The Federal Reserve is the most important institution in the country, and it's not even close. Abolishing it would be worlds beyond retarded. The Federal Reserve isn't what you think it is. Pure and simple.
Are you seriously trying to say that American credit unions could ever, and I mean ever, compete with the Fed?
The Fed isn't as closely related to the American debt issue, the Fed is the reason the US is alive through the debt issue.
The Federal Reserve is the most unconstitutional and evil establishment this nation has ever seen. The fact that our own government, CIA, IRS, Congress, and FBI aren't allowed any oversight whatsoever nor regulation is beyond unacceptable. They're a privately owned central bank that is protected from the Freedom of Information Act and is independently run. No one knows what the hell goes on in there. How do you explain the 9 trillion dollars that went missing from there just a few years back and when FBI tried investigating it, weren't allowed any access whatsoever. The constitution was meant for our GOVERNMENT to run our currency, not central banks. That was one of Thomas Jefferson's worst fears. Because of them the U.S. dollar is now only worth 65 cents. The credit union analogy was referring to our capitalist ways. If credit unions were to out-compete the big mainstream banks such as Chase, U.S. Bank, Bank of America, etc. then it would dismantle the Fed because they're in charge of the banks.
Look, you have to understand that there are things that the constitution got wrong. It was a brilliant piece of American history that was fantastic for creating the political backbone of the country. What it did not do was accurately predict the circumstances that made for the creation of the Fed. It was a great political document, but not a Bible. It shouldn't be followed for Economics. Unless we're trying to go back to the 18th century agrarian business.
If you knew what the Fed actually does, it would make sense. It's job isn't to lose 9 trillion dollars and to be a secret little boy's club that no one else knows. It's a lot more than that. They are not in charge of Chase, US Bank, Bank of America, or any of those. It's so much more complicated than that. As I said above, the Fed does not determine the value of the dollar, and inflation isn't the reason that it's been devalued, it's the foreign exchange market. There isn't a demand for dollars because there are better currencies to trade.
The Fed is the reason why there hasn't been a bank panic in nearly 100 years. The Fed is pretty much the reason why we all keep our money in banks in the first place these days. Without the Fed, the Great Recession would have torn the country apart from the top down, and we all probably wouldn't be goofing off on the internet right now. That's, of course, assuming it wouldn't have happened before that.
I will discuss this with you tomorrow when I have the energy and non-sleepiness in me to do so. Sadly for me I have to wake up at 6 for my class tomorrow so I must get some shut eye. I like where this debate is going though. Regardless of what we believe to be true and what not, I hope in the end it won't cause ill thought of one another. I like and welcome any debate. So even though I respectfully disagree with your opinion, I don't think any differently of you. Anyways goodnight, we can continue this tomorrow if you'd like.
Ain't even a thing, brother. I appreciate discussing it too, but I just really am a believer in the central banking system, and it would require rewriting modern macroeconomics to eliminate it. I'm not a fan of trying to rewrite the rules while we're in the midst of a global economic cirisis.
Oswald was shot, jfk body was tampered with, sirhan sirhan has no recolletion of doing it. That's enough for me right there.
I'd say JFK's assassination is the only real "conspiracy theory" that I believe in. I don't think it's a government conspiracy, but rather a plot carried out by some sort of private or criminal entity. Probably the latter.
I don't think that there was a 2nd shooter, rather that Oswald was the fall guy for someone else, which doesn't seem too wacky to me. I'd be curious to find out what modern forensics could do with that investigation.
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
Think that there are two main possibilities.
1. Terrorist attack due to the creation of an aggressive culture that has morphed into religious extremism.
2. The government, in an attempt to create false flag support for a war in the middle east, attacked their own buildings at a billion dollar expense for political, economic or personal reasons. Although this would be successful, the results would include nation-wide debt, an emboldened enemy, and distrust in the American government.
One is a very realistic possibility, and the other isn't. I don't see a way where the CIA or really anyone looks at the cost/benefit analysis of attacking the Pentagon, World Trade Center or the White House and sees it being a good idea.
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
Yeah, my Mom still is totally into that stuff. She finds it really interesting. I see all the science and stuff in there, but I think looking at the big picture makes it really difficult to see as a big idea.
Things like the science behind the framing of the WTC, etc. don't really make much sense to me. I just think that going into the micro-elements of the situation doesn't make it any different from a beneficial stand point. Why do it? Sure there's all this conjecture about money, etc. But the real problem I have is that there isn't a way that I look at this from the mindset of someone planning it and see them thinking it's a good idea. It's fun to think of false flag possibilities, and I believe that certain governments have done that, but I don't think 9/11 is one of them.
The Federal Reserve is the most important institution in the country, and it's not even close. Abolishing it would be worlds beyond retarded. The Federal Reserve isn't what you think it is. Pure and simple.
Are you seriously trying to say that American credit unions could ever, and I mean ever, compete with the Fed?
The Fed isn't as closely related to the American debt issue, the Fed is the reason the US is alive through the debt issue.
The Federal Reserve is the most unconstitutional and evil establishment this nation has ever seen. The fact that our own government, CIA, IRS, Congress, and FBI aren't allowed any oversight whatsoever nor regulation is beyond unacceptable. They're a privately owned central bank that is protected from the Freedom of Information Act and is independently run. No one knows what the hell goes on in there. How do you explain the 9 trillion dollars that went missing from there just a few years back and when FBI tried investigating it, weren't allowed any access whatsoever. The constitution was meant for our GOVERNMENT to run our currency, not central banks. That was one of Thomas Jefferson's worst fears. Because of them the U.S. dollar is now only worth 65 cents. The credit union analogy was referring to our capitalist ways. If credit unions were to out-compete the big mainstream banks such as Chase, U.S. Bank, Bank of America, etc. then it would dismantle the Fed because they're in charge of the banks.
Look, you have to understand that there are things that the constitution got wrong. It was a brilliant piece of American history that was fantastic for creating the political backbone of the country. What it did not do was accurately predict the circumstances that made for the creation of the Fed. It was a great political document, but not a Bible. It shouldn't be followed for Economics. Unless we're trying to go back to the 18th century agrarian business.
If you knew what the Fed actually does, it would make sense. It's job isn't to lose 9 trillion dollars and to be a secret little boy's club that no one else knows. It's a lot more than that. They are not in charge of Chase, US Bank, Bank of America, or any of those. It's so much more complicated than that. As I said above, the Fed does not determine the value of the dollar, and inflation isn't the reason that it's been devalued, it's the foreign exchange market. There isn't a demand for dollars because there are better currencies to trade.
The Fed is the reason why there hasn't been a bank panic in nearly 100 years. The Fed is pretty much the reason why we all keep our money in banks in the first place these days. Without the Fed, the Great Recession would have torn the country apart from the top down, and we all probably wouldn't be goofing off on the internet right now. That's, of course, assuming it wouldn't have happened before that.
I will discuss this with you tomorrow when I have the energy and non-sleepiness in me to do so. Sadly for me I have to wake up at 6 for my class tomorrow so I must get some shut eye. I like where this debate is going though. Regardless of what we believe to be true and what not, I hope in the end it won't cause ill thought of one another. I like and welcome any debate. So even though I respectfully disagree with your opinion, I don't think any differently of you. Anyways goodnight, we can continue this tomorrow if you'd like.
Ain't even a thing, brother. I appreciate discussing it too, but I just really am a believer in the central banking system, and it would require rewriting modern macroeconomics to eliminate it. I'm not a fan of trying to rewrite the rules while we're in the midst of a global economic cirisis.
Well to each their own I always say. I don't really expect anyone to appeal towards my side because it's a minority opinion. But thanks for the discussion. It's kind of rare discussing these types of issues with people who get too emotional about the subject. I try to honor the debate code which is remaining calm.
yep it interest me a lot. the thing that gets me is bush and cheney didn't testify under oath and they did it behind doors. if they didn't have anything to hide, why do that?
yep it interest me a lot. the thing that gets me is bush and cheney didn't testify under oath and they did it behind doors. if they didn't have anything to hide, why do that?
Ironically, the point probably was to avoid overanalysis of their testimony.
One of the main reasons why Bush didn't is that it's a very difficult process to put the president under oath like that. It's rare. The situation probably called for it, but I'm not floored that they didn't.
I just don't see the reason why you'd do it. Really. America is an oil-based economy, but they do just fine for oil, and a war would cause the price to be sky high, and would restrict American imports.
I understand that but why do it behind closed doors? Thinking about that it makes sense why he wouldn't want to be under oath but I would have liked to see how he held up with people watching him. How do you explain 4 of the hijackers being alive and not taking them out of the commision?
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
Conceptually, it makes sense, but within the context of the government, it doesn't. I agree that it'd be great to see, but I think the result would basically be "Look at how frequently he's blinking right now, omg." Putting the president under oath is done very carefully, and since he's the active commander in chief, people still don't want him to go up there and struggle.
If compelling evidence exists that it was a government conspiracy, it won't be found for a long time, if ever. I just don't think it exists.
Comments
[-(
blue turbins
From Those Fishes - I Fingered An Old Bitch (i got Aids on my finger)
Drinking kool aid = Economics degree. Sweet.
I don't think that there was a 2nd shooter, rather that Oswald was the fall guy for someone else, which doesn't seem too wacky to me. I'd be curious to find out what modern forensics could do with that investigation.
1. Terrorist attack due to the creation of an aggressive culture that has morphed into religious extremism.
2. The government, in an attempt to create false flag support for a war in the middle east, attacked their own buildings at a billion dollar expense for political, economic or personal reasons. Although this would be successful, the results would include nation-wide debt, an emboldened enemy, and distrust in the American government.
One is a very realistic possibility, and the other isn't. I don't see a way where the CIA or really anyone looks at the cost/benefit analysis of attacking the Pentagon, World Trade Center or the White House and sees it being a good idea.
Things like the science behind the framing of the WTC, etc. don't really make much sense to me. I just think that going into the micro-elements of the situation doesn't make it any different from a beneficial stand point. Why do it? Sure there's all this conjecture about money, etc. But the real problem I have is that there isn't a way that I look at this from the mindset of someone planning it and see them thinking it's a good idea. It's fun to think of false flag possibilities, and I believe that certain governments have done that, but I don't think 9/11 is one of them.
One of the main reasons why Bush didn't is that it's a very difficult process to put the president under oath like that. It's rare. The situation probably called for it, but I'm not floored that they didn't.
I just don't see the reason why you'd do it. Really. America is an oil-based economy, but they do just fine for oil, and a war would cause the price to be sky high, and would restrict American imports.
If compelling evidence exists that it was a government conspiracy, it won't be found for a long time, if ever. I just don't think it exists.