Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Government'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Welcome to DinarVets!
    • Rules, Announcements & Introductions
    • Questions and Tech Support
  • VIP Area
    • VIP Section
    • VIP Section
  • Iraq Topics
    • Iraq & Dinar Related News
    • Dinar Rumors
    • RV & Dinar Questions
    • Opinions, Perspectives, and Your Two Cents on the Iraqi Dinar
    • Chat Logs
    • ISX (Iraqi Stock Exchange)
    • Warka and Iraqi Banking
    • Dinar-ify me!
    • Buying and Selling Dinar
    • LOPster tank
    • Debate Section
  • General Topics
    • Off Topic posts
    • Politics, 2nd Amendment (Gun Control)
    • Iraqi Inspiration and Stories of our Soldiers
    • World Economy
    • Music Videos etc
    • Natural Cures and Health Talk
    • DV Weekly Powerballs.
  • Investing
    • Forex Discussion
    • Penny Stocks
    • Wall Street
    • Gold & Precious Metals
    • Foreign Currencies
    • Tax Discussion
    • Investment Opportunities and Wealth Management

Calendars

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

  • VIP Membership Packages
  • OSI Products
  • Just a text
  • RV Intel and the Cash In Guide!

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Phone Number (for VIP text message)


AIM


ICQ


Jabber


Location


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation


My Facebook Profile ID


My Twitter ID

Found 8 results

  1. Just a quick question.... there is so much talk all over the media as they are pre-programming us to accept, even LOVE the idea of our society going absolutely CASHLESS. As usual, the young folk will just love it because it's soooo convenient and handy to pay for everything with your smart phone....or with an implanted chip in your hand (Mark of the Beast, anyone??). As usual, the young folk will not immediately understand that going cashless will immediately cause everyone to lose their personal power in the matrix-like system, run by technocrats and A.I. No more free trading or bartering...every little transaction noted and stored...great for taxation departments, but potentially also great for controlling people. Talk about current control measures.... Already the globalists at Google have enlisted the aid of the Chinese Government to help them with their best communist advice on how to censor the internet, Facebook and Youtube. People like Alex Jones and Drudge report are being targeted. Wikileaks is being lableled as FAKE NEWS...when really... all Wikileaks contains is FACTS and FILES...they are not news stories... SO HERE WE ARE.....all hoping for an RV...but there is a race going on to stop the use of CASH altogether..... wouldn't it be ironic if an awesome RV happened after all use of cash has been stopped or banned?? There would be nowhere to take your Dinar bills. If cash is still being used in Iraq, I guess you could take a plane and fly to Iraq and cash it THERE. Some feedback, please folks? What do you all reckon about this. Cheers from Downunder!
  2. Okay, so why am I posting this? I watched an interview with Doug Casey & Peter Schiff concerning Peter's father Irwin that is serving a very stiff 13 yr prison sentence - That interview led me by interest to watch a video of Doug Casey concerning "HIS" views on voting - I was absolutely in agreement with so much that he said but pushed it aside until I read Ezrapounds thread earlier this morning - We are cursed if we do and cursed if we don't -- It reminds me of an old wise tale "If you get up I'm going to beat you with this stick. If you keep sitting there I"m going to beat you with this stick" ----- so what do you do? I have my answer do you have yours? Doug Casey's Top Five Reasons Not To Vote Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/22/2012 23:42 -0400 Submitted by Doug Casey of Casey Research, L: Doug, we've spoken about presidents. We have a presidential election coming up in the US – an election that could have significant consequences on our investments. But given the views you've already expressed on the Tea Party movement and anarchy, I'm sure you have different ideas. What do you make of the impending circus, and what should a rational man do? Doug: Well, a rational man, which is to say, an ethical man, would almost certainly not vote in this election, or in any other – at least above a local level, where you personally know most of both your neighbors and the candidates. L: Why? Might not an ethical person want to vote the bums out? Doug: He might feel that way, but he'd better get his emotions under control. I've thought about this. So let me give you at least five reasons why no one should vote. The first reason is that voting is an unethical act, in and of itself. That's because the state is pure, institutionalized coercion. If you believe that coercion is an improper way for people to relate to one another, then you shouldn't engage in a process that formalizes and guarantees the use of coercion. L: It's probably worth defining coercion in this context. I know you agree with me that force is ethical in self-defense. A murderer I shoot might feel coerced into accepting a certain amount of hot lead that he did not consent to, but he intended the same, or worse, for me, so the scales are balanced. What you are talking about is forcing innocent, non-consenting others to do things against their wills, like paying taxes that go to pay for military adventures they believe are wrong, etc. Doug: Right. The modern state not only routinely coerces people into doing all sorts of things they don't want to do – often very clearly against their own interests – but it necessarily does so, by its nature. People who want to know more about that should read our conversation on anarchy. This distinction is very important in a society with a government that is no longer limited by a constitution that restrains it from violating individual rights. And when you vote, you participate in, and endorse, this unethical system. L: It's probably also worth clarifying that you're not talking about all voting here. When you are a member of a golfing club and vote on how to use the fees, you and everyone else have consented to the process, so it's not unethical. It's participating in the management of the coercive machinery of the state you object to, not voting in and of itself. Doug: Exactly. As Mao correctly said, "The power of the State comes out of the barrel of a gun." It's not like voting for the leadership of a social club. Unlike a golfing club or something of that nature, the state won't let you opt out. L: Even if you're not harming anyone and just want to be left alone. Doug: Which relates to the second reason: privacy. It compromises your privacy to vote. It gets your name added to a list government busybodies can make use of, like court clerks putting together lists of conscripts for jury duty. Unfortunately, this is not as important a reason as it used to be, because of the great proliferation of lists people are on anyway. Still, while it's true there's less privacy in our world today, in general, the less any government knows about you, the better off you are. This is, of course, why I've successfully refused to complete a census form for the last 40 years. L: [Chuckles] We've talked about the census. Good for you . Doug: It's wise to be a nonperson, as far as the state is concerned, as far as possible. L: Not to digress too much, but some people might react by saying that juries are important. Doug: They are, but it would be a waste of my time to sign up for jury duty, because I would certainly be kicked off any jury. No attorney would ever let me stay on the jury once we got to voir dire, because I would not agree to being a robot that simply voted on the facts and the law as instructed by the judge – I'd want to vote on the morality of the law in question too. I'd be interested in justice, and very few laws today, except for the basic ones on things like murder and theft, have anything to do with justice. If the case related to drug laws, or tax laws, I would almost certainly automatically vote to acquit, regardless of the facts of the case. L: I've thought about it too, because it is important, and I might be willing to serve on a jury. And of course I'd vote my conscience too. But I'd want to be asked, not ordered to do it. I'm not a slave. Doug: My feelings exactly. L: But we should probably get to your third reason for not voting. Doug: That would be because it's a degrading experience. The reason I say that is because registering to vote, and voting itself, usually involves taking productive time out of your day to go stand around in lines in government offices. You have to fill out forms and deal with petty bureaucrats. I know I can find much more enjoyable and productive things to do with my time, and I'm sure anyone reading this can as well. L: And the pettier the bureaucrat, the more unpleasant the interaction tends to be. Doug: I have increasing evidence of that every time I fly. The TSA goons are really coming into their own now, as our own home-grown Gestapo wannabes. L: It's a sad thing… Reason number four? Doug: As P.J. O'Rourke says in a recent book, and as I've always said, voting just encourages them. I'm convinced that most people don't vote for candidates they believe in, but against candidates they fear. But that's not how the guy who wins sees it; the more votes he gets, the more he thinks he's got a mandate to rule – even if all his votes are really just votes against his opponent. Some people justify this, saying it minimizes harm to vote for the lesser of two evils. That's nonsense, because it still leaves you voting for evil. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Incidentally, I got as far as this point in 1980, when I was on the Phil Donahue show. I had the whole hour on national TV all to myself, and I felt in top form. It was actually the day before the national election, when Jimmy Carter was the incumbent, running against Ronald Reagan. After I made some economic observations, Donahue accused me of intending to vote for Reagan. I said that I was not, and as sharp as Donahue was, he said, "Well, you're not voting for Carter, so you must be voting Libertarian…" I said no, and had to explain why not. I believed then just as I do now. And it was at about this point when the audience, which had been getting restive, started getting really upset with me. I never made it to point five. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. That same audience, when I pointed out that their taxes were high and were being wasted, contained an individual who asked, "Why do we have to pay for things with our taxes? Why doesn't the government pay for it?" I swear that's what he said; it's on tape. If you could go back and watch the show, you'd see that the audience clapped after that brilliant question. Which was when I first realized that while the situation is actually hopeless, it's also quite comic… L: [Laughs] Doug: And things have only gotten worse since then, with decades more public education behind us. L: I bet that guy works in the Obama administration now, where they seem to think exactly as he did; the government will just pay for everything everyone wants with money it doesn't have. Doug: [Chuckles] Maybe so. He'd now be of an age where he's collecting Social Security and Medicare, plus food stamps, and likely gaming the system for a bunch of other freebies. Maybe he's so discontent with his miserable life that he goes to both Tea Party and Green Party rallies to kill time. I do believe we're getting close to the endgame. The system is on the verge of falling apart. And the closer we get to the edge, the more catastrophic the collapse it appears we're going to have. Which leads me to point number five: Your vote doesn't count. If I'd gotten to say that to the Donahue audience, they probably would have stoned me. People really like to believe that their individual votes count. Politicians like to say that every vote counts, because it gets everyone into busybody mode, makes voters complicit in their crimes. But statistically, any person's vote makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. Thinking their vote counts seems to give people who need it an inflated sense of self-worth. That's completely apart from the fact – as voters in Chicago in 1960 and Florida in 2000 can tell you – when it actually does get close, things can be, and often are, rigged. As Stalin famously said, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes. Anyway, officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want them to do, once they are in office. They neither know, nor care, what you want. You're just another mark, a mooch, a source of funds. L: The idea of political representation is a myth, and a logical absurdity. One person can only represent his own opinions – if he's even thought them out. If someone dedicated his life to studying another person, he might be able to represent that individual reasonably accurately. But given that no two people are completely – or even mostly – alike, it's completely impossible to represent the interests of any group of people. Doug: The whole constellation of concepts is ridiculous. This leads us to the subject of democracy. People say that if you live in a democracy, you should vote. But that begs the question of whether democracy itself is any good. And I would say that, no, it's not. Especially a democracy unconstrained by a constitution. That, sadly, is the case in the US, where the Constitution is 100% a dead letter. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule dressed up in a suit and tie. It's no way for a civilized society to be run. At this point, it's a democracy consisting of two wolves and a sheep, voting about what to eat for dinner. L: Okay, but in our firmly United State of America today, we don't live in your ideal society. It is what it is, and if you don't vote the bums out, they remain in office. What do you say to the people who say that if you don't vote, if you don't raise a hand, then you have no right to complain about the results of the political process? Doug: But I do raise a hand, constantly. I try to change things by influencing the way people think. I'd just rather not waste my time or degrade myself on unethical and futile efforts like voting. Anyway, that argument is more than fallacious, it's ridiculous and spurious. Actually, only the non-voter does have a right to complain – it's the opposite of what they say. Voters are assenting to whatever the government does; a nonvoter can best be compared to someone who refuses to join a mob. Only he really has the right to complain about what they do. L: Okay then, if the ethical man shouldn't vote in the national elections coming up, what should he do? Doug: I think it's like they said during the war with Viet Nam: Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came? I also like to say: Suppose they levied a tax, and nobody paid? And at this time of year: Suppose they gave an election, and nobody voted? The only way to truly delegitimize a corrupt system is by not voting. When tin-plated dictators around the world have their rigged elections, and people stay home in droves, even today's "we love governments of all sorts" international community won't recognize the results of the election. L: Delegitimizing evil… and without coercion, or even force. That's a beautiful thing, Doug. I'd love to see the whole crooked, festering, parasitical mass in Washington – and similar places – get a total vote of no-confidence. Doug: Indeed. Now, I realize that my not voting won't make that happen. My not voting doesn't matter any more than some naïve person's voting does. But at least I'll know that what I did was ethical. You have to live with yourself. That's only possible if you try to do the right thing. L: At least you won't have blood on your hands. Doug: That's exactly the point. L: A friendly amendment: you do staunchly support voting with your feet. Doug: Ah, that's true. Unfortunately, the idea of the state has spread over the face of the earth like an ugly skin disease. All of the governments of the world are, at this point, growing in extent and power – and rights violations – like cancers. But still, that is one way I am dealing with the problem; I'm voting with my feet. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. It's idiotic to sit around like a peasant and wait to see what they do to you. To me, it makes much more sense to live as a perpetual tourist, staying no more than six months of the year in any one place. Tourists are courted and valued, whereas residents and citizens are viewed as milk cows. And before this crisis is over, they may wind up looking more like beef cows. Entirely apart from that, it keeps you from getting into the habit of thinking like a medieval serf. And I like being warm in the winter, and cool in the summer. L: And, as people say: "What if everyone did that?" Well, you'd see people migrating towards the least predatory states where they could enjoy the most freedom, and create the most wealth for themselves and their posterity. That sort of voting with your feet could force governments to compete for citizens, which would lead to more places where people can live as they want. It could become a worldwide revolution fought and won without guns. Doug: That sounds pretty idealistic, but I do believe this whole sick notion of the nation-state will come to an end within the next couple generations. It makes me empathize with Lenin when he said, "The worse it gets, the better it gets." Between jet travel, the Internet, and the bankruptcy of governments around the world, the nation-state is a dead duck. As we've discussed before, people will organize into voluntary communities we call phyles. L: That's the name given to such communities by science fiction author Neal Stephenson in his book The Diamond Age, which we discussed in our conversation on Speculator's Fiction. Well, we've talked quite a bit – what about investment implications? Doug: First, don't expect anything that results from this US election to do any real, lasting good. And if, by some miracle, it did, the short-term implications would be very hard economic times. What to do in either case is what we write about in our big-picture newsletter, The Casey Report. More important, however, is to have a healthy and useful psychological attitude. For that, you need to stop thinking politically, stop wasting time on elections, entitlements, and such nonsense. You've got to use all of your time and brain power to think economically. That's to say, thinking about how to allocate your various intellectual, personal, and capital assets, to survive the storm – and even thrive, if you play your cards right. L: Very good. I like that: think economically, not politically. Thanks, Doug! Doug: My pleasure. Irrespective of whether one agrees with Doug's politics, his investing record speaks for itself. And just like him, the analysts and editors at Casey Research dig deep in their respective fields and are blunt in their assessments. One thing many agree that the US will have to face, no matter the outcome of the presidential election, is its growing debt crisis. http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-voting-redux
  3. Deputy for the National: the task of monitoring the national front-Abadi, and claims the blocks after the formation of the government Friday, 29 August / August 2014 07:33 [baghdad-where] Said Deputy for the State of Law coalition WIN in the National Alliance, on Friday, that the task of Prime Minister-designate Haider Abadi compaction national ranks to form a government of national partnership and a strong consistent serve all political parties He said Ahmed al-Khafaji told all of Iraq [where] that "there are some claims by the political blocs, including Article 140 and the oil and gas law is not necessary to be resolved before the formation of the government, but should be on the political blocs to look at the formation of the next government and then the government can discuss these claims" . Fonder Khafaji political blocs to soften its demands in order to accelerate the formation of the government. " The Iraqi political blocs conducting dialogues after naming committees negotiating to form a government, with Prime Minister-designate Haider al-Abadi told a news conference his first after commissioning held last Monday that "negotiations with the political blocs positive and constructive and stressed Abadi on "the necessity of putting the political blocs, its members in government as soon as possible, "he said, adding that" the government absorb all the energies and includes all the ingredients we need in the coming period to promote trust between the political blocs. " It is said that more than half of the month specified in the constitution to form a government after commissioning Abadi has ended and stayed 10 days in front of him to accomplish Almanmh.anthy 2
  4. Kurdistan: Article 140 of the Peshmerga and the arming of the most important conditions for our participation in the next government 19/08/2014 07:12 | Number of readings: 4672 Font Size: BAGHDAD / Source News / .. confirmed a member of the Kurdistan block change Sroh Abdul Wahid, on Tuesday, Kurdish blocs that will have a delegation holds worksheet Kievit participate in the next government, the time of the most important points of the paper arming the peshmerga and Article 140 Said Abdul Wahid told / Source News /, that "the Kurdistan Alliance has a delegation will carry a worksheet in Kievit participate in the next government," indicating that "the region has demands against the post in the next government, and the first of the implementation of Article 140 and it's the problem of financing and arming the peshmerga and the general budget per year and there are other points as well. " "The Kurdish delegation so far did not specify a date for to go to Baghdad, was not the province of the roof of a large liabilities," and hoped that "the next government will be based on the basis of partnership in the decision not to participate." Finished / 19 i
  5. GOP States Are The Most Dependent On Government The Huffington Post | by Benjamin Hallman If we learned nothing else during the 2012 election, it is that some of us are makers, hard-working folk solely responsible for America's prosperity, and others are takers, who want the federal government to pay for luxuries like food and health care. What may come as some surprise is where these two warring tribes tend to live. The states with elected officials most likely to espouse anti-taker sentiments -- i.e., Republican-dominated states -- are the most dependent on federal spending, while returning the least to Washington in the way of tax dollars. That's according to the consumer finance site Wallet Hub, which crunched federal tax and spending data and then ranked states from most to least dependent on Uncle Sam. In the map below, green states are the least dependent, while red states -- appropriately -- are the most dependent. The "makingest" state, according to the analysis, is Delaware. Delawareans -- this is really what they call themselves -- pay $1 in taxes for every 50 cents they get back from the federal government. Delaware also has the lowest rate of federal contracts received, as a proportion of federal tax dollars paid. And the state has the highest gross domestic product per capita, at $72,642. The "takingest" states, in a tie, are Mississippi and New Mexico, according to the analysis. Both states take about $3 in federal spending for every $1 contributed in taxes. Both states are highly dependent on federal funding as a percentage of state revenue. And New Mexico, especially, has lots of federal workers. The state with the lowest return on taxpayer investment is South Carolina. Its citizens pay $1 in taxes per capita for every $7.87 in federal funding received. The two states that come closest to breaking even are Washington and Georgia. These states get back $1.05 for every $1 in taxes paid. Wallet Hub tabulated its results using three metrics: taxes paid as compared to federal spending per capita, what percentage of state revenue comes from federal dollars, and the number of federal employees per capita. The first two categories were given more weight than the third. While the rankings are obviously somewhat arbitrary -- one would get different results using different metrics -- they do broadly correspond to patterns of poverty. States like Mississippi and Alabama, which are hugely dependent on federal tax dollars to help feed, clothe and shelter their citizens, are among those with the largest deficits, in terms of what they get in federal help versus what they give back in tax dollars. For most of American history, bringing home the federal pork, in extra benefits for citizens or spending projects, was a badge of honor for elected officials. The rise of the Tea Party has changed this calculus. Now in the most conservative states it is seen as a political boon to turn down federal handouts. In essence, they are trying to become less taker-y. The most obvious evidence of this trend can be seen in the expansion of Medicaid, the health plan for the poor, under the Affordable Care Act. Of the 10 states with the biggest dependency gap, as determined by Wallet Hub, seven -- Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, South Dakota and Tennessee -- have decided not to expand their Medicaid programs, even though the funding would come from federal coffers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-dependent-government_n_5035877.html
  6. Judge Dale is one of the good guys and his research and comments are always on the mark. http://shiftfrequency.com/judge-dale-global-currency-reset-and-nda-contract/
  7. Simply Marvellous. We shall see what happens. http://news.uscourts.gov/judiciary-remain-open-if-government-shuts-down uscourts.gov THIRD BRANCH NEWS uscourts.gov | court locator | news Judiciary to Remain Open If Government Shuts Down In the event of a government shutdown on October 1, 2013, the federal Judiciary will remain open for business for approximately 10 business days. On or around October 15, 2013, the Judiciary will reassess its situation and provide further guidance. All proceedings and deadlines remain in effect as scheduled, unless otherwise advised. Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) will remain in operation for the electronic filing of documents with courts.
  8. http://rt.com/usa/obama-insider-threat-leaks-905/ Obama administration urges federal employees to spy on each other to avoid leaks Get short URL Published time: July 10, 2013 18:22 Edited time: July 10, 2013 19:09 President Barack Obama has asked that federal agencies launch an unprecedented campaign requiring government workers to monitor the behavior of their colleagues and report potential leakers under the threat of prosecution. McClatchy reporters Jonathan Landay and Marisa Taylor wrote Tuesday that the “Insider Threat” program mandated by Pres. Obama utilizes methods that, while meant to identify security threats from within, actually provoke co-workers to spy on one another. The program is unprecedented in scope and hopes to prevent future instances where government secrets are spilled. According to a new report, however, the Insider Threat initiative and the techniques utilized by the agencies involved are not proven to work. Insider Threat was authorized in October 2011 after Army Private first class Bradley Manning sent classified intelligence to the website WikiLeaks, an action that government prosecutors argued in court this week aided al-Qaeda by indirectly providing them with secret documents. Through the program, employees are asked to monitor the behavior of their peers, and could face hefty penalties if they fail to alert higher-ups of a potential breach. Specifically, the Insider Threat program asks that officials within the ranks of federal agencies spanning all sectors of the government adopt behavioral profiling techniques that ideally would alert higher-ups of a subordinate interested in leaking intelligence. The White House, the Justice Department, the Peace Corps and the departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Education have all been asked to watch out for “high-risk persons or behaviors” among co-workers under the program, and If “indicators of insider threat behavior” are brought to attention, officials within those agencies are expected to investigate in order to curb the likelihood of another Pfc. Manning. Research conducted by McClatchy reporters combined with expert interviews suggest those efforts are futile, though, and aren’t proven to work. Gene Barlow, a spokesman for the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, told McClatchy that “the awareness effort of the program is to teach people not only what types of activity to report, but how to report it and why it is so important to report it.” So far, though, that method hasn’t been proven to actually put potential leakers out of work. According to McClatchy, the “indicators” that federal employees are told to monitor include stress, relationship issues, financial problems, odd work hours and random traveling. “It simply educates employees about basic activities or behavior that might suggest a person is up to improper activity,” Barlow told reporters. On the website for his agency’s Insider Threat program, the Office claims that employees may be lured to “betray their nation for ideological reasons, a lust for money or sex, or through blackmail,” and cites threats from within as “the top counterintelligence challenge to our community." Barlow also stressed that the policy “does not mandate” employees to report behavior indicators, but McClatchy reporters noted that failing to act could land an eyewitness with harsh penalties, including criminal charges. According to a 2008 National Research Council study, however, analyzing these indicators do not necessarily signal that one agent may be up to no good. “There is no consensus in the relevant scientific community nor on the committee regarding whether any behavioral surveillance or physiological monitoring techniques are ready for use at all,” the study concluded. “We have not found any silver bullets,” added Deana Caputo, a behavioral scientist at MITRE Corp., which assists several US agencies with their insider threat efforts. “We don’t have actually any really good profiles or pictures of a bad guy, a good guy gone bad or even the bad guy walking in to do bad things from the very beginning.”
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.