09-13-11, 02:53 AM #41
09-13-11, 05:07 AM #42
When he was in the entertainment business. . . including (infotainment), he does it first class all the way. You post a picture, as if it in someway disparages his ideas and thoughts?
Seriously Tiassa? I thought you had more integrity than that. The same could be done to W., Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Clinton, ad. infinitum. Whatevers.
09-13-11, 05:40 AM #43
The organizations you referenced are secretive. They do not publish the minutes of their meetings nor do they allow outsiders into their meetings. The fact that you know of them does not mean that they are not secretive - you know one of those minor details again.
So if you don't get your news and information from networks, radio, TV, Newspapers, etc. just where is it exactly you get your information these days, the aether? Let me guess, based on your postings I would say your news/information sources are limited to the whacko conspiracy web sites. You don't believe books and others sources because they are all part of the vast conspiracy.
I have never said the wealthy don't have undue influence over government. If fact I have said quite the opposite. They do. But that does not mean there is a single unified cabal pulling all the strings as you have maintained.
09-13-11, 05:52 AM #44
The 70's was another example of the Fed rescuing the economy. The recession of the 70's was caused by severe supply shocks to the economy caused by the Arab Oil Embargo which drove oil prices through the roof and induced fuel rationing. The Fed used monetary policy to avoid a depression.
09-13-11, 05:54 AM #45
09-13-11, 10:28 AM #46
The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is an Act of Congress that was written by Carter Glass that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes (a.k.a. Red Seal Notes) as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.
No wonder some folks need conspiracy theories to absolve the people.
“…a derogatory label repeatedly used by the media to describe (and hence to ridicule) any hypothesis which contradicts the authorized version of events, whether or not the authorized version has been proven to be false, and whether or not the alternative hypothesis is based on verifiable facts”
How convenient. It saves you the chore of independent research and logical reasoning. Apparently two of your weaker attributes I've noticed. Though, I will refrain from calling you lazy, because that WOULD be an ad hominem attack.
09-13-11, 10:40 AM #47
The Story of Our Unenslavement
Sorry, I'm not property, are you?
09-13-11, 03:22 PM #48
You like to speak in broad generalities, the elites. Just exactly what does that mean? There are elites in every society. Elite does not equate to bad either. Societies need elites, they need leaders.
You don't like to information from the intelligentsia, books, news media or any other source that does not comport with your pov because you believe they are all the tools of the evil cabals that hide behind the vails of society but control every aspect of your lives.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you have some proofs then maybe we can have a discussion. But you don't. You don't like science. You don't like or know history. So where is the basis for reasoned discourse?
09-13-11, 03:29 PM #49
As I have stated many times and repeated many times in this thread, there are special interest groups that from time to time collude. It seems you are now admitting that I have been and continue to be correct - about time.
You don't want to be property, fine. I don't think anyone else does either. But just because someone disagrees with you and refuses to be paranoid and suffer the delusions you do, it does not mean that they are property of someone else.
09-13-11, 06:47 PM #50
Tinfoil Nation?Originally Posted by The Esotericist
It's a selectively heroic version of Ventura you painted.
And sure, the same thing goes for Schwarzeneggar. In truth, one of my favorite Arnold films is the comically abysmal Commando, featuring a young Alyssa Milano and a prominent role for Rae Dawn Chong.
And Bill Clinton? Well, sure, insofar as he was apparently always a philanderer. But I never saw him wearing a pink tuxedo with spangly shirt and yellow feather boa.
Jesse's political, and then reality television persona derived from the tough-guy side of that closet homoerotic performance art. And, yes, professional wrestling is, and long—perhaps always—has been, a cultural expression of its closeted homoerotica.
The question of whether Jesse Ventura was a flamboyant celebrity who came to clarity and undertook a genuine effort to do something positive for society, or an aging entertainer cynically looking for ways to keep his market value afloat until he realized he was no longer wanted, is its own. But either way, or to whatever degree of mix or other factors, I think you're painting him in just a bit of an overtly, and perhaps clumsily heroic aspect.
I mean, I'm old enough to have watched him disappear from, then reappear on the wrestling scene. I remember watching Predator the first time, since we're also thinking of Schwarzeneggar. The reality television persona was just an adjustment of the political persona was just a toned-down version of the movie star persona was a clarification of the otherwise really gay professional wrestling persona.
Clarified. You know, like butter. He just scraped away the homoerotica, and worked with the remaining formula.
But this is all nostalgia.
Look, the problem I have with the anti-Fed movement is that it seems more focused on destroying something for a sense of empowerment than achieving a solution. The problem is that the Fed, whatever else we don't like about it, is instrumental in building and, over the long run, protecting the standard of living in the United States. And there is only so far they can tip the scales before people start ripping their throats out. Perhaps we are approaching one of those historical nexes, when the components accidentally fall together to ignite large-scale revolution; there's an awful lot of that going around these days.
But it is not as if we eliminate the Fed and life suddenly gets better. The entire system that has built our potential as a society loses a linchpin. That is a dangerous condition, and none who pursue the destruction of the Fed have ever made it clear to me just how we are going to protect the quality of life in this nation. In the end, that is one of the greatest fears the anti-Fed movement has failed to both address and subsequently promulgate. If there is a plan, I haven't heard it.
I have a great aunt who is currently raising capital in an effort to oppose the Fed. The question of the Fed's role in quality of life is not addressed.
In other words, nobody seems able to give a good explanation of what happens starting the next morning. Once the Fed is successfully slain by the slings and arrows of what seems a tinfoil horde, what next?
Demonstrating an alternative view of the applicable lexicon is the cornerstone of changing the terms of the conversation.
Last edited by Tiassa; 09-14-11 at 01:18 AM. Reason: Correction: Generational thing
09-13-11, 09:16 PM #51
Besides not knowing what they want to replace the Fed with, most of these guys don't even know what the Fed does.
The fact is as previously stated many times in many threads the Fed has been a tremendous stabilizing force in the economy - especially since the adoption of Keynesian economic principals.
But Fed detractors have never let the facts get in their way.
"The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were 6 cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months. This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe. Factors that may have contributed to this moderation include the creation of a central bank and lender of last resort, like the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the establishment of deposit insurance in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, increased regulation of the banking sector, the adoption of interventionist Keynesian economics, and the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid). See Post-World War II economic expansion for further discussion" - Wikipedia
Last edited by joepistole; 09-13-11 at 09:22 PM.
09-13-11, 09:23 PM #52
09-13-11, 09:40 PM #53
09-13-11, 10:25 PM #54The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. . . . I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. – Thomas Jefferson
The process of governments and their economies becoming big, complex, and debt loaded has been going on for centuries. Very seldom has a government lasted more than 200 years or a fiat currency (like the dollar) lasted more than 20 years. This cycle of construction and destruction is unrelated to political affiliation or style of government. Per examples of the past few hundred years, the play unfolding before us now contains approximately six acts.
Act 1) The government with the aid of the banks increases the creation of fiat money (in the form of bank loans) to fuel economic growth. Unfortunately, history has proven that, as the total debt load for an economy increases the ability for the economy to grow diminishes. As a result, despite accelerated bank lending, the economy stagnates.
Act 2) Government deficits accelerate as more corporations/consumers become reliant on tax cuts, bailouts, and social programs. The economy is now addicted to debt and real long term economic growth starts to decline along with tax revenues. Also, new debt is being issued/used for purposes other than long term capital investment which decreases the utility of the new debt to generate long term economic growth. A debt bubble is growing.
Act 3) To cover its deficit spending, the government sells increasing amounts of debt to global creditors stressing their ability to consume the debt at fair market interest rates. Interest rates on the debt may rise. The government often forces it's banks to buy it's debt to relieve the interest rate pressure. Debt laden asset classes (like real estate and equipment) deflate in value as people/companies begin defaulting under oppressive debt loads.
Act 4) The government via it's central bank creates currency out of thin air (money printing) and buys it's own debt (because no one else will at reasonable interest rates). Today, called 'Quantitative Easing'. This devalues the currency in the eyes of global investors and helps keep the debt bubble inflated. The separation of wealth in the country is increasing.
Act 5) As the total debt load becomes ominous, investors around the world start selling the currency and debt instruments for fear of loosing their principle via debt default or restructuring. This accelerates the decline of the value of the currency and inflates prices for imported goods and materials (which further drags down the economy and tax revenues).
Act 6) Acts 1 thru 5 (above) execute in an ever tighter loop resulting in collapse of the value of the currency and hyperinflation. This occurs in a short period of time (weeks - months). History shows that this process can result in debt default/restructuring, mass civil unrest, political upheaval, war, and/or depression. Inflation renders most remaining long term debts valueless. The debt bubble is eliminated and a new monetary/financial system for the economy is born which will (in the very long term) will probably repeat the cycle.
The acts in this play are not smooth and filled with fits and starts as the incumbent power structure employs increasingly creative accounting/financial tactics to buy time. In addition, the incumbent power structure hides the unfolding play from the public by distorting economic/financial/accounting information. In recent world history, only one country partially escaped 'Act 6' consequences of a debt bubble like the US carries today (thanks to the industrial revolution and the vast expansion of its territories via military aggression).
09-14-11, 11:51 AM #55
As a log-cabin conservative, I almost made the decision not to vote in the 2012 Presidential election. However, as it stands today, I'm rooting for Ron Paul. I'm also voting a Republican in for my congressional district. But the only reason is because both of them are more moderate Republicans. I think with the direction this country is going, people and the parties are becoming more extremist in their behavior. It's been like this for 40 something years at least, but over the past 20 years, it's really picked up.
I don't relate to the far right because of their theocratical ideologies, and I don't relate to the far left because I'm fiscally conservative and think that the government should not have its hands in as much as they do today.
And one thing that I find so ironically funny about the extreme right (the Tea-Partiers like Bachmann and Perry), is that they claim to want smaller government and less federal intrusion in their everyday lives - UNLESS you're gay. Then not only will they speak out against you, they'll go so far as to push for a Constitutional Amendment banning your right to marry - 99% of time purely because of their religious beliefs.
So, personally, I'm sick and tired of the whole bunch. No more tea-partiers and no more socialists. We need a MODERATE!
09-18-11, 01:30 AM #56
And since the turn of the century, it has been Republicans who have expanded government despite their rhetoric and Democrats who have shrunk government.
09-18-11, 11:58 PM #57
By common_sense_seeker in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 07-08-10, 01:52 PMReplies: 1
By Thoreau in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 11-01-09, 11:21 PMReplies: 17
By Michael in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 10-31-09, 12:24 PMReplies: 76
By Ganymede in forum World EventsLast Post: 10-11-08, 03:41 AMReplies: 43
By sandy in forum PoliticsLast Post: 02-25-08, 11:49 AMReplies: 46