|
moved from the chillout room. because i can't stand that place :)
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
fucking hell. its the same stuff, over and over. to quote maddox 'its like being bukkaked with stupid'.
|
Ah, yes, you're the sort of bloke who holds a psychopath narcissist in high regard. He's jokes, but no one to quote in a debate.
| quote: |
no, not necessarily. but it would help you understand how it worked and you wouldn't be posting lies and distortions as you do below. you're understanding is just way WAY off base because you dont balance your sources enough.
..and you don't punctuate your sentences enough. I think what you fail to see is that I understand the Fed. To make sure that I was aware of how it is perceived by sheepish minds are yourself, I read all of Occ's posts in the link you provided; well described and thorough.
I also took a second look into the ownership of the Fed (OWNERSHIP. Read: private.) At the very top, the tippy-top, of the iceberg is N.M. Rothschild, BOE. That's significant, whether you'll allow yourself to accept this or not.
The Fed is a shotgun wedding between the private and public sector at best.
[quote]
its not a scam.
|
Sure it is. And if not by nature of the beast, then they are readily in on financial scams. Example: Barak Obama sued Citibank in 1994 under the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) basically assuring loans to people that could not afford them. Citibank is one of the top 3 shareholders of the Fed, along with BoA and JP Morgan & Chase. Now.. let's look at Barak's top campaign supporters!
Goldman Sachs $748,880
Goldman Sachs is a bank holding company for the Fed. You might remember Goldman Sachs from the 1995 Economic Crisis, when former Co-Chairman Robert Rubin became Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration. Subsequently passing a $20B bailout for Mexico, protecting Citicorp's profits, among other corporations.
University of California $625,911
Janet L. Yellen was professor emerita at UoC before becoming president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She is a voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee, the group led by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke that sets the course of monetary policy for the nation.
JPMorgan Chase & Co $493,469
No way! What are all these Fed companies doing on his supporter list?
Harvard University $473,669
Bob Bernanke completed his undergrad summa cum laude at Harvard. Granted, this is a stretch.. albeit just one more connection to the Fed in the top 5 campaign contributors.
Citigroup Inc $467,849
Lo and behold. :P The Fed was pretty kind in bending the Arm's Length rule in 2007.
And now America finds itself in a severe economic crisis, with one of the instigators at the helm? Incredible timing.
| quote: |
even if that is true, so what?
|
See above. The Bank of England is at the top of the Fed? Or at least has a hell of a lot to say about what's happening with the direction of the monetary policy.
__edit__
N.M. Rothschild, Bank of England, to be precise. There are a couple of banks touting the Rothschild legacy. It was N.M. Rothschild that said "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." You never got back to me on that one, when I asked you earlier. Maybe you weren't curious. 
Granted, I may not have the full, enveloping understanding of the Fed that you boast, but I am not one to miss an obvious connection, or be lied to blatantly and swallow it whole. In past, I have perhaps mislead myself or given second thought to certain points of information, but be assured that I have looked deeper into the subjects that have caused me intellectual grief. I think it's you that needs to take a deeper look into the issues at hand. It does not take a staggering intellect to see that the money-makers in the world are guiding the 'powers that be' or 'that will be'.
| quote: |
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely. |

You fool, the Gulf of Tonkin Lie has been disclosed. Same goes for Northwoods. Fact, not speculation or fleeting ideas of Government terror whoring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods.
Last edited by {b.s.e.} on Oct-06-2008 at 02:09
|