Because of the concept itself is "mint a coin, the metal for which must be platinum, but the value is whatever we say it is on the face" it doesn't actually need very much platinum at all. You don't need the equivalent value amount of platinum. Just like a Quarter doesn't have enough (whatever metal it's made from) to justify its value. Or paper money is obviously not enough paper to be worth 20 bucks, or whatever. So you're not sacrificing your jewelry collection, it's more like lopping off a branch of your tree, and trying to sell it for thousands of dollars as "art". If somebody buys it... well I guess you're not the stupid one anymore! Though what implications this concept has for the current way we issue and assess the value of currency is of course another disturbingly parallel discussion IMO.By having the coin (so the suggestion goes), the US Government would be able to "back" any debt they have.
Unfortunately, it's like deciding to melt down all your jewelry, take it in to a pawn shop and try to get a loan on an Escalade with the funds.
I think it is safe to say that the White House wins this round...The White House discovers the hazards of letting the internet interact with things...
View attachment 9307
He also collects Conan comics, having been a reader of them for many years.The man in the Oval Office does read Spider Man, of course.
I wondered if you had seen this. I didn't mention it only because I thought you'd rant on it.
George Burnett, a smoothie shop owner from Vernal, UT is in the local news spotlight after implementing a unique pricing structure for his customers: if you're a liberal, you pay a dollar more. According to KSL's news report, Burnett says he will donate the proceeds from this surcharge, as well as any tips received, to various conservative political groups including the think tank The Heritage Foundation. While only a handful of people have volunteered to pay the liberals price, many others have taken to the store's Facebook page to complain about the perceived discrimination. Yet Burnett stands by his methods, noting that he's trying to start a conversation about the financial problems in this country.
Well, prefacing my statements with "I'm not sure he can actually, legally, do what he's doing, it's a little too deep into lawyer territory for me to speak with certainty," I'd say the difference would be that political persuasions are not given the same sort of protections as religious or racial differences.[DOUBLEPOST=1358378420][/DOUBLEPOST]Okay... how is that any better than if he had pulled the same stunt with, say, the Muslims?
Well, that depends on how you define "rant." I think he's being a little silly.I wondered if you had seen this. I didn't mention it only because I thought you'd rant on it.
Totally unfounded, right?
--Patrick
It may be legally different. Is it morally different? (No it isn't)I'd say the difference would be that political persuasions are not given the same sort of protections as religious or racial differences.
Unless you take your political affiliation with a similar amount of conviction as your religion (which most don't), then they're not equivalent. Throwing race in there (which is immutable) is just silly.It may be legally different. Is it morally different? (No it isn't)
Surely not the majority, but I'm sure many people do. A lot of people are half-assed about religion or not religious at all, and some people are very strong about their political convictions. Wait, make that a question, because it may not be estimating the amounts of people right (after all, I'm in another continent and religiousness is a bit different here).Unless you take your political affiliation with a similar amount of conviction as your religion (which most don't), then they're not equivalent. Throwing race in there (which is immutable) is just silly.
Actually, I'd argue about that "better funded" part.
You'd argue incorrectly.Actually, I'd argue about that "better funded" part.