quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i meant mental institution or uni-professor as more of a joke, but youre right, it doesn't correlate. he doesn't correlate. he was a flaming anti-semite that alledged their [the Joos] taking over of the US monetary system, but at the same time blamed European banks executing economic hegemony when clearly the biggest banks in Europe (France, UK, Swiss) were not controled by the Joos. i don't think the Joos controlled any bank at that time. the guy was a nut. but go ahead, he's your demigod.

That's complete demagoguery.

Do you ever NOT try to twist things around, Mr. echo of propaganda?

quote:

McFADDEN, Louis Thomas, a Representative from Pennsylvania; born in Granville Center, Troy Township, Bradford County, Pa., July 25, 1876; attended the public schools; was graduated from Warner’s Commercial College, Elmira, N.Y.; entered the employ of the First National Bank, Canton, Pa., in 1892; in 1899 was elected cashier, and became its president on January 11, 1916, serving until 1925; served as treasurer of the Pennsylvania Bankers’ Association in 1906 and 1907 and as president in 1914 and 1915; appointed in 1914 by the agricultural societies of the State of Pennsylvania as a trustee of Pennsylvania State College; elected as a Republican to the Sixty-fourth and to the nine succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1915-January 3, 1935); chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency (Sixty-sixth through Seventy-first Congresses); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1934 to the Seventy-fourth Congress and for nomination in 1936 to the Seventy-fifth Congress; died October 1, 1936, while on a visit in New York City; interment in East Canton Cemetery, Canton, Pa. http://bioguide.congress.gov/script...l?index=M000434

quote:

Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932: Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it. Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies, which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X That's complete demagoguery. Do you ever NOT try to twist things around, Mr. echo of propaganda?

Demagoguery?

i used YOUR link to wikipedia almost verbatim. YOUR link provided everything i knew about the man up until that moment.

keep worshiping him. i could care less. but be prepared to be faulted utterly, defending him.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Demagoguery? i used YOUR link to wikipedia almost verbatim. YOUR link provided everything i knew about the man up until that moment. keep worshiping him. i could care less. but be prepared to be faulted utterly, defending him.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word so here, I'll post the definition for you:

quote:

Demagoguery Definition: [n] impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace

So what else were you doing, then? You didn't exactly appear to be evincing praise.

And is it just me or has the level of hostility on this board gone up quite considerably as of late?

I better start posting more

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I better start posting more

go right ahead.

i see that it somehow gives you redemption. how pathetic is that?

fine. postwhore all you want.

just remember i used your link to demagogue that nut.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Those elite bankers couldn't possibly have a little more sway in the scholastic community than they do, could they? It would be fitting if that man (or his department) was rewarded with a large grant or a private endowment after that POS was published.

...

Is this serious? Charles Beard and Frederick Jackson Turner (who wrote a similar analysis) are considered cornerstones of modern American political theory. They're two of the most respected theorists in the field. And in case you don't understand its meaning, the word "radical" here does not refer to your political views, it refers to a revolutionary new way of approaching constitutional history. At least, it was revolutionary in 1913, when Beard wrote that article.

Misleading authority? Just because you haven't heard of him he must not be an authority, right? I mean, it's not like you just exposed yourself as a complete novice in this field.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X

And for God's sake, are you quoting Jesse Helms as an authority figure?!?! Talk about the pot calling the snowball black.

Though I'm sure you're now going to argue that the State Department and Council on Foreign Relations, along with the mythical Trilateral Commission, succeeded in the fusion of Soviet and Western economies...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I'd say we have two choices a propaganda technique: or a logical fallacy: A little about Mr. Beard: Those elite bankers couldn't possibly have a little more sway in the scholastic community than they do, could they? It would be fitting if that man (or his department) was rewarded with a large grant or a private endowment after that POS was published.

Actually, I just reread what you wrote (because I was so confused by its appalling lack of logic), and I decided that you are the one who could use a lesson in flawed logic.

quote:

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the formal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation is.

Charles Beard in the pocket of corporate sponsors? I suggest you bring some proof of your wild assertion to bear before anyone takes you seriously. And the part of his bio that you highlighted serves to show his relative IMPORTANCE and LEGITIMACY as a source, so laugh it up all you want, but I think you just owned yourself.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Is this serious? Charles Beard and Frederick Jackson Turner (who wrote a similar analysis) are considered cornerstones of modern American political theory. They're two of the most respected theorists in the field. And in case you don't understand its meaning, the word "radical" here does not refer to your political views, it refers to a revolutionary new way of approaching constitutional history. At least, it was revolutionary in 1913, when Beard wrote that article. Misleading authority? Just because you haven't heard of him he must not be an authority, right? I mean, it's not like you just exposed yourself as a complete novice in this field.

I think you're missing the whole point.

quote:

And for God's sake, are you quoting Jesse Helms as an authority figure?!?! Talk about the pot calling the snowball black. Though I'm sure you're now going to argue that the State Department and Council on Foreign Relations, along with the mythical Trilateral Commission, succeeded in the fusion of Soviet and Western economies...

If someone handed you a dot to dot drawing book that was somehow (however cryptically) also a street map that lead to the truth, would you just throw it away because it also contained a picture of Jesse Helms in it?

It's funny to see so many people believe the lies that come out of this current adminstration but when someone speaks about something that you don't want to hear, something that falls outside of your (however narrowly definied) scope of reason, they're instantly vilified.

I've studied this for so many hours that when I hear something that seems like it might compliment the rest of the puzzle I instantly begin to try and see if it might fit. Jesse Helms statement definitely adheres to the rest of what is happening, or at least it correlates to what Norman Dodd was saying [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
. But of course you don't know any of the background to this. You're just another person who likes to talk out of their ass.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Actually, I just reread what you wrote (because I was so confused by its appalling lack of logic), and I decided that you are the one who could use a lesson in flawed logic. Charles Beard in the pocket of corporate sponsors? I suggest you bring some proof of your wild assertion to bear before anyone takes you seriously. And the part of his bio that you highlighted serves to show his relative IMPORTANCE and LEGITIMACY as a source, so laugh it up all you want, but I think you just owned yourself.

I think that many historians are.

It's another way to control us and it's just one of many points that Norman Dodd touched upon in this video:

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I think you're missing the whole point.

Enlighten me then.

quote:

It's funny to see so many people believe the lies that come out of this current adminstration but when someone speaks about something that you don't want to hear, something that falls outside of your (however narrowly definied) scope of reason, they're instantly vilified.

This is almost funny coming from the person who just blindly tore down the argument of a turn of the century historian for "probably being in the pocket of corporate interests." If you don't want to debate the merits of the argument, fine, keep living in a hypocritical world where it's ok to belittle opposing sources, but a crime to belittle yours.

quote:

But of course you don't know any of the background to this. You're just another person who likes to talk out of their ass.

What in the world are you talking about? What is "this" referring to? Global governance? The Soviets? Or the Constitution, which is what my post was originally about. You conflate so many arguments that I can't even remember what the hell your point is.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Enlighten me then.

Here, I'll highlight the important bits

quote:

his radical re-evaluation of the Founding Fathers of the United States, whom he believed were more motivated by economics than by philosophical principles.

quote:

This is almost funny coming from the person who just blindly tore down the argument of a turn of the century historian for "probably being in the pocket of corporate interests." If you don't want to debate the merits of the argument, fine, keep living in a hypocritical world where it's ok to belittle opposing sources, but a crime to belittle yours.

Well, what better way to control history than to have a stable of historians at your command?

quote:

Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. - Orwell

___________________

quote:

"Learn, child, to catch a hint through whatever agency it may be given. 'Sermons may be preached through stones." - Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Letters from the Masters of Wisdom, first series, p. 74, letter 31