Fishy Fisher

BST Users
  • Content count

    1,312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Fishy Fisher

  • Rank
    1,000 Post Club!

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,471 profile views
  1. This dude in the story is a sexual predator. The ONLY reason libruls want the bathroom "open to anyone" is to assist those predators. It's not about equality - is about predation. Exactly the same reason they invite the turd world in en masse.
  2. What if your political opponents are satanic globalist paedo gangsters intent on destroying the country, the culture and it's citizens? And what if the press is part of and/or completely controlled by that cabal? What if your political opposition has a history of cozying up to the actual Stalin, Hitler and Mao? Hmmm... Moral authority is not dictated by the "free" press.
  3. Says Stoned syphon. That's some bona fide librul logic. You come up with that yourself? You should work for fake news cnn with that kind of empty reasoning.
  4. Conservatives can't even conserve the women's bathroom so a tranny would fit right in. Perfect conservative!
  5. I looked it up. Amazing what you can find in 3 seconds on Google. Ny times 2009: Another man in Brooklyn, Levy-Izhak Rosenbaum, was accused of enticing vulnerable people to give up a kidney for $10,000 and then selling the organ for $160,000. Mr. Dwek pretended to be soliciting a kidney on behalf of someone and Mr. Rosenbaum said that he had been in business of buying organs for years, according to the complaint. (article was about the corruption mentioned above. Indeed, it looks like the "blood libel" was swept under the rug and likely never investigated.)
  6. Your dream Trabant is sitting outside right now! You can steer while my horse pulls!
  7. His book about the history of money (forgot the title) is the best. It's really short and to the point and easy layman read. Highly recommended as a primer on the subject.
  8. This is a real problem. Trump is helping with his economic policies, but they only address the symptoms, not the cause. AUDIT THE FED!
  9. This one is great. The 2 really need to be stitched together. In other news, I'll debate anyone anywhere in the continental US for $20,000. Wire the money first.
  10. You know that all of that is complete nonsense. I mean, just look at the language used. It's all smoke and mirrors. "Long term industrial banking"? What on earth is that supposed to mean? There are lots of crap articles written by well meaning people trapped inside the system. They (and this) are written to protect the system. Some (like this, perhaps even unknowingly) are written to perform the function of controlled opposition. "It was going to be great but then the ____ got involved." Please. Its been tried many times and failed because just like socialism, the system itself is flawed and doomed to fail from the start. Do yourself a favor. Go to www dot mises dot org and there you will find not one, but several excellent, understandable, short and free books written by Murray Rothbard on the fed and currency in general. I think you'll find it eye opening, to say the least. The fed is, always was and always will be the greatest plunder in world history as well as the solitary gatekeeper of societal ruin. Nothing we all hate about the big gubbemint could exist without the fed - NOTHING.
  11. Most people would opt out in a heartbeat. The whole premise of your argument is stupid: you can only get any of this things through gubbemint? You know that most fire departments in the US are volunteer and depend on local donations (to which I very happily contribute every year VOLUNTARILY). Anyone could afford private schools if they didn't pay half their earnings to the gubbemint to provide their kids with crap indoctrination instead of learning. Your thinking: sad!
  12. I bet some are running for office. I guarantee they'd win.
  13. Huh? This windknot needs to be untangled before you're allowed to cast again. First of all, capitalism is sort of a nebulous word, so let's set it aside for a moment and instead use "free markets". Because capitalism has descriptive merit, but you're using it in a way that requires some kind of measurement. Even in the old utopian Soviet days, they still had free markets to a degree. So we can use free markets on a sliding scale because they can exist in any political or economic system. To that end we can assign a scale where 100% free markets have no gubbemint interference whatsoever and 0% free market is gubbemint control of everything with no property rights. The premise of your argument then is that societies that employ 100% free markets are unsustainable. Is that a fair statement? No rational person could disagree with the statement, "more free markets create more prosperity than less free markets". So the question becomes, at what point are free markets too free and become unsustainable? I would argue there is no limit - meaning 100% free markets are fully sustainable. And I also think you're looking at the "Band-Aids" you mentioned in the wrong light. This country existed in a nearly 100% free condition for over 100 years and it saw explosive growth. But the key to that was the gold standard. Before the creation of the central bank, no bank could print money beyond it's gold reserves (every bank printed it's own money - there was no US dollar then). And that worked out great because the con artists always failed and that alone was enough deterrent to keep banks honest. Otherwise, nobody would put their money in any bank unless the vast majority has a spotless record. Even the whiff of the possibility of losing your money would cause a run on the bank and the bank would fail immediately. So 99.99% of banks were extremely careful with deposit funds and that social/economic trust allowed banks to operate. Think about it - if there was even a 1% chance that you could lose your money, would you trust ANY bank? Then the fed came along and began legal counterfeiting. Within 15 years, this legal counterfeiting caused such an expansion of the money supply we ended up in the stock market bubble and crash of 1929. No matter what any Marxist professor tries to tell you, that bubble was directly created by the fed expanding the money supply. That is the ONLY mechanism for market bubble creation. Legal counterfeiting causes inflation. Money has value affected by supply and demand like any other consumer good, so when the money supply is increased, it's value falls. After the 1929 crash, it fell dramatically. The "bandaid" was to double down on counterfeiting (and other Marxist market distortions, but we'll save that for later). So what do you think happens when society has a big shock like in 1929? People demand that gubbemint do something! And the gubbemint responded by doing something: more counterfeiting! Anyway, the point is that the "bandaids" are the source of the unsustainability problem, not the degree to which markets are perfectly free. In 1929, if the gubbemint did absolutely nothing, all of the problems would have corrected themselves through bankruptcy, shifting of resources to productivity, etc. But that's not what happened. They bandaided themselves into a full blown depression. And today things are far worse on the sustainability front. The gubbemint has made more promises than it has the ability to keep, which is why we're in a perpetual cycle of counterfeiting and debt. Some people believe this is sustainable forever but they are stupid. If you cannot do it in your own household, it cannot be done by gubbemint of any size. It just takes longer for the house of cards to fall apart for gubbemint because of it's scale. 100% free markets are sustainable by their very nature because they self correct. Gubbemint never ever self corrects anything. Buy gold & guns because you're going to need both when the house of cards crashes.
  14. Bold italic underline. Should have highlighted and capitalized the word COMMUNIST. Nobody cares. Most people understand that lots of regular people in eastern Europe were forced to join the communist party in those days because the commies - just like commies today (shocking) - denied opportunity to non-party members. For most people that meant attending a few meetings a year, getting drunk and regurgitating propaganda. Then going home and resuming normal life while trying to get the bitter taste of commie bulls-hit out of their mouths. It doesn't mean they were little Stalins in the rough. Nobody cares about this. Not one single Trump supporter is going to suddenly switch sides over this. Trump could naturalize half of Slovenia and still nobody would care.
  15. ^^^ It's only 6am but I'm damned sure this will be the funniest (and scariest) thing I read all day!