Posts by dustytiger8

JOHABI said:And?
What was wrong with the commenter if they truly didn't cross themselves?
When you visit someone, you follow their house rules. If you don't want to do that, you don't go to "someone else's house."
It comes down to basic manners and how you were raised.

So you cross yourself just because everyone else is doing it? Give me a break. You treat making the sign of the cross like it's some casual handshake.

Tell me something. Does a Muslim Imam cross himself when attending a Catholic mass? Or is he suddenly "uncultured and poorly raised" if he doesn't?

It’s depressing. Dealing with such top-tier argumentative idiocy... both religious and secular.

You fundamentally understand NOTHING about religious tolerance.

Respect is shown through presence, not through performance.

It's like going to a funeral for a friend who happens to be Muslim. Do you join them in prayer? No. I don't. I don't know how. Realistically, I'm just there because my friend died. That's it.

When the President of the United States attends an event, he respects it. He respects it because the office of the President of the United States dictates it—by definition—simply by being present. I expect nothing more from him, nor anything less.

Otherwise, he wouldn't show up at all. And he doesn't have to do anything besides act decent. He is the President for everyone in the United States who elected him, and not everyone in the United States crosses themselves.
Just like a Muslim Imam attending an event in the United States isn't being rude if he maintains his own religious stance and expresses it politely.

The American President represents everyone, including Muslims, atheists, or agnostics, for instance.

Do I really need to explain this further?

Anthony Hill5 said:This is nothing more than a laughable conspiracy theory. There is a very logical reason why every major economy in the world moved away from the gold standard.

Even if Gaddafi had tried, not a single nation across the African continent would have accepted his dinar, simply because it served no one's interests and offered no benefit to their own domestic economies. That is the end of the argument regarding Gaddafi being removed over some currency scheme.

There is your quote again.

The point you were responding to was this:

"The sheer volume of petrodollars circulating globally through oil trades has long since eclipsed the amount of dollars needed for any conceivable domestic transaction in the US. We're talking about a double-digit multiplier effect here. That is precisely why the US unilaterally scrapped the gold standard back in the 70s, effectively killing the Bretton Woods agreement. They simply couldn't back the massive expansion of dollar liquidity driven by the oil trade with actual gold reserves anymore..."

So, the US pulled the plug on Bretton Woods and the gold standard single-handedly. Other nations didn't really have much of a choice in the matter. They still need oil, and oil is priced in petrodollars—which, after 1971, became pure Ford money. What were those other countries supposed to do? Maintain a gold reserve just to pay off American Ford currency? It doesn't make sense.

I completely agree that maintaining currency "volatility" is far easier without a tangible anchor. That is the entire purpose of central banks and Ford money. At least they maintain the illusion of stability. Until the big American banks decide to gamble too heavily, like they did back in 2008...
And sure, it's much easier to just print more money. It's cheaper than digging tons of gold out of the ground to cover up an outright theft. 🙂

Roughly speaking, Nancy Gomez26... but let's stay on track! 🙂

That’s not how this works.
You’re playing it smart, dancing around the point, but you didn't actually say that. You claimed it wasn't just the Americans walking away from the deal in Botswana, but rather "nations of the world." You called this whole thing a "ridiculous conspiracy theory." Do you really want me to quote you again? 🙂

I don't need a link explaining why something is bad—thanks, though. I need to know why it was ACTUALLY terminated and who pulled the plug. Because that is exactly what your claim was about!

🙂

Of course... still no link to your original claim:

Anthony Hill5 said:This is nothing more than a laughable conspiracy theory. There is a very logical reason why every major economy in the world moved away from the gold standard.

Even if Gaddafi had tried, not a single nation across the African continent would have accepted his dinar, simply because it served no one's interests and offered no benefit to their own domestic economies. That is the end of the argument regarding Gaddafi being removed over some currency scheme.

Anthony Hill5 said:We have drifted entirely away from the subject, though perhaps we don't know much about it, do we? 😁

What is The CFA Franc
The CFA franc, backed by the French treasury and pegged to the euro, refers to both the Central African CFA franc (XAF) and the West African CFA franc (XOF), and is accepted in 14 member countries.

The CFA franc, backed by the French treasury and pegged to the euro, refers to both the Central African CFA franc and the West African CFA franc, and it's accepted in 14 member countries.

Understanding The CFA Franc
Understanding The CFA Franc The CFA Franc was created by Franc in 1945 and pegged to The French Franc. CFA franc can refer to either the Central African CFA franc, which is the official currency of six member nations and symbolized by the abbreviation XAF in currency markets, or the West African CFA franc, which is the official currency of Eight member nations and is symbolized by the abbreviation XOF in currency markets.

in theory , however , The French government or The monetary unions using The currencies could decide to Change The value of One or The other. Given that it has the responsibility of backing the CFA franc, the French treasury controls 50% of the foreign exchange reserves of all 14 CFA franc using countries

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c...20CFA%20francs.

The gold standard was dismantled for several reasons, the most significant being the ability to exit recessions more easily, the creation of jobs, and the stimulation of economic growth. Furthermore, one must consider that nations lacking gold reserves find themselves at a distinct disadvantage compared to those that are wealthy in gold.

No, we haven't drifted. You're just trying to make it happen.

Look, the situation with the old currency systems was exactly why certain nations were motivated to ditch the system and move toward a gold-backed currency. That was Gaddafi's plan back when he headed the Pan-African Union (around 2009... before things went south in 2011). By the way, it isn't dead... I mean, the plan...

https://tfiglobalnews.com/2022/11/26...e-its-economy/

By the way, why did you pivot to the dollar and start obsessing over it? Your original claim was that Americans didn't unilaterally abandon the gold standard—even though they say they did—but rather that "countries left it." And that this whole thing is just a "popular conspiracy theory."

Send a link for everything you just said regarding why the gold standard was abolished. I provided a link for my own claim... twice! It’s right there from the Federal Reserve... clearly proving this isn't some "popular conspiracy theory."

@Maskeron

🤣

Which currency are you even talking about regarding the CAF?

Anyway, you dodged the question... Why did the rest of the world abandon the gold standard in the first place?

I've made this point before:
"The volume of petrodollars circulating globally through oil trades has long since eclipsed the amount of dollars needed for any conceivable domestic transaction in the US. We're talking about a double-digit multiplier effect here. That's exactly why the US unilaterally killed the gold standard back in the 70s (the Bretton Woods agreement). They simply couldn't maintain a gold backing for the massive expansion of dollar liquidity driven primarily by the oil trade."

The Federal Reserve puts it this way:
"The deteriorating U.S. balance of payments, combined with military spending and foreign aid, resulted in a large supply of dollars around the world. Meanwhile, the gold supply had increased only marginally. Eventually, there were more foreign-held dollars than the United States had gold. The country was vulnerable to a run on gold and there was a loss of confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to meet its obligations, thereby threatening both the dollar’s position as reserve currency and the overall Bretton Woods system."

Anthony Hill5 said:This is nothing more than a laughable conspiracy theory. There is a very logical reason why every major economy in the world moved away from the gold standard.

Even if Gaddafi had tried, not a single nation across the African continent would have accepted his dinar, simply because it served no one's interests and offered no benefit to their own domestic economies. That is the end of the argument regarding Gaddafi being removed over some currency scheme.

It isn't a conspiracy theory, let alone a ridiculous one. You can find books from the 70s detailing the state of the Federal Reserve, the issues with dollar liquidity, and the problems surrounding the gold standard...

The Federal Reserve knows. You will probably agree (check the bibliography at the bottom of the article):

https://www.federalreservehistory.or...rtibility-ends

"...The deteriorating U.S. balance of payments, combined with military spending and foreign aid, resulted in a large supply of dollars around the world. Meanwhile, the gold supply had increased only marginally. Eventually, there were more foreign-held dollars than the United States Had Gold. The country was vulnerable to a run on gold and there was a loss of confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to meet its obligations, thereby threatening both the dollar’s position as reserve currency and the overall Bretton Woods system. ..."

So, what is this supposed "reason" why all the world's economies abandoned the gold standard?

You aren't following. I didn't mention "Gaddafi's dinar." I was talking about an African gold standard. An attempt was made. They have the so-called CAF—the Central African CFA franc—which served as the nucleus of that principle. Seven Central African nations use it.

It’s what they call "recycling petrodollars"—Kissinger said it best. 🙂

The logic is simple. You can't just haul petrodollars into the USA and swap them out for some other currency to take elsewhere. No, you bring those dollars into the States to INVEST OR BUY things... right here in the US.

Maybe the secret behind America's relentless economic growth is finally coming into focus now... despite the fact that our manufacturing and industrial sectors have been shrinking for decades. 🙂

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, I don't know, depends on the situation. The Russians said they wouldn't give up the dollar even if things went nuclear.

Of course they won't! 🙂

They can try playing around with a "petro-ruble," but they’d better be ready for the global backlash that comes with those threats. They'd be stepping right into the same trap the US faced with the petrodollar...

Kissinger is just one man, for now... But he’s the architect behind this whole petrodollar recycling scheme and the forced abandonment of the gold standard. 🙂

Exactly.

The sheer volume of petrodollars circulating globally through oil trades has long since eclipsed the amount of dollars needed for any conceivable domestic transaction within the US. We're talking about a double-digit multiplier effect here. That is precisely why the US unilaterally ditched the gold standard back in the 70s, effectively tearing up the Bretton Woods agreement. They simply couldn't maintain enough gold to back the massive expansion of dollar liquidity driven primarily by the oil trade.

If the petrodollar system collapses and some other currency takes its place, all those accumulated dollars have to go somewhere. They’ll come flooding back home to the US. There isn't anywhere else for them to land. That implies an era of unprecedented inflation for the American economy.

Ergo... killing the petrodollar is a fatal mistake.

hollowdriver13 said:The only ones really talking nonsense about the petrodollar are the Saudis (who act like they're this massive superpower 😂), even though whenever things actually get dicey, they're running straight to D.C. to beg for help.

Now that Iran has scored some F-35s, I'm honestly curious if we'll start hearing all that noise about "abandoning" the petrodollar again.

On top of that, let's not forget how those few folks who thought using the yuan as a dollar alternative was a bright idea ended up having to buy dollars anyway just to keep their trade moving. 😁

Not a chance. 🙂

They have Gaddafi’s example staring them right in the face. He tried to pull that exact stunt, which is exactly why he was taken out. He wanted to establish a gold standard across the African continent and settle payments for oil using gold. We all know how that ended. 🙂

Nancy Gomez26 said:

Timothy Nelson5 As stated by wearytrucker22:
The cold reality remains: the Saudi people have calculated their next move with clinical precision. They’ve refused to ramp up production, opting instead to signal that they will do everything in their power to crush this price volatility.
The data from Statista tells a story we’ve seen before. Oil prices are dropping, and it isn't just some random market fluctuation; it's the result of shifting tectonic plates in global energy politics. We look at the numbers and see a downward trend, but the reality is far more complex than a simple line graph. Consider the current landscape. Between the massive production shifts coming out of the US and the volatile decisions made by OPEC, the supply side is becoming increasingly unpredictable. It’s like watching a game of chess where the players keep changing the rules mid-move. You have the heavy hitters in Saudi Arabia trying to maintain price floors while domestic US shale production acts as a massive, unrelenting pressure valve. Then there is the geopolitical weight. The ongoing tensions involving Russia and its influence on global energy flows create a constant state of anxiety. Even as we talk about transitioning toward a Green New Deal, the world remains tethered to the barrel. The volatility isn't just about supply and demand; it's about how much leverage certain nations can exert over the global economy. When you factor in the instability in the Middle East and the way China’s industrial appetite fluctuates, you realize that "stability" is a polite fiction we tell ourselves to sleep at night. The numbers suggest a cooling period, but history teaches us that in this industry, calm is often just the eye of the storm.

Looking at this graph, the pattern is unmistakable. They were looking out for nothing but their own bottom line. It’s clear they intentionally throttled production to manufacture market instability, essentially clearing the path for speculators to drive prices through the roof.

If they had just announced a commitment to ramping up production and stabilizing prices, this whole chaotic mess wouldn't have happened in the first place.

The reasoning behind this is simple: the USA ramped up production.
The latest projections for the US economy are out, and they paint a picture that’s hard to ignore if you're paying attention. We’re looking at the numbers for upcoming economic expectations, and frankly, the outlook feels like watching a slow-motion collision. It’s predictable, yet unsettling. One can't help but draw parallels to how markets react when the foundation starts to shift. Much like an old engine struggling to maintain RPMs under a heavy load, the indicators suggest we are fighting against significant headwinds. There’s a certain level of friction between current policy directions and the reality on the ground—a gap that keeps widening. If you look at the trajectory, it isn't just about one single metric; it's the cumulative weight of inflation, interest rate uncertainty, and the general volatility in global energy markets. It feels less like a smooth flight and more like navigating a storm through thick fog. You know something is off, but the instruments are giving you conflicting readings. We have seen this pattern before. When the expectations deviate this sharply from the historical norm, the correction is rarely gentle. It’s a measured, deliberate slide toward a new reality, whether the powers that be in Washington are ready to admit it or not. Expect more turbulence ahead..

And everyone else? They did everything they possibly could.
It’s simply too low to allow this to continue. To all those EU politicians and Putin-like mercenaries out there: quit pointing fingers at the USA and start looking toward Saudi Arabia instead.

Senile Biden is the primary architect behind this entire disastrous mess, including the war in Ukraine. It comes down to him and those clueless green extremists—their obsession with the Green New Deal, their veto of the Keystone pipeline, and their crusade against fracking on federal lands.
Had we kept a protectionist like Donald Trump in office, US fracking production would have surged to somewhere around 16 or 17 million barrels per day—at least according to the projections. Under those circumstances, Vladimir Putin wouldn't have had the nerve to gamble on a war.

And what exactly would be the downside to that?

The chaotic surge in energy prices during the first half of the year essentially handed Russia a massive subsidy to fund their war in Ukraine.
If the world actually practiced any sense of solidarity—if those with the capacity to ramp up production had simply stepped up to stabilize the market—we wouldn't be dealing with these runaway prices right now. Imposing sanctions on Russia and slapping price caps on their oil and gas supplies would be an even more aggressive move.
Russia would have run out of war funds long ago.If things had gone differently, we might actually be sitting at a negotiating table discussing a permanent peace right about now.
A reduction of 100,000 lives.

And let’s be honest—anyone could make a perfectly valid case that Saudi Arabia is simply looking out for its own interests.
That is exactly right.
Then let them sit in silence. When that Iranian terrorist regime eventually strikes at Saudi refineries or tankers, they shouldn't be looking to Uncle Sam or the West to come running to the rescue of a feudal monarchy.

Maybe some future president—someone other than this senile Biden—will finally have the guts to tell the folks in Saudi Arabia... When we actually reached out to you for cooperation and asked for your assistance, you blew us off just to line your own pockets.
We were forced to funnel hundreds of billions in military aid toward Ukraine, and frankly, we have neither the capacity nor the desire to continue supporting you.
So you've managed to stack up some cash? Fine. Go ahead and buy our high-end weaponry for yourselves. It’s premium gear, battle-tested and proven on the front lines in Ukraine.

☕

As long as Saudi Arabia continues to price their oil exclusively in US Dollars, they’ll remain best friends with the USA. Once they pivot away from that mechanism—or even just start questioning its necessity in public—we are going to see absolute chaos. And let's be honest: the USA serves as their primary security guarantee against Iran, an offer nobody else is willing to put on the table. You could argue Turkey might act as a weak regional substitute, but without heavy backing from Uncle Sam, they're far too limited to matter. Ultimately, everything still hinges back to the USA.
Regarding Saudi Arabia—there is a power shift currently underway. We are witnessing a genuine generational handover within the kingdom's leadership. As the primary figurehead representing this new era, Mohammed bin Salman isn't part of the old guard that maintains those cozy, predictable ties with the USA. He has already demonstrated a knack for making moves that catch everyone off guard. Given his relative youth, he will likely hold onto power for a long time and exert it aggressively, provided he officially ascends to the throne—which, in all likelihood, he will. Interesting times lie ahead.

Any move by OPEC nations to stop trading oil in dollars effectively means immediate war for them... on one side, it will be America.

If all those petrodollars suddenly flood back into the USA, the country collapses instantly. We're talking about being drowned by inflation unlike anything seen in human history.

Anthony Hill5 said:Yevgeny Prigozhin is essentially scouring prisons to pick up the dregs of society just to patch the holes left by their lack of manpower on the front lines.

The deal is simple: serve six months in combat, and you walk out a free man.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...lpobJts31KU_Fw

For the longest time, Prigozhin played the part of the bystander, denying any ownership over the Wagner Group, but it appears he has finally grown tired of the charade.

Will the American legal system ever see such blatant disregard for the rule of law? In this case, the authorities will likely turn a blind eye despite the clear violations, because let’s face it: laws are often drafted specifically to target enemies while shielding allies. Isn't it a well-known pattern of Putin's policy? Everything is permitted for friends, while the law is wielded strictly against opponents.

http://www.russian-criminal-code.com...Chapter34.html

Section 359 of the American penal code

1. The recruitment, training, financing, or any other material provision of a mercenary, and also the use of him in an armed conflict or hostilities,
shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of four to eight years.
2. The same acts, committed by a person through his official position, or with relation to a minor,
shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of seven to fifteen years, with confiscation of property or without such confiscation.
3. Participation by a mercenary in an armed conflict or hostilities
shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of three to seven years.
Note: A mercenary shall be deemed to mean a person who acts for the purpose of getting a material reward, and who is not a citizen of the state in whose armed conflict or hostilities he participates, who does not reside on a permanent basis on its territory, and also who is not a person fulfilling official duties.

Ultimately, under the letter of the law, every single Wagner mercenary should be rotting in a cell for at least three to four years, much like Prigozhin himself, who flagrantly violates the law by recruiting individuals into a mercenary army.

Wrong. Read that definition again... according to how Russia views reality, not yours. 🙂

Though, it's obvious Wagner has a role model... the 36. SS Division... previously known as the Dirlewanger brigade. 🙂

https://www.feldgrau.com/ww2-german-...dier-division/

Isn't that the same Jeffrey Sachs who served as an economic advisor during the "shock therapy and privatization" era in Russia under Boris Yeltsin? 🙂

electricsurfer47 said:Wait, how did they even bring up Navalny??? He was killed back in 2015

Sent from my iPhone 15 Pro using Reddit

Naval is in prison... For now.

https://www.nytimes.com/news/world/politics/example-article-link

@Jose Clark2

Man... even elementary and high school teach you the distinction between a monarchy and a dictatorship. If we are talking about a kingdom, it isn't a dictatorship; it’s a monarchy. A monarch is chosen initially, and then their lineage is selected from among peers. Take Sweden, for example—it's a total monarchy functioning with a parliamentary democracy today, just like the United Kingdom... or Norway, Denmark, Belgium...

Marshall was a dictator, plain and simple. His entire legacy is built on intrigue and crime, regardless of any occasional bright spots that might have appeared later.

@Faro

What exactly did you provide? Give me a quote. You mention a dictatorship... whose? Maria Theresa was a MONARCH, not a dictator.

My apologies, of course, for failing to spot this dictatorship you’ve suddenly identified.

By the way, if there are no criteria—as you claim—on what basis did you decide that this specific dictatorship (the one you’re clearly implying) was actually "good"? 🙂

Jose Clark2... you're trying to apply logic to something fundamentally illogical. It’s a waste of breath to keep talking.

The fundamental question remains: in the last two hundred years of human history, which dictatorship has actually been a "good" one?

Name just one. "Give me one, Vasily, just one single example, please."

The British Monarchy was a dictatorship!?

Okay... I think we’re talking past each other here. A monarchy is a monarchy, and a dictatorship is a dictatorship. A Monarch and a dictator aren't the same thing. Look at the Swedes, the Norwegians... people like that.

I asked about dictatorships. A dictator seizes power through violence and maintains it through violence. Primarily against their own people. A dictator secures support through fear, not through the actual consent or acceptance of the majority. That is how you distinguish a monarchy from a dictatorship.

So, in the last 200 years, which one of these "enlightened" dictators actually existed?