current hate movements reminding me of the NAZIs.

Current hate movements reminding me of the Nazi's? You have fallen for the normal game plan of the Left, if anyone disagrees with them, they are racists.
How about this? We want to restrict illegal immigration so that more Americans can find jobs? I know more than a few teenagers that would love to take $12 an hour to work construction to learn a trade.
The mosque in NYC? Silly that Americans are worried about mosques in the shadow of the former WTC buildings used to plan more terrorism. The original WTC bombing was planned in a Manhattan mosque and recruits met in New Jersey mosques.
And you say they are hate groups. I just don't see that.

Satchmo wrote: So we've gone from the topic:

The current movements against Mexicans, illegal or legal, and Muslims, radical or not, really remind me of the moment behind the hatred against Jewish people in the 30's in Europe.

To ranting about the USD, Nixon, the gold standard. Now, I understand that there was gross inflation in Germany after WWI and they blamed it on the Jews, as well as the countries who were receiving ridiculous reparations from Germany.

Please explain how that connects to the rampant inflation of the 70s and early 80s. Just want your thought process here.

The tie in is the vilification of capitalism by the forces seeking an all powerful central government. The Nazi's did it, the progressives did it in the early and middle parts of the 20th century here, and they are at it once again in the early part of the 21st century. Bad things happen when you give power and control of a nation's political and economic systems to the central government - every single time.

In the early part of the century, the progressives gifted us with the Federal Reserve. In the 30's we got Social Security and a move towards centralizing control in the federal government, including a threat by the then president/dictator FDR and his lackey cabal of Democrats in the Congress to pack the court to obtain the rulings he wanted. In the 60's they brought us the welfare state and uncontrolled spending on the individual welfare of the citizen and coupled that with an expensive foray into Vietnam as well as a continued assault upon the sovereignty of the states through "selective incorporation" by the federal courts. This is also when the federal government started raiding the SS "trust fund" and replacing its real assets with paper IOU's. This policy is what led to the eventual end to directly exchange currency for gold. By the time Nixon took that step, the amount of USD in circulation around the world was already 4x the value of the gold that the country actually possessed. When the foreign nations started demanding gold for the dollars they held the ending of that policy was all but mandatory since it would have collapsed the entire economic system if everyone, including the citizens of the nation, made the same demands because there was simply not enough gold to give to everyone.

This is what brought us to the state of having an actual fiat currency that had no backing other than the confidence of those that held the USD or the debt that was financed by notes promising payment in USD. One of the arguments used to support the argument against SS being insolvent is that the notes held are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, which has never missed an interest payment. That is only true because the Congress keeps adding to the total amount the US is allowed to put itself further into debt to borrow more money to pay that interest. I keep asking the question that no one will answer because it is all too obvious what the answer is.

How confident would you be that you would get the principle amount loaned back if every time the borrower needed to make an interest payment on the funds already borrowed they came to you to borrow more principle to make the interest payment? That is what we are doing at the federal level right now. What will happen the next time the US government attempts to devalue the dollar, as they did in the early 70's, to make the debt more affordable to pay back? Once the confidence in the USD is shaken, and the value of the currency plummets, those IOU's that the SS "trust fund" holds will be all but worthless, won't they. When you need a billion dollars to buy a loaf of bread, as they did in the Weimar Republic just before the rise of the Nazi party due to the "failure" of capitalism, in Zimbabwe in 2008, in Yugoslavia in the 1980's just before the start of the genocidal wars in that nation, in ancient Rome shortly before it fell, the value of the T-bills held in "trust" by Social Security won't last more than a day - if that long. Think it can't happen hear? It already has, more than once. Perhaps not to the extremes of the Weimar Republic or ancient Rome, but the nation has resulted to bartering and abandoned the currency of the nation at least a half dozen times between the founding and today. There was a reason FDR made it illegal for the citizens to own gold, just as there is a reason Obama and the Obamacrats in Congress have instituted new regulations requiring that businesses issue a 1099 to other businesses for any transaction greater than $600 USD starting January 2012 as one of the surprises that Pelosi said that the bill needed to pass so we could find.

The Viking wrote: No idea if this was addressed or not but why do the Liberals equate disagreeing with something or something, and wanting to change it, as a 'hate movement'? So if you don't agree with the left you are either a racist or a NAZI like hater. Interesting.

This makes about as much sense as a conservative (of which I am) making a statement like "you really need to find a group to hate in order to be a good conservative."

Dude, wanting to retain property rights does not make someone a liberal. All people hate.

I am anything but left. I want next to no laws, next to no taxes, next to no police, next to no government, next to no programs. If not none of all of these. That is your def of a liberal? I bet we get together and I will make you feel quite liberal.

But then again, we use names like liberal when we really don't have a good point to make, kind of like a 3rd grader who is stomping his feet.

Viking did you have kids? Pay for their education or take it from your neighbors, any family members that don't pay their full way. Do you have any family members on any public assistance, that you could pay for yourself. Cause that would make you a liberal. Do you plan on collecting your social security entitlement while watching other suffer, that would make someone a liberal, right. Have you ever accepted a cash payment and not paid taxes on it or sold an old item out of your barn and not sent in the sales tax, that would make you a criminal, though perhaps not a liberal. Ever speed, well that would make you about a dangerous as a terrorist. What great words we can all use.

Really perhaps it would be better to debate issues and not fling names that we apparently don't understand.

By the way, hate is not so uncommon. Just because your parents told you in 3rd grade that it was bad to hate and you started using the word less, does not mean any of us really changed, there is far more hate out there than we want to admit, it is not that big of a deal, hate does not = murder, though it can. These are hate movements and I hate many things, no biggie till someone gets hurt or we start thinking that we can take someone else's rights away, right. I hate people that think I am liberal and cannot substantiate it and are most likely more liberal and into socialist values than I. See that was not that hard. It is still legal to hate right? Just not act on it in a violent way.

If YOU are not a liberal and in fact able to make your points via discussion rather than simple blatantly pokey rhetorical quesions, take either of my challenges, show the the current law that gives you the rights over these people's land or write a new law that would work to stop them that you would be fine if implemented on you...or would your rather sit there crying liberal because you don't know what the connotations really are and you can't or won't debate.

Like I said earlier, I do not want the mosque there, but that does not mean I give up my conservative morals. Apparently this is not the case for most. Emotion is overrunning morals. If the morals are there, write me the moral law that makes your point. One that can last through time. Please put me in my place with more than name calling, though feel free to still use all words needed to make a point.