The Obama Deception

The New world order?

the illuminati?

Are you accusing the president of being the Anti-Christ?

i think that whichever secret society that is running things has our best interests in mind. they're not insipid lizard creatures trying to turn us into matrix-batteries or an evil fascist regime trying to turn us into zombie slaves. they're just trying to push things forward right now.

I think we're all overlooking something very crucial to all of this:

Cthulhu monsters

The Fourth Reich is real! Hilary is our savior.

DRY LAND IS NOT A MYTH! I'VE SEEN IT!

oops
i was wrong.
it was earth
all along.

they've finally made a monkey out of me...

they've finally made a monkey,
(finally made a monkey)

oh they've finally made a monkey out of me!

Henry Hazlitt, my kraka!

Yeah, I watched it on DTube. It brought up some great points, but all this conspiracy bullshit...it's not so clear as he thinks it is. The worthless stuff in it outweighs the worthwhile stuff.

Someone on the street was handing out DVDs of this yesterday. I forgot about it til now...

Do you think Itll give me a virus if I put it in my computer?

No, it'll be fine. Just be sure to roll your eyes when they talk about 9/11 conspiracy.

I'm fairly convinced teabagging will solve everything.

Ia! Ia! Ctulhu ftahgen!

This movie is so frightening it makes me want to register an account on random forums and promote this movie!

Be careful what you believe, fellow culties.

I don't believe in superstars,
Organic food and foreign cars.
I don't believe the price of gold;
The certainty of growing old.
That right is right and left is wrong,
That north and south can't get along.
That east is east and west is west.
And being first is always best.

But I believe in love.
I believe in babies.
I believe in Mom and Dad.
And I believe in you.

I don't believe that heaven waits,
For only those who congregate.
I like to think of God as love:
He's down below, He's up above.
He's watching people everywhere.
He knows who does and doesn't care.
And I'm an ordinary man,
Sometimes I wonder who I am.

But I believe in love.
I believe in music.
I believe in magic.
And I believe in you.

I don't believe virginity,
Is as common as it used to be.
In working days and sleeping nights,
That black is black and white is white.
That Superman and Robin Hood,
Are still alive in Hollywood.
That gasoline's in short supply,
The rising cost of getting by.

But I believe in love.
I believe in old folks.
I believe in children.
I believe in you.

"I just believe in me..." - John Lennon

but the rest was pretty tight.

I'm going to watch it tonight, it's gonna be interesting!

How do you know? Can you predict the future?

i'm not going to jump to conclusions on any of this, but alecia is now my personal hero. good stuff, fo shaw.

Whatcha gonna do bruuuther!

The crazy libertarians and their crazy "the bankers rule the world!" claims. Of course bankers rule the world, wanna know why? 'Cause they have all the money. All of it. You don't have money, your bank's computer says you do. Is this a bit unsettling? Yes. Is there a better monetary system which can support a global economy? No.

Obama is doing what is necessary to reform without destroying the country. Just like what Bill Clinton did. Jimmy Carter tried to break the rules and do the right thing no matter what. Look where that got him. While I agree that presidents should have Carter intentions, they need Clinton pragmatism. Just because a man with good intentions is president doesn't mean those intentions immediately translate into policy. Shaping policy requires getting your hands dirty, making tough compromises, and letting the bankers at least THINK they're getting their way. This archaic, Andrew Jackson "the bank (federal reserve) is evil" type of argument is just so absurd. The Federal Reserve, in its current form, was designed to deal with the financial complexities of a modern economy. But make no mistake, Obama is not under the control of the reserve, quite the opposite. The Federal Reserve is one of his many tools and it makes no sense to make an enemy of your accountant.

I just don't understand why so many Democrats want Obama to make an ass of himself by demanding things that can't be fulfilled like Carter did. If congress, which is controlled by the democrats, just like under Carter, lost faith in Obama, then we'll be in a political deadlock. As far as I'm concerned he can pass a bill entitling all Fed Reserve employees to complimentary prostitutes as long as he gets social healthcare passed. The Clintons have often been quoted as saying that their greatest regret is that Hilary's healthcare initiative failed. It's because they tried to push it through Carter style. You don't get things done in D.C. if you don't play by D.C.'s rules. Clinton learned that, which is why the rest of his presidency was so successful. Obama, undoubtedly aided by the Clintons, won't make the Carter mistake. He'll play political hardball even if it makes the softy-ultra-progressive liberals uneasy. Idealism is great, but it needs to be served with a nice helping of pragmatism.

Oh, and as far as fascism, that was G. W. Bush. Obama breaks Machiavelli's rules routinely, he governs with the people in mind rather than his own legacy. I wouldn't be surprised if The Prince is the foundation of all of Karl Rove's policies. The Bush administration certainly failed to adhere to the principles of libertarianism or modern Republicanism. The only political doctrine consistently practiced by the Bush administration was fascism. (BTW - the Prince encourages using religion to make the public obey, war to make them scared, and deceit to make them believe). Limbaugh wannabes like Alex Jones know nothing about fascism other than its association with Mussolini and Hitler.

Lol RazorSharp, I find most of your points to be incredibly off base and fatally gullible. But to each their own, attempting to address any of this to just descend in a message board pissing match at 1AM is pretty pointless.

Have you been reading the thread?

Also, banks don't have money either. You may wanna reserve 'fractional reserve banking' if you wanna begin to understand the system that you speak as if you know so much about.

And your credentials for making such a conclusive statement are...

How?

What did Clinton in all his glory just happen to not get around to fixing? You act as though you see everything so clearly, yet don't explain ANYTHING that you say.

Speaking as though you know what you are talking about =/= knowing what you are talking about.

Jackson never said "the bank" was evil. The fed is a monetary monopoly, which Jackson opposed, as did Jefferson, who said a national bank was more a threat to liberty than a standing army (both of which now are treated as American cornerstones). Such an asinine inaccuracy is like saying a politician is against health care because they opposed socialized/nationalized healthcare.

Who told you that, public schools? Even in some alternate universe where the creation of the federal reserve was not a fiscal policy coup by a handful of elitist bankers, how could such an organization even do the things you're claiming it to be responsible for? Remember, government has no power but through coercion. How can you coerce people into making sound monetary decisions? (Here's where we get into Austrian economics, and the law of spontaneous order).

This.
Doesn't.
Make.
F**king.
Sense.

It's a private bank! It is not accountable to the government. It's board members aren't even known to the public! How does Obama have any say in what they do? Where are you getting all this random nonsense from?

You just called the fed 'Obama's accountant'. You and I clearly live in different worlds, because the people who control ALL the money in my world aren't called accountants. They're properly called masters, though few would admit such a title for them. Though Obama's in their secret club (The Council on Foreign Relations) he isn't the one printing the money, they are.

Do accountants in your world make the money that you use, or do they manage it? In my world, accountants only manage and track money, not print and control it.

Or do words like 'print', 'control', and 'manage' have alternate definitions in your world as well, rendering this conversation absolutely futile?

Sorry, I'm starting to flame. I don't mean to fuck you in the neck.

So Obama didn't himself say that the stimulus bill would stop bad things from happening that he actually made worse? Did the dumb democrats control his vocal cords at the time?

Why would they suddenly make an enemy out of their best friend?

FUCK YOU IN THE NECK. This is getting out of hand. I apologize for having no patience with what you posted, but no I don't, you're spouting talking points tidbits and clearly have no idea what you're attempting to speak about. I have no idea what motivates all of this.

First off, how would socialized medicine solve ANYTHING and even if it was magic and created utopias, how is it you can say, 'Do it at all costs!'?

I don't know what you mean by referring to 'The Clintons' collectively as though an entire family speaks as a corporate entity, but if by that you mean Bill Clinton, then
I CALL BULLSHIT (again)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR200505...

(Bill) Clinton has called failing to act in Rwanda his greatest regret as president.

Did you come up with all these 'styles' on your own?

Really? I was blisfully unaware, what miracles did Clinton work that I unfortunately missed out on? Was it this?

Or maybe this?

Or the dead in Bosnia and Serbia? Did using the guns of government save lives and prevent war under Clinton? Do they ever? Oy...

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Also, this 'theory and practice stand in conflict' line is exactly the scent, texture, and quality grade of bullshit that sets me off. What the hell does, "idealism is great, but it needs to be served with a nice helping of pragmatism" even mean?" If "idealism" doesn't work, then what's so great about it? If pragmatism requires 'ideals', then pragmatism clearly has a shortcoming as well. Y'all non-objective thinkers need to tie up these inconsistencies and loose ends. Speaking abstractly is a brilliant way of sounding close to the answer by just stepping away from the problem. You still haven't solved anything.

You're almost laughable now...almost.

Pop-quiz! Define fascism in your response without googling it. I'd bet an FRN that you don't even know what it is. "What Hitler did" is not a sufficient answer.

"Actually, it was Mussolini, Hitler was National Socialism" won't cut it either.

Cause yeah, that Machiavelli...all about legacy...

Dude, mentioning Machiavelli doesn't mean you know socio-political stuffs either.

And were you in Obama's head for a day, and you know his motives? Cause I wasn't, nor do I claim to know/care what they are.

Not to mention you keep presenting false dichotomies, "When at the fork between pragmatism and blahblahblahtism, Clinton tends to and Carter tends to, trying the alternate approach, yielding such and such a result, would have worked if..." urghhgg...enough!

Again, repeating it doesn't raise the truthiness level.

'Guys, I suffered through 'The Prince', so I know what I'm talking about!'

Also, you can stop talking about Machiavelli as though he "works" if you're right in that one of the currently most hated political figures in the country, according to you, must follow this program to a T.

Wow, perfect setup...

Eff Tee Eff Why, mo'fugga. The End.

Wow, that was pretty intense. I see how easy it is to go overboard on threads. In real life, you can pick up on who you're talking to, what their reaction is, etc, and cut yourself off before you go too crazy. On the forum, the opportunity exists to continue on mumbling for an entire post before people are able to point it out. It's information overload. Though I may think about everything you said is assumptive bullshit, no hard feelings.

I feel this may be an appropriate place for one of my favorite (relatively) non-political quotes from Rothbard:

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

Too late. I fell for it before I saw this.

I bet no one will ever respond to that.

Yeah, but you did it admirably. I would of thrown in the why Andrew Jackson was so opposed to the Bank of United States, life before 1865 when 'dual sovereignty' and 'voluntary union' had any meaning, why the big government-central bank-corporate welfare Whigs wanted such an institution and the Republicans that rose from their ashes - including that bastard Lincoln - were so eager to carry on the same platform, etc., etc., etc...

But my guess judging by his demeanor (and the fact that he is so far down a certain ideological path to actually think a nationalized health care system is ever a good idea and the Fed is the ONLY option) is that it would be a lost cause.

Kudos to you for trying...

Thanks.

There was another thread he posted something off the wall on (but non-politcal, so I did it nicely) and I asked if he had read the thread. No response there.

Kudos to you for knowing history, including, but not limited to the fact that Lincoln is not one worthy of worship.

I recently finished one of Tom DiLorenzo's books on Lincoln. Pretty insightful and succinct for someone who just wants the cliff notes on what a giant asshole the guy was. A decent suggested reading list for more in depth information as well.

I've just started reading his newest one Hamilton's Curse.

have your cape and tights come in yet giggan?
you'll need them, for what's coming.

I can go overboard when I get into politics but it's worth it when people try to discredit what I say with stuff like this:

Who told you that, public schools?

Who told you that there is an international bankers conspiracy? Some crazy guy on the internet and talk radio?

Oh, and the Federal Reserve is government controlled. Just because it consists of several private banks doesn't mean it's privately controlled. And THEY ARE accountable to the government. Perhaps not when we have a Bush in office, but that's the normal pecking order.

I also enjoyed this tidbit:

Speaking as though you know what you are talking about =/= knowing what you are talking about.

Um, yeah, that applies to you as well. But all you did was tell me I was wrong, without saying why (oh wait, I get it now, I'm wrong because Bill Clinton couldn't control Rwanda even though that's completely irrelevant to economy).

You think that by dismissing everything I say as foolish makes it such? That's what I find laughable.

I didn't mention Machiavelli because I think it makes me informed. IT WAS THE FORUM TOPIC:

It's Alex Jones' new movie about how Obama, and just about every other US president, is working for the federal reserve which is attempting to construct a world wide fascist government.

My whole post was a retort to that claim, that Obama is not a fascist, he's a far cry from a fascist, unlike his predecessor.

Other stuff like, "I don't care what Obama does as long as we get healthcare," is explaining why I don't find the "Obama hypocrisy" to be a problem. He can start pushing his campaign agenda AFTER we socialize medicine. That's where my priorities lie and I'm glad the administration feels the same way. The point about comparing him to Carter/Clinton - Carter tried to do too much without walking a political tightrope and got walloped by Reagan as a result. Clinton was a compromiser. Obama is playing the role of a compromiser but he's really just overcoming one hurdle at a time. Alex Jones gets all on Obama's case about his campaign promises, like this is the reelection year. Obama has four years to prove himself, no one can become president, snap their fingers, and all of their campaign promises come true.

Oh, and finally, as a strong HIlary Clinton supporter in the primaries, I do refer to the Clintons as a single entity. Fortunately Obama did the right thing and brought a bunch of Clintonites into his administration.

Poor libertarians, so many staunch opinions which have never successfully been implemented into a working economy. . .

silly rabbit, presidents are for kids.

1. Thanks for reaffirming my point, even though you didn't intend to. Andrew Jackson had reason to oppose the bank but hIs policies are totally irrelevant to a modern economy. Opposing the bank today is opposing the hand that feeds.

2. I'll say it again. The Federal Reserve is our ONLY option. Tell me the alternative, please, I need a good laugh.

Okay, two things, before I go off to an interview. Hopefully I'll find time later to expound on this.

One (toward Giggan): I'm really very tired of people using what the "founding fathers" wanted as a guiding principle for what we should do now. If Jefferson and co. were around, they'd be appalled by racial integration, organized labor, and the absence of poll taxes. Can we let it go, please? They lived in a pre-industrial society, and their views were accordingly divided between agrarian pseudo-feudalism and proto-capitalism. And, with precious few examples (only Thomas Paine really comes to mind), all were astoundingly elitist with regards to class, gender, and race. You'll excuse me if I don't salivate at the mention of Jefferson.

Two (toward RazorDude): If it's uncontrolled banking interests which get your blood boiling, I suggest that you look no further than Bill Clinton's economic policy. He gutted what remains of social programs were still clutching to life after the Reagan years, deregulated the markets more than even Reagan could have dreamed, turned a blind eye to damn near everything the banks did, and almost single-handedly revitalized American economic domination of the third-world with "free-trade" agreements, predatory subsidies, and the IMF. There were no guns involved in these moves (though he certainly wasn't averse to them), but, counter to mainstream liberal thought, just because you don't drop bombs on a place doesn't mean you're not colonizing it. Clinton wasn't the golden boy for the working person; he was a third-generation Reaganite.

Judging by everything that's been posted so far, I won't need them at all. My last post required one piece of research, and that was to show Clinton's 'biggest regret'.

Vait heeur. Ahl be bahk.

Lets face it, manufacturing is on its way out. Socialized medicine and federalized education are the only things that can save us (medicine so the transition away from blue collar doesn't destroy us and education so that transition can be made). If Clinton didn't work to extend globalization at a time when the internet was breaking all the travel barriers, silicon valley would be in Europe (hell, it's moving there anyway).

I'm not the type to blame all of our problems on deregulation. Personally, I think our economy is having problems because of a whole slew of retarded things Bush did. Like lowering taxes while at war. That's an economic no-no. Not to say that single bad decision is what led to the recession - it's a combination of the many bad decisions of the Bush administration. No, Clinton wasn't the golden boy for the working man, he was the golden boy for the American man

Summon spell: form of...Giggan

Here I come to roar!

I wouldn't call it a 'conspiracy' so much as an obscured truth. Conspiracy has a fantasy-esque connotation. This information isn't hidden.

Conspiracy theories are what Alex Jones spins...9/11 was Bush paying Osama to take the fall so he'd have street cred in Afghanistan, etc. That's conspiracy. That a private bank controls the flow of US Currency, that's a fact, not a 'theory'. That private bank is called the federal reserve.

POIDH.

Edit: I initially answered this with POIDH, but with you, I realize you won't understand what I'm getting at. You're making all these assertions with no proof of what you're saying and thinking that claiming the other person got it from Alex Jones (which I didn't and don't) will be enough to make you correct. So please, just demonstrate how you are correct. Logic and evidence are your friends

More Bush scapegoating. You're trying to separate him from The Obahm as though they don't work for the same system. If it wasn't accountable under Bush, what did The Obahm do to make it accountable? You need to back up what you say. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No shit.

That quote in itself doesn't disprove anything I said. It's clear you're more offended by me pointing out that you're wrong than that you are actually wrong. If you cared about where you were wrong, you'd be addressing the facts and not personal things like me saying, 'You're wrong'.

Did you read my post, or just skim it? I didn't fault Clinton for not descending from the clouds and stopping the genocide in Rwanda. You're making less sense as you go along.

I don't have to be the one to dismiss it to make it foolish. It is by itself.

Did you notice where I asked if you knew what fascism was? Yeah, seriously, I'm responding to everything you say, one to show that I'm absorbing everything and two so you can reference what I'm talking about and how it relates. You're picking tidbits out of my post to vague-ize the quotes so you can make an attempt to save yourself.

And I asked what would possibly make you feel that way. You didn't answer.

He got walloped by Reagan because Reagan told people what they wanted to hear.

No one can be president and solve problems, finger snapping or no. All the president can do is, with congress, aggress more or less against people. That's all government is, the threat of violence. I'm asking you, how can violence solve problems that the market cannot?

But since you're not into answering questions, and would rather have a pissing match, perhaps this is futile.

Because life was wonderful under Clinton, t'was our lord and savior.

Considering them one entity is moronic because they are two people with two different opinions, and being clear makes you more understandable than being vague. But like I said, we clearly live in different worlds, speak different languages, etc. In my world, two people are two people. In yours, two people are one.

Also, where did you take that 'biggest regret' line from? Do you even have a source?

That's the beauty of the laissez-faire, it is exactly what happens despite marketplace intervention and aggression. It always works, so long as people are alive and peaceably interacting.

Also, PFives, you may be glad to hear this so we can better communicate, I've moved away from saying 'capitalism' when I mean 'laissez-faire' and just saying 'laissez-faire'.

Also, speaking of semantics, I may be moving away from the 'anarchist' label and towards 'nonarchist'. Same thing without the historical baggage. Great article by Ian Freeman on why he's a voluntaryist, and not an anarchist:

http://freekeene.com/2009/07/13/why-im-not-an-anarchist-hope-chapel-vand...

K, so Razorman, are you going to actually answer my questions or just take tidbits and toss piss? I'd prefer you quote things to be clear what you're addressing, and if you're not willing to do that, I'll consider this communication somewhat futile (no telling how long I'll verbally masturbate beyond that point).

This self-righteous line reminds me of the fishsticks episode of South Park, where in Cartman's head nothing is as it is in reality, yet to him, he very innocently believes that it makes perfect sense.

So simultaneously, to you the fed is 1) 'just an acocuntant', and 2) 'the hand that feeds'.

Make up your mind, guy. Please explain, what are they, what they do, and why it's necessary. If this were the scientific method, you're beginning with a hypothesis "the federal reserve is necessary", and rather than conducting the experiment, simply shrugging and going, "Makes sense", and turning it into a conclusion. No, show your work. How do you get to there from here?

And what do you mean by 'irrelevant in a modern economy'? What's different now that wasn't then? Again, you have to show your work. Dammit, you're turning me into a broken record here.

Oh yeah, and since you've been asserting that the fed is 'accountable to the gov't' (whatever that means, since the gov't isn't even accountable to the government), then how is it that a bill to simply AUDIT the muthafuckas is having such a hard time getting through? How come it!...nevermind. I know I'm yankin the crank, since you won't be actually answering these questions...

No, I'm not doing your frickin homework for you! You're the one making the assertions that "X is necessary", it's up to you to explain why, not me to consider you the expert until proven otherwise. This is what trolls do. Again, the extraordinary claims thing.

So, your homework:

Answer everything I already asked.

Explain what the fed is, and what it does.

Explain why this is vital.

Go.

Oh, and it would be cool if you went back and quoted all the shit that you've left out of your responses and admitted where you were either wrong or ignorant. I don't expect this, do the other stuff first, but if you did get there, you'd have potential in my book.

Point taken. You know I don't worship the founders the way many nationalists do and republicans claim to. If I came across that way, I didn't intend it. They're dead and it pisses me off that people think anything they did should still be binding today on alive people.

Razorman is simultaneously concerned with 'uncontrollable banking interests' and in favor of them. But I think it's more ignorance, he doesn't understand what the federal reserve is. I still have yet to hear what he thinks of it.

If Reagan was considered free-market, it was only relative to others. Some regulation withered under him, but he eliminated zero of the agencies he had campaigned on dismantling.

Rothbard wrote a good article on Reagan being a Keynesian. I feel its a little incomplete, but makes its point.

http://murrayrothbard.com/the-death-of-reaganomics-keynesian-redux/

See, Razorman? I'm using outside sources from scholarly people to back up what I say, rather than expecting you'll believe it at face value. ¡Viva evidencia!

And as for Clinton and bombs, lest we forget Serbia, Somalia, Iraq, Colombia (drug war stuff) and right here in the USA, Waco. And there was that Chinese embassy that 'mistakenly' got boomed.

Good luck with the interview.

Explain. Are factories shutting down and people making clothes and toys and cars in their basement? I was unaware.

Save us from what, and how?

WTF does this have to do with?

I'd consider that the most intelligent thing you've said so far if I thought that you understood it.

So war itself isn't retarded, just lowering taxes during it?

War or lowering taxes?

How did lowering taxes hurt the economy (besides inflation, which you don't seem to understand, and which is actually a spending problem, not a tax problem. But yeah...)

Freedom Fries! Rhetoric makes problems go away!

Also, that last line there, you are not going to win over PFives with "America's best interest!" rhetoric. He's not exactly the type would would define himself as an American Man.

Don't mean to put words in your mouth, PFives, you can correct me where I'm inaccurate. This is just too much...good for the American man!...good lord.

He's also said his greatest regret is not reaching a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO in the last days of his term. He appears to have many regrets. This is not a reflection on Mr. Sharp.

I, too, applaud this move on your part.

I personally haven't seen/read anything of Jones aside from The Obama deception, so I can't judge.

Care to explain?

So businesses can't afford it. Where would the money come from if the gubmint did it?

Source?

He also said not reaching a peaceful resolution with the Branch Davidians was one of his greatest regrets, but I have yet to see that as his 'greatest' regret. Again, POIDH.

You're clever.

Again, government's only tool is aggression. Now you must show how aggression can be used to solve a problem, and then go on to show how Clinton successfully implemented said aggression.

Granted, he could have eased up on prior aggression, but such happenings are an exception with government, the tendency is to increase aggression.

I think you have to preface certain things with people of their time. However, as far as racial integration, it was generally Northeners that were much bigger slavery enthusiasts than the south for centuries... when they weren't trying to get them deported to Liberia, South America, etc., etc. Jefferson, while owning slaves and having suckee suckee with them, endorsed plans to end slavery early in the Revolution, condemned George III for introducing it into the colonies, the first draft of the Constitution included a provision for ending slavery in VA, and attempted to stop the expansion of slavery into NW territories.

Jefferson and many others, including those I don't agree with like Hamilton, are still entirely relevant today because they espoused PRINCIPLES and WISDOM that are timeless and logically relevant in most debates today. While there may be a few more iPods around and the world suffered through bell bottoms for awhile, the human condition and what man as government is capable of and does when left unrestrained is fundamentally unchanged since the time of the Founding Fathers, since ancient Rome, since the beginning of time.

As for RazorSharp, you can laugh at Austrian economics (or Libertarian, as you call it since I doubt you know anything about it) all you want... but nothing that really resembles it has ever been introduced into the system. However, those same Austrian economists have been accurately predicting bubbles and their causes for decades and decades. I think they are on to something a bit more than Keynesian's have been with constantly bringing the world economy to it's knees.

Lets not forget what played a big part in us getting to where the price of health care is today. That would be Congress in the 70's when they pushed HMO's upon the public.

So now we are going to trust the government again, even some of the same people that have been there for that long and don't even bother to read the bills they vote on, to once again solve the health care problem that they played a big hand in causing with resources they don't have (unless you count RazorSharp's beloved Fed to print money).

As for this country, there needs to be a complete revamp of the payment of doctors away from paying based on quantity over quality, but the solution is far from the government running it. They are pretty incompetent at everything else they touch. And while it may be expensive, people come here from countries with socialized medicine to get better care (if they have the money). If sub par care if your goal... well, that would be kind of silly.

As for Alex Jones, I don't follow him. Glanced at him from time to time to know the black helicopters no one can hear are after him.

1. I assure you I did nothing of the sort to reaffirm any logical point you have. Maybe you have one tucked away in your brain somewhere hidden from public view, but you haven't displayed it in this thread apart from a bunch of general euphemisms on subjects I don't really think you have taken the time to study. If you had any idea of why Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, and a long host of others from the founding of the US until now have opposed a central bank, this sentence would of never come out of your mouth as many of their concerns and criticism are just as valid today as when they spoke them ever so long ago. Just as critical to understanding it is why people like Lincoln supported it. I could always be proven wrong, but I don't think you are all that aware of either side and have just arbitrarily picked a position that feels good.

2. Do your own homework, and I assure you the US and the world has operated successfully under other banking systems before the Fed (it didn't come around until 1913 -- FYI: The nation started in 1776). Getting through to someone as deep into a certain orthodoxy as you is about as effective as convincing a Jonestown resident not to drink the Kool Aid. Although, to be fair to them, that at least was at gun point. I'll let Giggan continue to roll with this one.

The level of vulgarity displayed in the current political threads and their general hysterical tone make me want to bash people on the head.