whatever

[oil lp man]

I can't get excited about Romney or Gingrich or Santorum.
I voted for Ron Paul in the New Hampshire primaries. I don't know if I can drag myself to the polls in November.
Depression is already setting in.
Democrats and Republicans. Same old "big government" useless pieces of sh_t.
Obama will push this country into his socialist utopia quickly.
The others will drag us there in a few decades.
Whatever...
I'm sick of this bs and the American people are selfish a_ _ holes who deserve what they get.
Good luck and goodnight.

[k-fridge]

I understand and agree.

We gotta get Obama out of there though.

[cehs]

I simply cannot tolerate 4 more years of Obama...
.

[freemind]

I understand and agree.

We gotta get Obama out of there though.

You suppose, that that mentality is exactly how we got here in the first place?

If Romeny is the republican nominee, how is he different than Obummer? Romney pioneered national health care. Remember?

Romney is just like all the politicians. He has the "look" and talks alot of BS. What does his RECORD show? Corruption!

If you want to save this country, we MUST return to constitutional principles. Only ONE republican canidate will. He isn't winning, by the way......

We DO deserve what we get.

[corny]

Yes, I dont believe getting romney or anyone else for that matter is going to make much of a difference.

Of course I work for a weekly paycheck...... so whatever the politicians do doesnt affect me depending on which party is in power. Both parties are going to affect me in a negative way because both are looking at my paycheck to fund their programs.

Working man...beating yourself into the ground to eke out a living in this evil crazy world..... you might as well just flip a coin.

Ron Paul couldnt get jack squat done as president because he would still have a congress that is composed of dems and republicans who serve the same masters.....and it aint the working man..... though it really should be.

[acmanko]

The Constitution has an amendment establishing health care and taxes.

Why return to constitutional principles when you find fault with the constitution?

[local553]

Both parties suck.This same crap will go on long after were gone.Worried about Catholics paying for birth control.Really who gives a rats a##,different world these days.Would not want to live any place else. USA gotta love it.

[ga-hvac-tech]

You suppose, that that mentality is exactly how we got here in the first place?

If Romeny is the republican nominee, how is he different than Obummer? Romney pioneered national health care. Remember?

Romney is just like all the politicians. He has the "look" and talks alot of BS. What does his RECORD show? Corruption!

If you want to save this country, we MUST return to constitutional principles. Only ONE republican canidate will. He isn't winning, by the way......

We DO deserve what we get.

While it is possible we DID get where we are by not having an ideal candidate to vote for... I am CERTAIN Romney will not be as bad a BHO.

One thing to think about: Romney is a business-man... BHO is somewhere between a 'one-world govt'; Marxist; Socialist; who supports Muslims at the expense of Americans (read the news)... Oh yeah; and BHO has NO experience in his entire life working in the private sector.

That last sentence tells me most of what I need to know.

While I think outside the box also... I am NOT going to give away the chicken-coup to the foxes control... just because I do not get the breed and color of hound-dog I dreamed about when I was a kid.

[acmanko]

NO IT DOES NOT... that is a wrong-minded interpretation... as well as your usual spin.

I gave this challenge to non-mojo the other day... I will extend it to you Ace: SHOW me a solution that is proven to work with documentable history... which does not favor one person against another... and will work over the long run.

If you do not have a solution... then quit picking at my solution.

The Constitution works... if folks will quit trying to play it for their own gain at other's expense.

The National Health Care Act was added to the Medicare Medicaide Act of 1965 which was added to the Social Security Act.

It is law

It is in the Constitution

[freemind]

The Constitution has an amendment establishing health care and taxes.

Why return to constitutional principles when you find fault with the constitution?

Please point out WHICH amendment makes the national health care law LEGAL.

In order to AMEND the constitution (read, make an amendement to the constitution) it MUST be ratified by the states. I don't seem to remember ANY ratifaction to the constitution.

Creating a LAW does not equate to, that law became a AMENDMENT to the constitution.

[freemind]

The National Health Care Act was added to the Medicare Medicaide Act of 1965 which was added to the Social Security Act.

It is law

It is in the Constitution

Wrong again.

[freemind]

While it is possible we DID get where we are by not having an ideal candidate to vote for... I am CERTAIN Romney will not be as bad a BHO.

One thing to think about: Romney is a business-man... BHO is somewhere between a 'one-world govt'; Marxist; Socialist; who supports Muslims at the expense of Americans (read the news)... Oh yeah; and BHO has NO experience in his entire life working in the private sector.

That last sentence tells me most of what I need to know.

While I think outside the box also... I am NOT going to give away the chicken-coup to the foxes control... just because I do not get the breed and color of hound-dog I dreamed about when I was a kid.

You already DID.

Even if you don't realize it, you as a citizen no longer have any control how this country is run. Even in th LAST POTUS election, voter faud was rampent. Nothing has been done about it.

You want to make a BET about who will be the next POTUS? :whistle:

[acmanko]

Please point out WHICH amendment makes the national health care law LEGAL.

In order to AMEND the constitution (read, make an amendement to the constitution) it MUST be ratified by the states. I don't seem to remember ANY ratifaction to the constitution.

Creating a LAW does not equate to, that law became a AMENDMENT to the constitution.

Here. It is called and Act of Congress. Congress gets it's power from the Constitution

An Act adopted by simple majorities in both houses of Congress is promulgated, or given the force of law, in one of the following ways:
1.Signature by the President of the United States,
2.Inaction by the President after ten days from reception (excluding Sundays) while the Congress is in session, or
3.Reconsideration by the Congress after a presidential veto during its session. (A bill must receive a 2/3 majority vote in both houses to override a president's veto).

The President promulgates Acts of Congress made by the first two methods. If an Act is made by the third method, the presiding officer of the house that last reconsidered the act promulgates it.[3]

Under the United States Constitution, if the President does not return a bill or resolution to Congress with objections before the time limit expires, then the bill automatically becomes an Act; however, if the Congress is adjourned at the end of this period, then the bill dies and cannot be reconsidered (see pocket veto). In addition, if the President rejects a bill or resolution while the Congress is in session, a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Congress is needed for reconsideration to be successful.


The last paragraph shows in the Constitution how an Act of Congress becomes law

[Space Racer]

Don't forget the 63 House seats, 6 Senate seats, and net 6 governorships that went to Republicans in 2010. Many of these went to freshmen, who are sticking to their guns and their promises, and who will garner more success on our behalf with a conservative president and with the replacement of a few more seats in the Senate.

Everybody makes a big fuss about the presidency, but Congress is where the action is. As we replace Obama, let's replace some of the corrupt idiots in Congress and create a solid block of economic conservatives.

Tea Party Quiz:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/page?id=11701935
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/tea-party-evolution-palin-obama-america-history-politics-tax-11705203
Election Results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_elections,_2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_gubernatorial_elections,_2010

[acmanko]

Don't forget the 63 House seats, 6 Senate seats, and net 6 governorships that went to Republicans in 2010. Many of these went to freshmen, who are sticking to their guns and their promises, and who will garner more success on our behalf with a conservative president and with the replacement of a few more seats in the Senate.

Everybody makes a big fuss about the presidency, but Congress is where the action is. As we replace Obama, let's replace some of the corrupt idiots in Congress and create a solid block of economic conservatives.

Tea Party Quiz:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/page?id=11701935
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/tea-party-evolution-palin-obama-america-history-politics-tax-11705203
Election Results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_elections,_2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_gubernatorial_elections,_2010

All it takes is a majority for this to happen, conservative are being bred into oblivion. The concept of freedom is liberal, in the meanwhile Liberals are in control, so live with it.

[Space Racer]

All it takes is a majority for this to happen, conservative are being bred into oblivion. The concept of freedom is liberal, in the meanwhile Liberals are in control, so live with it.

No.

[acmanko]

No.

You don't have a choice , either live with it or be miserable.

[Space Racer]

You don't have a choice , either live with it or be miserable.

Or change it.

[acmanko]

Or change it.

You have to be with the majority to change it, not gonna happen in your lifetime

[k-fridge]

You suppose, that that mentality is exactly how we got here in the first place?

Generally speaking...re-electing scumbag members of congress has caused far more damage than our presidents have. Congress passes the legislation and the president can only sign it of veto it.

Obama has been particularly damaging because A-He's so radical, and B-he had an equally radical congress the first two years. They churned out terrible legislation and he rubber stamped it.

Now his power is limited because the GOP has control of the house. But that isn't good enough, we need to overturn some of the bad law they passed. And that means we need a Republican president and Republican senate. The latter does not have a high probability of happening this time, but there is a chance that enough Dems will vote with the GOP repeal the bad law.


If Romeny is the republican nominee, how is he different than Obummer? Romney pioneered national health care. Remember?

Romney is just like all the politicians. He has the "look" and talks alot of BS. What does his RECORD show? Corruption!

If you want to save this country, we MUST return to constitutional principles. Only ONE republican canidate will. He isn't winning, by the way......

We DO deserve what we get.I am not a Romney fan, I want someone much more conservative. But even so, he is greatly preferable to Obama.

I also think Romneycare was a huge mistake. But at least it was constitutional on a state level. Obamacare was a massive expansion of the federal government that the founders clearly would have been opposed to. So in that respect, the two are different. Romney has pledged to sign a repeal of Obamacare; I just hope he would keep his word.

Like you, I wish we had a real alternative. But we don't. We will likely have the choice of sucks, and sucks worse. As bad as both of us hate it, it is better to choose the lessor of evils.

You can make a case that you will send them a grand message by not voting. Sorry, but they don't care. Your noble stand will only help to re-elect Obama to destroy America for four more years.

[mcjo tech]

Generally speaking...re-electing scumbag members of congress has caused far more damage than our presidents have. Congress passes the legislation and the president can only sign it of veto it.

Obama has been particularly damaging because A-He's so radical, and B-he had an equally radical congress the first two years. They churned out terrible legislation and he rubber stamped it.

Now his power is limited because the GOP has control of the house. But that isn't good enough, we need to overturn some of the bad law they passed. And that means we need a Republican president and Republican senate. The latter does not have a high probability of happening this time, but there is a chance that enough Dems will vote with the GOP repeal the bad law.

I am not a Romney fan, I want someone much more conservative. But even so, he is greatly preferable to Obama.

I also think Romneycare was a huge mistake. But at least it was constitutional on a state level. Obamacare was a massive expansion of the federal government that the founders clearly would have been opposed to. So in that respect, the two are different. Romney has pledged to sign a repeal of Obamacare; I just hope he would keep his word.

Like you, I wish we had a real alternative. But we don't. We will likely have the choice of sucks, and sucks worse. As bad as both of us hate it, it is better to choose the lessor of evils.

You can make a case that you will send them a grand message by not voting. Sorry, but they don't care. Your noble stand will only help to re-elect Obama to destroy America for four more years.

Romney will never get a chance to sign a repeal of Obama Care. He is not going to be elected.

And even it he did get elected and it was signed it would never get enough votes to be repealed.

JMO but if you think Obama Care is ever going to be repealed then you are just fooling yourself.

Its not going to ever happen.

What you call the other bad laws are not going away either.

Regardless of who is the president.

[freemind]

Here. It is called and Act of Congress. Congress gets it's power from the Constitution

An Act adopted by simple majorities in both houses of Congress is promulgated, or given the force of law, in one of the following ways:
1.Signature by the President of the United States,
2.Inaction by the President after ten days from reception (excluding Sundays) while the Congress is in session, or
3.Reconsideration by the Congress after a presidential veto during its session. (A bill must receive a 2/3 majority vote in both houses to override a president's veto).

The President promulgates Acts of Congress made by the first two methods. If an Act is made by the third method, the presiding officer of the house that last reconsidered the act promulgates it.[3]

Under the United States Constitution, if the President does not return a bill or resolution to Congress with objections before the time limit expires, then the bill automatically becomes an Act; however, if the Congress is adjourned at the end of this period, then the bill dies and cannot be reconsidered (see pocket veto). In addition, if the President rejects a bill or resolution while the Congress is in session, a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Congress is needed for reconsideration to be successful.


The last paragraph shows in the Constitution how an Act of Congress becomes law

What you have shown, is how LAW is made. I knew that already. YOU claimed that tax AND healthcare are part of the constitution. It does not matter how you want to toss a liberal SPIN on it. There is NO specific AMENDMENT to the constitution that makes national healthcare set in stone. IF what you claimed were true, lawsuits could NOT be brought before the SCOTUS. These are attempts by the STATES to strike down UNCONSTITUTIONAL law. Meaning there is NO constitutional basis for these desparaging laws.

In order for something to be PART of the constitution, there is a SPECIFIC amendment process that MUST be followed.

[freemind]

Romney will never get a chance to sign a repeal of Obama Care. He is not going to be elected.

And even it he did get elected and it was signed it would never get enough votes to be repealed.

JMO but if you think Obama Care is ever going to be repealed then you are just fooling yourself.

Its not going to ever happen.

What you call the other bad laws are not going away either.

Regardless of who is the president.

I agree!

To the point, by selecting the "lesser" evil, we are STILL choosing evil. We HAD a REAL choice to step away from past mistakes. But Paul doesn't fit the "mold" the masses expect to see. Returning to the constitution, in reality, seems radical to most people. Even IF Paul was elected, and "could get nothing done", as many crow, it is BETTER than "doing something" that keeps pushing us farther to the abyss.

Romney, Gingrich, Santorum... NONE of them are gonna make anything any better. NONE of the have a CLUE how to fix this out of control spending. None of them have an inkling how to fix ANYTHING.

The talking media heads can only talk crap about Paul. That SHOULD tell you something. The media has been Obummer's cheerleader to this point, RIGHT?

[k-fridge]

Romney will never get a chance to sign a repeal of Obama Care. He is not going to be elected.

And even it he did get elected and it was signed it would never get enough votes to be repealed.

JMO but if you think Obama Care is ever going to be repealed then you are just fooling yourself.

Its not going to ever happen.

What you call the other bad laws are not going away either.

Regardless of who is the president.

There are a lot of dynamics I suspect you aren't factoring in. Turnout will be the determining factor this time, as it was last time. And Obama won't get near the numbers he had last time. This doesn't show up in polls, so get ready for a surprise.

[k-fridge]

I agree!

To the point, by selecting the "lesser" evil, we are STILL choosing evil. We HAD a REAL choice to step away from past mistakes. But Paul doesn't fit the "mold" the masses expect to see. Returning to the constitution, in reality, seems radical to most people. Even IF Paul was elected, and "could get nothing done", as many crow, it is BETTER than "doing something" that keeps pushing us farther to the abyss.

Romney, Gingrich, Santorum... NONE of them are gonna make anything any better. NONE of the have a CLUE how to fix this out of control spending. None of them have an inkling how to fix ANYTHING.

The talking media heads can only talk crap about Paul. That SHOULD tell you something. The media has been Obummer's cheerleader to this point, RIGHT?

OK, lessor of evil is still evil. I will agree with that.

But the reality is, we will have a choice between evil and lessor of evil. Those will be the ONLY viable choices, regardless of how much you want Ron Paul or Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

Which means...the next president will be either Obama, or the GOP nominee. Which do you want?

Emotional voting is what elected Obama last time. Do you want that to happen again, or would you rather we apply some reason and logic this time?

[mcjo tech]

There are a lot of dynamics I suspect you aren't factoring in. Turnout will be the determining factor this time, as it was last time. And Obama won't get near the numbers he had last time. This doesn't show up in polls, so get ready for a surprise.

I suspect that once he begins a full campaign and rallies the Dem base you may be the one who is surprised.

Really can't see Smitten by Mitten winning anything.

And even if Romney is elected its not going to change anything dramatically.

But we will see.

[mcjo tech]

There are a lot of dynamics I suspect you aren't factoring in. Turnout will be the determining factor this time, as it was last time. And Obama won't get near the numbers he had last time. This doesn't show up in polls, so get ready for a surprise.


Deleted

[ga-hvac-tech]

The National Health Care Act was added to the Medicare Medicaide Act of 1965 which was added to the Social Security Act.

It is law

It is in the Constitution

Show me...

First... YOU said Amendments to the Constitution... and there is NO Amendment that specifically says the Federal Govt has the responsibility to provide health care for everyone.

Again: Show me...

BTW: I called you out with the previous post on purpose... lets see if you can handle it... :grin2:

[ga-hvac-tech]

You already DID.

Even if you don't realize it, you as a citizen no longer have any control how this country is run. Even in th LAST POTUS election, voter faud was rampent. Nothing has been done about it.

You want to make a BET about who will be the next POTUS? :whistle:

What we were discussing was the candidates on the GOP side... and I am saying ANY selection of the running GOP candidates is a HUGE amount better than BHO.

The current corruption not-with-standing... we STILL need to practice common sense and put in our :.02: every election.

I am a firm believer in the old saying: If you do not vote to the best of your abilities... you have no right to gripe.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Here. It is called and Act of Congress. Congress gets it's power from the Constitution

An Act adopted by simple majorities in both houses of Congress is promulgated, or given the force of law, in one of the following ways:
1.Signature by the President of the United States,
2.Inaction by the President after ten days from reception (excluding Sundays) while the Congress is in session, or
3.Reconsideration by the Congress after a presidential veto during its session. (A bill must receive a 2/3 majority vote in both houses to override a president's veto).

The President promulgates Acts of Congress made by the first two methods. If an Act is made by the third method, the presiding officer of the house that last reconsidered the act promulgates it.[3]

Under the United States Constitution, if the President does not return a bill or resolution to Congress with objections before the time limit expires, then the bill automatically becomes an Act; however, if the Congress is adjourned at the end of this period, then the bill dies and cannot be reconsidered (see pocket veto). In addition, if the President rejects a bill or resolution while the Congress is in session, a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Congress is needed for reconsideration to be successful.


The last paragraph shows in the Constitution how an Act of Congress becomes law

You are incorrect Ace...

An amendment is the ONLY way the Constitution can be changed... and an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention with 2/3 states ratifying it. Otherwise, it is NOT Constitutional law.

You liberals really need to study things... you do not even know how the system works...

The Declaration of Independence states that each citizen's rights STOP when they infringe on any other citizen's. I see lots of polecats and citizens on both sides of the isle that totally ignore that foundational part of the law.

In reality; it is kinda similar to 'do unto others as you want them to do to you'... which came from Jesus saying 'Love your neighbor as yourself' (not more than or less than).

[ga-hvac-tech]

All it takes is a majority for this to happen, conservative are being bred into oblivion. The concept of freedom is liberal, in the meanwhile Liberals are in control, so live with it.

First... your deff of a liberal is incorrect.

Second... H*LL NO I will NOT live with it.

YOU Sir, can live with the Conservative revolution that is about to clean house... :grin2:

[freemind]

OK, lessor of evil is still evil. I will agree with that.

But the reality is, we will have a choice between evil and lessor of evil. Those will be the ONLY viable choices, regardless of how much you want Ron Paul or Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

Which means...the next president will be either Obama, or the GOP nominee. Which do you want?

Emotional voting is what elected Obama last time. Do you want that to happen again, or would you rather we apply some reason and logic this time?

There is an easy question!
If I can't have Ron Paul, then I will vote for Obummer! Hows that tickle your fancy? I am not joking either. The masses of "conservatives" by and large are really progressives. Just a right wing of the socialist machine.

So, if you want a socialist running this country, lets have at it. Lets not pick the socialist-lite.

Is a woman ever a "little bit" pregnant? :whistle:

[k-fridge]

There is an easy question!
If I can't have Ron Paul, then I will vote for Obummer! Hows that tickle your fancy? I am not joking either. The masses of "conservatives" by and large are really progressives. Just a right wing of the socialist machine.

So, if you want a socialist running this country, lets have at it. Lets not pick the socialist-lite.

Is a woman ever a "little bit" pregnant? :whistle:

From Ron Paul to Obama? Now that's going from one extreme to another.

[acmanko]

Show me...

First... YOU said Amendments to the Constitution... and there is NO Amendment that specifically says the Federal Govt has the responsibility to provide health care for everyone.

Again: Show me...

BTW: I called you out with the previous post on purpose... lets see if you can handle it... :grin2:

I mistook amendments for Acts of Congress. Congress gets it's authority to Ppass laws from the Constitution. Put it together anyway you want. But Social Security, Medicar, Medicaide and the National Health care Act are the Law of the Land. So suck it up and quit crying about wether or not they are Amendments

[glennac]

Ace if Congress passes a law and the President signs it that fact does don't make it a legal by our Constitution.

The Federal Courts have been deciding over the years if the laws passed by Congress, actions and regulations by the Executive Branch and the States are Constitutional or not and this does not matter if they were enacted "legally" or not.

Now I and others have strongly objected to some of their liberal activist interpretations but this is how the system works like it or not. Thank you, thank you very much

[freemind]

From Ron Paul to Obama? Now that's going from one extreme to another.

Sure is. If we as a people are really not gonna try to fix and save the country, we might as well just finish it off now, right? Why keep screwing around?

[k-fridge]

Sure is. If we as a people are really not gonna try to fix and save the country, we might as well just finish it off now, right? Why keep screwing around?
Well, I'm not one to give up when the going gets tough.

[glennac]

There is an easy question!
If I can't have Ron Paul, then I will vote for Obummer! Hows that tickle your fancy? I am not joking either. The masses of "conservatives" by and large are really progressives. Just a right wing of the socialist machine.

So, if you want a socialist running this country, lets have at it. Lets not pick the socialist-lite.

Is a woman ever a "little bit" pregnant? :whistle:

Hey freemind who in their right mind would ever if given only two choices would prefer to have his hand burned off with a cutting torch over say have a minor cigarette burn. That is the way I see Obama verses any other candidate out there.:.02: Thank you very much

[freemind]

Well, I'm not one to give up when the going gets tough.

Sure you are. Remember? You said you would take whoever the R's ponied up as a canidate.

[freemind]

Hey freemind who in their right mind would ever if given only two choices would prefer to have his hand burned off with a cutting torch over say have a minor cigarette burn. That is the way I see Obama verses any other candidate out there.:.02: Thank you very much

Ah, I see. But both DO want to burn you with the torch. One's plan is in the open, the other is just lieing about it.

[coolwhip]

You already DID.

Even if you don't realize it, you as a citizen no longer have any control how this country is run. Even in th LAST POTUS election, voter faud was rampent. Nothing has been done about it.

You want to make a BET about who will be the next POTUS? :whistle:

We have not had control since 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve Act....this took the power from the people and gave it to the globalist bankers.

Later came the coup de grace in 1947 with the National Security Act and the creation of the CIA. The perfect organization to carry out the subversive tactics used by our shadow government.

Looky here....... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d6a_1329130386

I do not trust our 2 party system or the puppets they place in office. You still have the same lobbyists at work...all they do is cross the street.

[acmanko]

The Bankers, just a different group, had control prior to 1913. The only difference, prior to 1913 a run on your bank would have cost you dearly.

[coolwhip]

The Bankers, just a different group, had control prior to 1913. The only difference, prior to 1913 a run on your bank would have cost you dearly.

They did for brief periods....Wilson made it permanent and unwittingly (so he said) signed the American people into slavery.

Lincoln considered the banks a greater enemy than the Southern Army and even printed his own money.

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, (and) more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe...corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."

Prophetic?...I would say so.

[acmanko]

I would n't. As long as their is money and some have more than others, the unscrupulous, whether bankers, thieves or shysters will try their best to take it away from those that have it.

[coolwhip]

I would n't. As long as their is money and some have more than others, the unscrupulous, whether bankers, thieves or shysters will try their best to take it away from those that have it.

Our founding fathers knew this and warned of this happening. They even created the frame work as to try and not let it happen here...but over time it has.

Its sad....the really sad part is that the people sit idle as they are slowly stripped of liberties and freedom like a stream eroding the earth under it until it turns into a gorge impossible to cross.

[acmanko]

So what do you propose as a viable replacement for the Banking system we have today ?

[coolwhip]

So what do you propose as a viable replacement for the Banking system we have today ?

The members of the 63rd Congress had no knowledge of a central bank or of its monopolistic operations. Many of those who voted for the bill were duped; others were bribed; others were intimidated. The preface to the Federal Reserve Act reads "An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial papers, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes." The unspecified "other purposes" were to give international conspirators a monopoly of all the money and credit of the people of the United States; to finance World War I through this new central bank, to place American workers at the mercy of the Federal Reserve system’s collection agency, the Internal Revenue Service, and to allow the monopolists to seize the assets of their competitors and put them out of business.

We can learn a lot from the past when we start fresh again with proper oversite by the people.

[acmanko]

The members of the 63rd Congress had no knowledge of a central bank or of its monopolistic operations. Many of those who voted for the bill were duped; others were bribed; others were intimidated. The preface to the Federal Reserve Act reads "An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial papers, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes." The unspecified "other purposes" were to give international conspirators a monopoly of all the money and credit of the people of the United States; to finance World War I through this new central bank, to place American workers at the mercy of the Federal Reserve system’s collection agency, the Internal Revenue Service, and to allow the monopolists to seize the assets of their competitors and put them out of business.

We can learn a lot from the past when we start fresh again with proper oversite by the people.

But what is your idea of a viable replacement?

[coolwhip]

But what is your idea of a viable replacement?

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.

Don't allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies.

Eliminate the Federal Reserve banking system that all banks these days are members of. BTW, the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express.

Lock up the Rothschilds of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Israel Moses Seif of Italy, Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany, and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Eliminate the Central Bank.

When this is done, we will have a viable replacement!

[acmanko]

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.

Don't allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies.

Eliminate the Federal Reserve banking system that all banks these days are members of.

Lock up the Rothschilds of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Israel Moses Seif of Italy, Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany, and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Eliminate the Central Bank.

When this is done, we will have a viable replacement!


Does this mean you are going to deposit your money in my Bank. I'm currently paying 6.5% for CD's of $10,000.00 or more. $50,000.00 will get you a whopping 9.2% paid quarterly.

[coolwhip]

Does this mean you are going to deposit your money in my Bank. I'm currently paying 6.5% for CD's of $10,000.00 or more. $50,000.00 will get you a whopping 9.2% paid quarterly.

Why no....no it doesnt.

[acmanko]

Why no....no it doesnt.

I suppose you have some long drawn out explanation of why not. After all, without the Federal Reserve system, you'd have to pick a bank run by some scoundrel, at least you have an idea of who I am.

[Space Racer]

The two biggest problems with modern banking are:
1. Usury (charging interest).
2. The Required Reserve Ratio (currently 10%).

We're not about to eliminate usury any time soon. Banks are here to stay, and they will continue to charge interest. So instead of replacing the banks, let's increase the required reserve to 20%. This would reduce the amount that banks are allowed to loan above the amount on hand in deposits, which would in turn reduce the size of the swings from boom to bust after credit expansions.

[coolwhip]

I suppose you have some long drawn out explanation of why not. After all, without the Federal Reserve system, you'd have to pick a bank run by some scoundrel, at least you have an idea of who I am.

Who is there that keeps pulling the string on your back?

[freemind]

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.

Don't allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies.

Eliminate the Federal Reserve banking system that all banks these days are members of. BTW, the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express.

Lock up the Rothschilds of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Israel Moses Seif of Italy, Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany, and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Eliminate the Central Bank.

When this is done, we will have a viable replacement!

Very good coolwhip! I see you have ACTUALLY read the constitution. That is more than most ever have. I see too, that you are an informed citizen.

GOOD! At least someone "gets" it. :cheers:

[freemind]

The two biggest problems with modern banking are:
1. Usury (charging interest).
2. The Required Reserve Ratio (currently 10%).

We're not about to eliminate usury any time soon. Banks are here to stay, and they will continue to charge interest. So instead of replacing the banks, let's increase the required reserve to 20%. This would reduce the amount that banks are allowed to loan above the amount on hand in deposits, which would in turn reduce the size of the swings from boom to bust after credit expansions.

I don't think he was suggesting eliminating BANKS. The federal reserve, is a different entity.

[acmanko]

I don't think he was suggesting eliminating BANKS. The federal reserve, is a different entity.

I suggest you google the Panic of 1907 to see why the Federal Reserve was created

[acmanko]

It's odd that I can find this where Congress gives the Fed it's existance.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 - A Legislative History


Part of LLSDC's Legislative Source Book and its
Legislative Histories of Selected U.S. Laws on the Internet


Ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251-275, Pub. L. No. 63-43, December 23, 1913
Guide to Legislative History of the Original Federal Reserve Act


Chronology Before 63rd Congress (1907-1913)


July 10, 1832 - President Andrew Jackson vetoes renewal of Second Bank of the United States
Oct. 1907 - Panic of 1907 (Wikipedia entry)
May 08, 1908 - Aldrich-Vreeland Act enacted; establishes National Monetary Commission
1909 - 1911 - National Monetary Commission publishes a series of 21 reports on banking
Jan. 08, 1912 - Final report of National Monetary Commission with recommendations

& proposed draft bill, known as the Aldrich Plan, after its Chairman, Nelson Aldrich.
Jan. 11, 1912 - Aldrich bill introduced as S. 4431 by Sen. Burton, R-OH (no further action)
1912 - 1913 - House Subcommittee hearings held May thru February,

chaired by Rep. Arsene Pujo, D-LA, on the "Money Trust Investgation"
Aug. 1912 - Democratic party approves platform opposing the "Aldrich bill for the establishment

of a central bank," but supports banking law reform
Nov. 1912 - Democratic Party sweeps the U.S. House, Senate, and White House,

electing Woodrow Wilson as President
Jan - Feb 1913 - Hearings before a subcommittee of the House Banking and Currency

Committee, "Banking and Currency Reform"

Chronology in the 63rd Congress, 1st Session (1913)
Apr. 07, 1913 - Aldrich bill introduced as S. 7 by Sen. Lodge, R-MA (no further action)
Jun. 23, 1913 - Pres. Wilson addressed joint session of Congress on banking and currency reform.
Jun. 25, 1913 - H.R. 6454 & S. 2639 introduced by Rep. Carter Glass & Sen. Robert L. Owen

- 1st official introduction of President Wilson's proposed Federal Reserve Act
Aug. 29, 1913 - H.R. 7837 introduced by Rep. Carter Glass, D-VA, chair of the House

Committee on Banking and Currency
Sep. 10, 1913 - H.R. 7837 reported, H. Rpt. 63-69, pp. 1-74 (Majority views - Rep. Glass)
Sep. 10, 1913 - H.R. 7837 as reported, H. Rpt. 63-69, pp. 111-132 (Appendices C & D - reserves)
Sep. 10, 1913 - H.R. 7837 reported H. Rpt. 63-69, pp. 133-166 (Minority views & Rep. Lindberg's)
Sep. 10 - 18, 1913 - H.R. 7837 considered on the House floor
Sep. 18, 1913 - H.R. 7837 passed by House - 287 yeas, 85 nays, 5 present, 55 not voting

with 26 announced pairs - v. 50 Cong. Rec. pp. 5127-5135
Sep. 2 - Oct. 27, 1913 - Hearings by the Senate Banking and Currency Committee chaired by

Sen. Robert L. Owen, D-OK. (Vol. II, Vol. III - Frank Vanderlip testimony)
Nov. 06, 1913 - Vanderlip persuades Senate Banking Cmte to adopt some of his plan - NYT
Nov. 20, 1913 - Senate Banking Committee deadlock, 6 to 6 (v. 50 CR 5950)
Nov. 22, 1913 - H.R. 7837 reported in disagreement. See (S. Rpt. 63-133, pp. 1-28 ) by

Senate Banking and Currency Committee with views of Owen
Nov. 22, 1913 - Text of H.R. 7837 as proposed by Owen S. Rpt. 63-133 pp. 32-66 - Appendix
Nov. 22, 1913 - H.R. 7837 as proposed by Sen. Hitchcock S. Rpt. 63-133 Pt. 2, pp. 1-24

- views of Sen. Gilbert Hitchcock, D-NE, and text of bill as proposed (Vanderlip plan)
Nov. 24, 1913 - S. Doc. 63-242 - Comparative Print of H.R. 7837 as passed by House;

with Owen & Hitchcock amendments

Chronology in 63rd Congress, 2d Session (1913-1914)
Dec. 1 - 18, 1913 - H.R. 7837 (Owen substitute amdt) considered on Senate floor
Dec. 18, 1913 - Senate passed H.R. 7837 (v. 51 Cong. Rec. 1230) 54 yeas to 34 nays

& 7 not voting. Bill includes Owen amendment as amended.
.

BTW the Fed does not print or coin money, The US Teasury does.

[coolwhip]

I suggest you google the Panic of 1907 to see why the Federal Reserve was created

You are the kind of person that is dangerous with a little bit of information. You need to read more about the Panic of 1907 and not from Wikipedia.

I can attempt to explain much to you in this matter, but you would just say something dumb again.

And then I would have to explain even more to you, at which time you would again say something dumb.

Its a cycle of ignorant torment in which I want no part of.

You sir are unaware of the facts and really should consider reading books more or investing at the very least in a pair of reading glasses.

[acmanko]

You are the kind of person that is dangerous with a little bit of information. You need to read more about the Panic of 1907 and not from Wikipedia.

I can attempt to explain much to you in this matter, but you would just say something dumb again.

And then I would have to explain even more to you, at which time you would again say something dumb.

Its a cycle of ignorant torment in which I want no part of.

You sir are unaware of the facts and really should consider reading books more or investing at the very least in a pair of reading glasses.

Sir, I've read all about it.

You are just stuck on some wild idea that something better exists.

I find it humorous that you and others decide to attack a Government Institution that is almost 100 years old, that has worked for decades untill a GOP Preident bankrupts the country and the Dems have to take measures to straighten out the mess.

Our History is filled with GOP failures that result in Dems sweeping both Houses of Congress and the Presidency and passing laws to remedy the situation at hand.

It will happen again, you can Bank on it.

[BACnet]

Our History is filled with GOP failures that result in Dems sweeping both Houses of Congress and the Presidency and passing laws to remedy the situation at hand.

It will happen again, you can Bank on it.

If a broad brush is what is needed here then it's important to point out that both parties have been swept in/out numerous times in the past.

Personally, I think that people give too much credit to the President when things go really well of really poorly. I still consider the current economic mess to be 80-90% Nancy Pelosi's fault...

[acmanko]

If a broad brush is what is needed here then it's important to point out that both parties have been swept in/out numerous times in the past.

Personally, I think that people give too much credit to the President when things go really well of really poorly. I still consider the current economic mess to be 80-90% Nancy Pelosi's fault...

Pelosi did not decide that Saddam needed removed from power to the tune of 400 to 500 billion a year. She did lead a few instances where the Defense budget was up for cuts, but the scared , unsafe conservatives started saying the Dems where against providing the soldiers with all they need,.

And yes, after the GOP screws up and the Dems take over, they pass a lot of Socialistic laws and then the GOP comes back in Power, just to screw up again. The cycle is evidently clear

[Space Racer]

I don't think he was suggesting eliminating BANKS. The federal reserve, is a different entity.

I was talking about the modern banking system, which includes the federal reserve, which is basically a conglomerate of banks, and which acts like the nerve center of the system. While it's true that many of our problems start with the federal reserve, it's not the federal reserve itself that's "evil." It's the policies of our modern banking system and the looney spending habits of our lawmakers.

If you throw out the federal reserve, you throw out the whole system.

You can't just chuck it. You have to whittle it down first, and separate it into manageable pieces; kind of like doctors separating conjoined twins.

The reserve requirement is a good place to start whittling.

[Space Racer]

On the other hand, if you really want to toss the whole thing, you have to come to grips with the fact that usury is the heart of the problem. Western banking depends on charging interest. If you want to stop charging interest, you have to come up with another way to make a profit when you loan money, like taking part ownership of the property or business for which the money is loaned, for example. (In other words, you would own stock.)

You could charge usage fees and insurance costs for properties that don't generate income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

[coolwhip]

Sir, I've read all about it.

You are just stuck on some wild idea that something better exists.

I find it humorous that you and others decide to attack a Government Institution that is almost 100 years old, that has worked for decades untill a GOP Preident bankrupts the country and the Dems have to take measures to straighten out the mess.

Our History is filled with GOP failures that result in Dems sweeping both Houses of Congress and the Presidency and passing laws to remedy the situation at hand.

It will happen again, you can Bank on it.

:Faint: This statement is a perfect example of what is wrong with America...it is full of people that actually think like this....if you consider it thinking.

[acmanko]

:Faint: This statement is a perfect example of what is wrong with America...it is full of people that actually think like this....if you consider it thinking.

What's wrong with America is crybabies who want to change things when they lose, that's what's wrong.

[WebCTRL]

What's wrong with America is crybabies who want to change things when they lose, that's what's wrong.

So you like things as-is? Just a yes or no will suffice.

[acmanko]

So you like things as-is? Just a yes or no will suffice.

no

[acmanko]

and you don't hear me crying about it either.

[WebCTRL]

and you don't hear me crying about it either.

so if I (we) want things to change and we tell what those are, then I/we are crying about it? Sorry, but when you state things that are so obviously meant to spin and generate "comebacks", I'd just have to say that you're getting what you asked for.

I mean, it was you earlier, that mistook an ACT for and amendment right? C'mon, someone or some group has to keep you in check. Sometimes its even fun!:bump:

[acmanko]

so if I (we) want things to change and we tell what those are, then I/we are crying about it? Sorry, but when you state things that are so obviously meant to spin and generate "comebacks", I'd just have to say that you're getting what you asked for.

I mean, it was you earlier, that mistook an ACT for and amendment right? C'mon, someone or some group has to keep you in check. Sometimes its even fun!:bump:

Yes I did make that mistake, however, an Act of Congess is considered Constitutional, so it was just a little mistake. Just as Congress is given power to coin and print money, they promulgated the Fed to control what the Treasury Prints and the mints stamp.

[coolwhip]

You're upset because you realize your way of thinking is foolish and that you are dangerous with all the little bits of information that you formulate your opinions with.

I have read more books on world religions, politics, and warfare then you can probably count....with special emphasis on the revolutionary time period in the US.

You will not best me in any of these topics and I will make you look like a fool with my giant head of knowledge.

Carry on....but be careful.

[acmanko]

You're upset because you realize your way of thinking is foolish and that you are dangerous with all the little bits of information that you formulate your opinions with.

I have read more books on world religions, politics, and warfare then you can probably count....with special emphasis on the revolutionary time period in the US.

You will not best me in any of these topics and I will make you look like a fool with my giant head of knowledge.

Carry on....but be careful.

That's your problem. I cannot help it that you are brilliant in war, religion and politics yet know nothing about finance and economics.

[coolwhip]

Its all tied into government..."Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes the laws".

This was said by Mayer Rothschild ...do you know who he was manco?

[acmanko]

Its all tied into government..."Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes the laws".

This was said by Mayer Rothschild ...do you know who he was manco?

Mayer was the founder of a German bank

[netsalt]

You're upset because you realize your way of thinking is foolish and that you are dangerous with all the little bits of information that you formulate your opinions with.

I have read more books on world religions, politics, and warfare then you can probably count....with special emphasis on the revolutionary time period in the US.

You will not best me in any of these topics and I will make you look like a fool with my giant head of knowledge.

Carry on....but be careful.

Just like every right wing authoritarian conservative I ever met. Why is it the right has all the answers but just can't make it work in practice?

[acmanko]

Just like every right wing authoritarian conservative I ever met. Why is it the right has all the answers but just can't make it work in practice?

He has not told be yet who he would replace the Federal Reserve with. I will give him credit for at least laying out some guidelines. But I wanted the name of an institution, which he cannot supply.

[ga-hvac-tech]

You're upset because you realize your way of thinking is foolish and that you are dangerous with all the little bits of information that you formulate your opinions with.

I have read more books on world religions, politics, and warfare then you can probably count....with special emphasis on the revolutionary time period in the US.

You will not best me in any of these topics and I will make you look like a fool with my giant head of knowledge.

Carry on....but be careful.


Just like every right wing authoritarian conservative I ever met. Why is it the right has all the answers but just can't make it work in practice?

Folks can dismiss things they do not like... however:

Patterns of history DO repeat themselves. Why? Because it is PEOPLE who make history... and human nature is predictable to those who are not in rebellion with common sense.

Really; the yardstick of common sense is a very simple measurement: If the person has the sense to understand history will repeat itself, and studies history to see the patterns... they have common sense and will grow into wisdom... however:
If the person refuses to understand this reality of history repeating itself, and insists on believing stupid ideals that are proven to NOT work (by history)... well they are as loony as a blind bird trying to fly... and their brain seems to not have developed much beyond a rebellious teen.

Wonder which one applies to a conservative and which one applies to a liberal?

[acmanko]

The latter describes conservatives , you should know that by how liberals have to change the conservative snafu completely after regaining power.

[netsalt]

Folks can dismiss things they do not like... however:

Patterns of history DO repeat themselves. Why? Because it is PEOPLE who make history... and human nature is predictable to those who are not in rebellion with common sense.

Really; the yardstick of common sense is a very simple measurement: If the person has the sense to understand history will repeat itself, and studies history to see the patterns... they have common sense and will grow into wisdom... however:
If the person refuses to understand this reality of history repeating itself, and insists on believing stupid ideals that are proven to NOT work (by history)... well they are as loony as a blind bird trying to fly... and their brain seems to not have developed much beyond a rebellious teen.

Wonder which one applies to a conservative and which one applies to a liberal?

I whole heartedly agree. It seems that the "hands off business" approach has been discredited since the Hoover administration, but we still have people believing that taking a laissez faire attitude towards business will solve all problems. That would seem to apply to conservatives not accepting history as factual evidence of failure.

[ga-hvac-tech]

The latter describes conservatives , you should know that by how liberals have to change the conservative snafu completely after regaining power.

Quite the contrary... the TRUE conservatives I know are all students of history... and respect the patterns as a lot more important than contemporary thinking.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I whole heartedly agree. It seems that the "hands off business" approach has been discredited since the Hoover administration, but we still have people believing that taking a laissez faire attitude towards business will solve all problems. That would seem to apply to conservatives not accepting history as factual evidence of failure.

I am glad to know a few folks understand the 'history' thing... IMO without using history as a springboard... one is really shooting in the dark.

OK Salty...

Please provide SPECIFIC examples of how Laissez Faire is not a good way to do things?

SPECIFIC with documentable details... :)

[netsalt]

244411

Sorry for the size.

[netsalt]

244421

The "trickle down experiment"

[scrogdog]

Whoops. Double post.

[scrogdog]

Again, Obama's stimulus package was the largest and most expensive piece of trickle down ever conceived.

I note that you didn't reply to my last dissertation on the matter. So, just ignore and re-propose?

Both demand side and supply side economics have their place in any long term plan. Economics 101 in my view.

How am I mistaken again?

Trickle down has absolutely NOTHING to do with those two graphs.

[netsalt]

Trickle down (or whatever it has been rebranded) started just about the time the second graph begins. Coincidence - maybe but probably not. The first graph depicts the differing approaches of two administrations to the economy not much to do with trickle down. Refresh my memory about the dissertation it didn't make much of an impression.

[scrogdog]

Trickle down (or whatever it has been rebranded) started just about the time the second graph begins. Coincidence - maybe but probably not. The first graph depicts the differing approaches of two administrations to the economy not much to do with trickle down. Refresh my memory about the dissertation it didn't make much of an impression.

I just did. Demand side and supply side economics have been used by ALL administrations. Again, Obama used supply side (what you improperly call trickle down) recently.

You are one of the very few people I hear still improperly using this term. You certainly no longer hear it on capitol hill since they learned that it's not about right or wrong, it's about when to use which.

Supply side helps the economy recover. A la Obama's massive "trickle down" stimulus. Demand side stabilizes the economy once you have it where you want it.

However, it is true that modified Keynesianism systems are where we should be most of the time. But not all. And you are not going to be in supply side long enough to notice a trend. More often, both will be used AT THE SAME TIME depending on situation.

That's why your graphs are meaningless. Both have their place and both have been continuously used by both sides.

Just one example, assuming you have a liberal slant here, most HUD programs subsidize the building of low income housing. Good, right? Well, these actions have ZERO effect on the demand curve making it strictly a supply side stimulus, or what you would call "trickle down".

The problem is largely that one plan or the other has become attached to partisan politics which is a HUGELY flawed stance. There is no such thing as partisan economics.

The curves can move up and down and one can theorize how to cause that, but HOW they will move is not subject to partisan politics. Copper miners in Chile do not care why you are trying to move the demand curve; if you move it up, they will charge you more for copper, and that is as certain as death and taxes. The term is meaningless because it has become a political term instead of economic; it is associated with one party and damned by the other, even though both parties proudly exercise supply side stimulus.

[netsalt]

Thanks, I post here as time permits. Agreed that each administration uses supply side and demand side stimulus to skew the markets. I was trying to point out that a "hands off" policy by the government is not going to happen no matter if a conservative or a liberal majority is in power. Government will react to current events with what they feel is in their best interests, its all taking points and propaganda. The problem still remains in the regulation of the resources not so much the flow otherwise it is only natural that those with the resources will benefit exponentially to the detriment of others. This has been true of any "Age" now its the Information Age. Previously it was the Industrial Age with The Gilded Age being an example of what unbridled capitalism does to a technological advance when the advantage is given to the few while the rest wait for the "trickle down" (just couldn't help it)

[scrogdog]

Well, it is not so much whether one wishes to use supply side or demand side, both are generally used concurrently as I mentioned. The real problem here is how the voting public views the policies and how incumbents react to said view.

Because this has become a partisan battle, that leaves most uniformed Americans with the sadly mistaken idea that each side uses one exclusive plan. The next time I hear some one refer to the Bush tax cuts as a Supply Side policy I'll scream. They think that way just because it was Bush.

Careful analysis reveals the flaw as it really is this simple; supply side effects supply and demand side effects demand!

Bush's tax cuts did not affect supply in the slightest, but they most certainly did affect demand as more cash in consumers hands raised demand for luxury goods.

This means that folks who only believe in one thing mistakenly label anything that Bush did as Supply Side.

Obama also has used demand side. Tax rebates for homes and cars and expanded green tax rebates.

What we should be critical of is how much of each do we use and where. It is certainly true that both have their place, but neither side has shown itself to be particularly savvy in coming up with the correct combinations. To be fair, it is quite difficult. Lessons of history might not work here as sometimes situations that were not seen in the past arise.

[SolarMike]

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Debt by president......

IF: We could understand that buying everything from China would destroy our manufacturing industry and IF we could understand that a bank cannot be allowed to sell a homeowners mortgage to someone else, we probably would not be in this situation.

There has been a balance (+ or -) in the western world regarding where the profits from industry go but when the balance is screwed up so much that huge amounts of capitol leave the western countries for China and India AND our manufacturing base, which has been our wealth creation machine, goes with it. we will NOT recover.

China must get a market based floating currency and we must bit the bullet, pay a couple of bucks more for a product, and bring the manufacturing back here. If not, the current downward pressure on wages (and quality of life) will continue if only to try to compete with China.

[royc]

I mistook amendments for Acts of Congress. Congress gets it's authority to Ppass laws from the Constitution. Put it together anyway you want. But Social Security, Medicar, Medicaide and the National Health care Act are the Law of the Land. So suck it up and quit crying about wether or not they are Amendments

There is a big difference of what is Legal, and what is Lawfull, something that many dont understand.

Roy

[corny]

constitution drill you long time

[acmanko]

There is a big difference of what is Legal, and what is Lawfull, something that many dont understand.

Roy

Explain yourself, are you saying Acts of Congress are illegal or unlawfull?

[scrogdog]

Explain yourself, are you saying Acts of Congress are illegal or unlawfull?

Not exactly. However, as noted, acts are not Constitutional and several have been declared unconstitutional by the court system after they have been enacted.

Interestingly, this process does not remove enacted law from the statute books. Rather, the law is rendered unenforceable and further publications or revisions to the act will carry a warning that the statute is no longer a valid law.

In other words, acts may be rendered unlawful.

[acmanko]

I came upon this about Rothchilds, it should interest you. I got it off a football forum. Very long , but addresses your concerns

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_rothschild_bloodline.htm

[coolwhip]

I came upon this about Rothchilds, it should interest you. I got it off a football forum. Very long , but addresses your concerns

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_rothschild_bloodline.htm

Im very familiar with much of this information....are you?

Did you even bother reading what you posted?

If you did read it, then tell me why you substitute concern with apathy.

[acmanko]

Im very familiar with much of this information....are you?

Did you even bother reading what you posted?

If you did read it, then tell me why you substitute concern with apathy.

I skimmed over it but did read some of the highlighted paragraphs. It is interesting and I plan on reading all of it. After which I will answer your question

[coolwhip]

Information such as this I knew even before the internet, so much so that I read everything I could get my hands on about the occult and secret societies....including The Skull and Bones and its origins..amongst many many others.
I have read so much on it that the subject information became repetitive in reading various books that I gave up because I felt that I read all there is to know and any new book was just rehash of the old stuff that I read previously.

Kinda like how Stephen King took many of his stories from the old Pulp magazines from the 1940s....something old, with a few new up to date comparisons...is not necessarily new to me.

I apologize if I sound jaded, but I really have done my reading in these matters and I can become impatient with those expressing opinions...especially strong ones when I feel that they do not have all the information yet as to formulate an opinion.

One of my favorite questions to ask in a debate is, how many books have you read on the subject? The answer may surprise you, as many say none...or a couple, but they cant tell me the names and authors. In most cases, the great spirit tells me their full of sheit and they just spout off what they hear on the glass tit.

[acmanko]

Im very familiar with much of this information....are you?

Did you even bother reading what you posted?

If you did read it, then tell me why you substitute concern with apathy.

I just read it , it's a good story. It hits on Jewish, communists, masons,Catholics, star gazers and the Illuminati. Plenty for apathy and not much for concern.

[coolwhip]

I dont think you read it then if this is what you take from it.

Some people on this Earth are leaders and some are followers....you are a follower.

[BACnet]

I came upon this about Rothchilds, it should interest you. I got it off a football forum. Very long , but addresses your concerns

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_rothschild_bloodline.htm

I skimmed the Rothschild link you posted - until I got to the following paragraph (pasted below). I can't read farther now that I know that the person who wrote it is a mentally challenged tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist.

At the core of the One-World-System is Satanism. It hides itself behind fronts such as Jewish Finance, Socialism, Aryanism, British Israelism, Zionism, and Freemasonry which are tools to get the broad masses to serve the Plan. The "conspiracy" to create the One-World-System has enlisted the help of almost everyone. That is because most of the religious systems at the top are controlled by Satanists who know what they are doing and direct the people’s religious efforts.

:gah:

[coolwhip]

I skimmed the Rothschild link you posted - until I got to the following paragraph (pasted below). I can't read farther now that I know that the person who wrote it is a mentally challenged tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist.

At the core of the One-World-System is Satanism. It hides itself behind fronts such as Jewish Finance, Socialism, Aryanism, British Israelism, Zionism, and Freemasonry which are tools to get the broad masses to serve the Plan. The "conspiracy" to create the One-World-System has enlisted the help of almost everyone. That is because most of the religious systems at the top are controlled by Satanists who know what they are doing and direct the people’s religious efforts.

:gah:


Some of it is tongue and cheek, but there is a lot of truth in there as well. Many respected authors, professors, historians and the like have written about the same things over the years.

Obviously, you are not well read on the subject either and take offense to it for some personal reason. Fortunately your emotions do not dictate what is the truth and what is not. Your buzz words and phrases will not compensate for ignorance nor will they succeed in subverting the truth.

[BACnet]

Some of it is tongue and cheek, but there is a lot of truth in there as well. Many respected authors, professors, historians and the like have written about the same things over the years.

Obviously, you are not well read on the subject either and take offense to it for some personal reason. Fortunately your emotions do not dictate what is the truth and what is not. Your buzz words and phrases will not compensate for ignorance nor will they succeed in subverting the truth.

You are absolutely correct- I am not well read on the topic of bat-shiate crazy global conspiracy theories.

But I reserve the right to mock the people who believe in them. :grin2:

Re-read this line again: "most of the religious systems at the top are controlled by Satanists"

I think that all Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists would take offense at being described as Devil worshipers.

[acmanko]

BACnet gets it. If you believe all that BS you are neither a leader or follower but someone who has fallen off the cliff.

[coolwhip]

Two the two bone heads above that don't read what they post or what is posted.

I said that some of it is tongue and cheek, but there is some good information in there.

Carry on...and try not to bump into walls on the way.

[BACnet]

http://localcrank.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/tinfoil-hat1.jpg

[acmanko]

I think they sold out of tin foil in SE Michigan