem and believe it's important to do so.

I don't see any problems with a unified currency really, I think the nationalists would only really be upset at the fact that it is not something unique to the country, rather than something difficult to integrate in the economies of three different countries. Would not prices reflect the local resources and standard of living anyways?

The Euro has a specific exchange value outside of the countries that use it, but from experience I can say as with everything else the value is not the same from region or country to another, a nice dinner out in France will probably cost more than a nice dinner out in Greece, mostly to due with cuisine differences as well as the living costs, etc. Same as how $20 will not go as far in a Manhattan bar as it will in a bar in Indianapolis.

Additionally, the Ameros could be rather spiffy looking 



While I'm all for state and local sovereignty, the idea of national sovereignty is something that really chaps my ass. I don't believe it means a hell of a lot in a country of 300 million  (and 52/48 splits are fairly common results) as it does in say Norway with a population of 4 1/2 million.

I live in Michigan, which has a population of around 10 million, but state proposals and elections and what have you still feel better and more relevant than national ones. It is curious that my vote in national elections is cosmically tied to those in California, a state I have never been to nor do I personally know anyone that lives there. The passage of a local or state law in California means exactly the same to me as one passed in Ontario, Canada. Still, I have to live with choices made by them and in every other state simply by a weak association. I would say that national sovereignty ranks rather low in my esteem.

[TerranRich]

ProgZmax: That whole North American unified currency thing is, and always has been, completely false. It was a rumor started long ago. There will be no "Amero", nor any other unified North American currency.

[Snarky]

I am willing to bet $50 (or the equivalent sum in ameros) that there will be no discussion of a joint North American currency at G20 on November 15.

Ron Paul on Alex Jones show Part1
Ron Paul on Alex Jones show Part2

Take that 50$ and buy yourself something nice. 

Not sure if this is meant to be evidence of anything, or what?

As for what's going to happen on November 15, we'll see soon enough whose predictions are correct (much like for similarly outlandish claims made about what would happen with the election earlier in the thread).

I do find myself corrected on one point: There is one respectable economist who calls for a world currency, namely Joseph Stiglitz (former head of the World Bank). Of course, while Stiglitz is a highly respected economist (Nobel Prize winner etc.), he's a fringe thinker when it comes to policy--somone who was kicked out of his job, partly for similar radical ideas. Also, it's interesting to see that if you read what he actually said, it's not only a much more nuanced argument (he's really just talking about a weighted currency basket made up of the separate national currencies), but on most other points he actually agrees with what those who fear a world government are saying. He also rails against the bankers and the Federal Reserve, so I'm not sure how his proposal is supposed to be part of their plot.

[Darth Mandarb]

I was talking to a 'friend' the other day about the ol' Amero myth (I say 'friend' because he's more of somebody I associate with 'cause of another friend but we don't really like each other). 

Anyway ... this guy is so sure that he's right about everything that he simply won't give credence to anybody else's ideas.  I always rib him about it and try to explain that disagreeing is okay but doesn't automatically make your idea right (as I attempted to point out earlier in the thread but apparently didn't succeed in getting the point across).  He just arbitrarily dismisses any idea that doesn't mesh with his and call you names and insult you.  That kind of close-minded unwillingness to other's ideas just comes across as ignorant and arrogant.  It's sad too 'cause he's actually a really smart guy.

Anyway ... he's convinced that the Amero will be the end of civilization as we know it!

Terran - you sound pretty convinced of its myth status ... do you have a source to back that up?  I'm just curious if you're 'in the know' on something?

It seems unlikely, to me, that we would switch currency like that given all the things I've heard recently about how the dollar's (ones, fives, tens, etc) appearance is being altered, made counterfeit proof, and updated but I concede it's not impossible that it's "time for a change".   

Personally I'd not mind it if paper currency went away entirely ...

[PixelPerfect]

Not sure if this is meant to be evidence of anything, or what?

Well if congressman Ron Paul tells on public radio show that there will be a discussion of implementing a new monetary system on nov 15 and that doesn't sway you to believe that it will be on the table, I don't know what else to tell you. Maybe he's making it up... :

[Snarky]

Or maybe he's crazy...

In any case, he seems to be making his prediction based on the assumption that there is a long-running secret conspiracy among the world's bankers to create a world government, that these bankers control the media, that they deliberately engineered the current financial crisis, that Bush was their puppet, and that the same people have now installed Obama as their new puppet. Now their plot has almost come to fruition, and things are about to move into the open.

Given those views; no, I am not particularly swayed by what Ron Paul says.

However, at this point I don't particularly care about convincing anyone. As I said earlier, we won't have to wait long to see who is right.

[Nacho]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1954933468700958565

Hehehe... Conspiranoids... Stupot will love this! 

[Stupot]

Hehehe... Conspiranoids... Stupot will love this! 

Hehe... it did sound like an attractive conspiracy until he said Mexico were in on it... I can't see that myself.
Also... if it was true I don't think that video would have lasted on google for over a month.

[PixelPerfect]

.

[TerranRich]

1. Something like the Amero or a unified North America would have been made very public and legitimized in the news.
2. This myth is based on a meeting of the leaders of Canada, US, and Mexico in 2005.
3. If I say something isn't true because there is no clear evidence to support it, why should *I* be the one that tries to prove my case?

[Darth Mandarb]

1. Something like the Amero or a unified North America would have been made very public and legitimized in the news.
2. This myth is based on a meeting of the leaders of Canada, US, and Mexico in 2005.
3. If I say something isn't true because there is no clear evidence to support it, why should *I* be the one that tries to prove my case?

Ouch ... Jeez man I wasn't trying to offend/attack you.  I was just curious if you had some insider scoop the rest of us weren't privy too.

You said:

That whole North American unified currency thing is, and always has been, completely false. It was a rumor started long ago. There will be no "Amero", nor any other unified North American currency.

Nowhere in there did you say, "there is no clear evidence to support it". 

You made a few absolute statements with "no clear evidence to support them".

I don't think it's unreasonable for somebody to wonder why and how you acquired such surety on the matter, that's all

* Darth buys Terran a beer!! * 

[TerranRich]

Perhaps I should have said that there was no evidence to support claims of a unified North American government, currency, or anything along those lines. I didn't mean for #3 to come off as sounding angry or anything, but it sounded that way when I re-read it just now. Sorry!

I made that "absolute statement" because rumors like that are silly to me.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Sorry, I've had some rather annoying back problems lately and have been downing Ibuprofen and laying down to try and get rid of it.  As far as evidence goes, sure, Ron Paul is a congressman and he's not going to lie about this stuff (nor is he crazy), but you're free to believe what you like. 


RickJ:  Your point is well taken and my earlier reply was probably just poorly worded.  I don't disagree with you on this issue and am aware of the full faith clause, though we've seen exceptions to the rule almost from the beginning.


Disco:  I really don't know what to say to you, Ken.  We're so diametrically opposed on this issue that, well, I just can't find the words.


Nacho:  You can see anything as a 'conspiracy' if your mind is is completely shut.  I place no faith or value in 'conspiracies', because by their very nature people do not take them seriously.  What I'm suggesting is that you read a few books on the subject (A Nation of Sheep by Judge Andrew Napolitano is a good one to start with), look around at the climate change in the economy, and then decide whether something is ludicrous or whether it's really possible.  I'm not talking about UFO's here, I'm talking about politicians who have had a shift in thinking and have come to believe some of these ideas are great and all for the best.  Again, I'm not demonizing anyone here, just pointing out things I have read from sources I consider to be worth at least acknowledging and thinking about.  Did you know that Spain was intentionally omitted from the currency meeting on the 15th, for example?  This may change since France has discussed offering up an extra slot, though.


Snarky:

What will most likely happen at the November 15th meeting will be the foundation for a new Bretton Woods system, but it will be unlike the Bretton Woods of the past in that it will move us farther toward a global economy (and farther away from national sovereignty).  I believe The Wall Street Journal had a blurb about this a few days ago, though most of the details are still being withheld from the public.  Also, the NAU/Amero issue is far from a myth and has been acknowledged to be in the works by several officials not limited to but including: Steve Previs, Vincente Fox (he mentioned on Larry King that it is a long-term proposal, though the timeline's in question), Virgil Goode, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Peter Schiff and Ron Paul. 

There's a blurb where Steve Previs talks a bit about the Amero here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

There have also been two unsuccessful attempts to block the NAU/Highway/Amero in Congress by Virgil Goode with House Concurrent Resolution 487 which he later re-introduced as House Concurrent Resolution 40, which you can read here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/hc487_ih.xml

Resolution 40 had considerably more sponsors in Congress than the original (from 6 to 40 or so, I don't remember the exact numbers), and any time you see resolutions like these coming through Congress the onus is really on you whether or not to take them as real concerns.

The government holds secret meetings all the time, and I'm rather surprised that any of you find it impossible, or even improbable, that they would conduct a discussion of currency change without revealing the details.  How many of us were aware of the secret prisons in the US for suspected terrorists until long after they were in use? 

What I'm saying is that there are people in our government who have come to believe (and perhaps rightly so) that the majority of the American people don't even want to know what's going on as long as they can live their lives in relative peace.  It's a situation born from voter apathy and many other things, but mainly big government that's gotten used to taking care of us instead of people taking care of and being responsible for themselves.  Much like a parent, they aren't always going to tell us what they're up to, they just want us to trust it's in our best interests, and that's pretty much what I feel is going to happen with the Bretton Woods 2.5* system. 

Could I be wrong?  Well let's just say I certainly hope so!


*I've used an arbitrary number here because there was, very briefly, a Bretton Woods II system that was canned.