The Obama Deception

[Frank327]

Is this also a good argument for electing judges in high places? No?

Some power of the people over judges would be ok. If a judge doesn't act as representative of the society anymore, society should be able to do something about it right?

I love how the anti-government conspiracy types who think the government is trying to enslave us all want to give the government even more power by abolishing the Fed; the ability to control the money supply AND spend it.

The point is that the enslavement is the logical result of how modern banking is done.

Nice bedtime story

 

[mrt144]

Some power of the people over judges would be ok. If a judge doesn't act as representative of the society anymore, society should be able to do something about it right?

A judge doesn't act as a representitive of society nor should they. You seem to be mistaken in the role that people in the government fulfill.

 

[Frank327]

A judge doesn't act as a representitive of society nor should they. You seem to be mistaken in the role that people in the government fulfill.

So society has nothing to do with the legal system and the government is not there for the people? I understand that society may act too emotionally to a case so that their judgement is not right, but can't the same be said about judges? I just think there should not be a power that answers to no other powers, except for when it's society as a whole.

I mean it's true in reality, but don't you think that should be different?

If I'm right, democracy is based on the following principle: Government makes laws. It is chosen by the people. The court system executes these laws, and is not directly influenced by the government, but by something else. The media acts as a check on these two institutions. Maybe it's indeed wrong to let congress choose judges, but they should answer to someone. Otherwise corruption would be a logical result.

 

[mrt144]

So society has nothing to do with the legal system and the government is not there for the people? I understand that society may act too emotionally to a case so that their judgement is not right, but can't the same be said about judges? I just think there should not be a power that answers to no other powers, except for when it's society as a whole.

I mean it's true in reality, but don't you think that should be different?

If I'm right, democracy is based on the following principle: Government makes laws. It is chosen by the people. The court system executes these laws, and is not directly influenced by the government, but by something else. The media acts as a check on these two institutions. Maybe it's indeed wrong to let congress choose judges, but they should answer to someone. Otherwise corruption would be a logical result.

You need to take a civics class.

 

[Frank327]

You need to take a civics class.

Yeah, civics class has been quite some time ago. I don't even remember trias politica exactly anymore .

Edit: Just checked it again, I was indeed wrong about the civics. It's executive, legislative and judicial, and these are pretty well balanced already. The point is, each of these powers has checks and balances to them to not make them too powerful. The federal reserve doesn't have this. That's why they have to change or done away with.

 

[JerichoHill]

Yeah, civics class has been quite some time ago. I don't even remember trias politica exactly anymore .

Edit: Just checked it again, I was indeed wrong about the civics. It's executive, legislative and judicial, and these are pretty well balanced already. The point is, each of these powers has checks and balances to them to not make them too powerful. The federal reserve doesn't have this. That's why they have to change or done away with.

The Fed does have a check and balance. It is only a quasi-governmental agency. It's head reports to the President, the Executive Office. Appointments to the Fed are handled by the Senate. Thus, there are two checks on the Fed, legislative and executive.

I am certain the that SC would get involved if there was a judicial case.

 

[Frank327]

The Fed does have a check and balance. It is only a quasi-governmental agency. It's head reports to the President, the Executive Office. Appointments to the Fed are handled by the Senate. Thus, there are two checks on the Fed, legislative and executive.

I am certain the that SC would get involved if there was a judicial case.

Sure, they can report to the government, but does the government have any say in what they do? If they would have a say in what they do, wouldn't that come back to the government increasing money supply in advance to elections? Why is so much money from the fed unaccounted for? The government or senate can appoint members of the board, but can it make the fed make decisions, or veto them?

 

[Neomega]

You're missing the point here. Of course there would be someone else to make the money. But the point is that the Fed is obligated only to make sure the currency is stable, while putting the power of monetary policy directly into the government's hands would remove that insulation and politicians would use it for political gain...everytime an election comes up, roll the printers and pump some money out to make the economy look better for a bit, balance the budgets. Then we have to clean up the mess of inflation afterwards. The government already has spending power; you need a balancing force to control monetary policy.

I am tired of you explaining why the fed exists. I know why it theoretically exists. Now if you please, explain why we should bow down and accept the fed we have right now. Because the fed we have right now in no way matches the pie-in-the-sky fed you dreamily pine about.

I love how the anti-government conspiracy types who think the government is trying to enslave us all want to give the government even more power by abolishing the Fed; the ability to control the money supply AND spend it.

anti-government conspiracy types? The point is.... which you seem to be missing over and over and over again, is that the FED CONTROLS THE GOVERNMENT. The reason why the anti-government conspiracy whacko types like me want the fed abolished is because we see it as an enormous corrupting influence on the government, and feel that we the people would be much safer if our government were not controlled by bankers.

 

[Cutlass]

Some people are going to argue that there is no political insulation at The Fed right now.

What is typically overlooked, and what the Fed's leaders themselves would often like people to overlook, is that the reason there is a Federal Reserve system in the first place has nothing to do with inflation. That was an afterthought.

The reason the Fed exists in the first place is to keep the financial markets, particularly banks, operational and so keep the financial sector of the economy from crashing and burning.

A lot of people are upset that the Fed is taking actions that are potentially inflationary. But what they don't know is that by doing so the Fed is attempting to fulfill it's primary function.

Now under the circumstances, the primary function can only be pursued at the risk of abandoning the secondary function. But that is the correct choice. Both by law and in practical terms.

I am tired of you explaining why the fed exists. I know why it theoretically exists. Now if you please, explain why we should bow down and accept the fed we have right now. Because the fed we have right now in no way matches the pie-in-the-sky fed you dreamily pine about.

The Fed we have now is doing what it is supposed to do in accordance to the laws witch created and govern it.

 

[Neomega]

The reason the Fed exists in the first place is to keep the financial markets, particularly banks, operational and so keep the financial sector of the economy from crashing and burning.

I asked for no more pie in the sky idealistic explanations of what the fed is supposed to be doing.

The Fed we have now is doing what it is supposed to do in accordance to the laws witch created and govern it.

You must be a real fool to believe that when the fed was established, they were imagining it would be propping up banks and insurance companies driven by billionaires into the ground.

One of the things I noticed in the difference between Chinese and western history, is in Chinese history, corruption is very real, and always a problem. In western history, as long as it is legal, it isn't corruption, so corruption is only viewed as particular individuals going beyond the law to gain wealth.

The fact is, the Fed is corrupted by the people who run it. It is comprised of the very banks being bailed out. The feds job is first and foremeost to make sure the big banks within its circle do not fail, the national economy is second.

And nobody has even mentioned the climax of the movie, which basically states that the reason for all this is to create a one world government, that taxes carbon emissions, so that basically, people will be taxed for every movement they make.

 

[Frank327]

The reason the Fed exists in the first place is to keep the financial markets, particularly banks, operational and so keep the financial sector of the economy from crashing and burning.

I don't understand - how do they do this? How does a federal reserve do this better than a real government agency? Why does the money creation need to be controlled by private bankers?

My view on the situation is - if you're just going to let bankers decide who gets money without scrutinizing it, of course they're going to figure out bankers should be the wealthiest most respected people in the country. I just don't think they deserve that at all (they produce literally nothing, only trouble), and the financial system should be designed as such.

"But they can know, they're the experts!"

If only experts can understand the financial system, it's time for a new one.

 

[pau17]

I am tired of you explaining why the fed exists. I know why it theoretically exists. Now if you please, explain why we should bow down and accept the fed we have right now. Because the fed we have right now in no way matches the pie-in-the-sky fed you dreamily pine about.

Ok, so you want a different Fed, or no Fed at all?

And nobody has even mentioned the climax of the movie, which basically states that the reason for all this is to create a one world government, that taxes carbon emissions, so that basically, people will be taxed for every movement they make.

I did, at least the Godwin part. But anyway, you must realize that this is a plain economic fact, not some vast conspiracy. The more we try to cram people onto the planet, the more strain on resources will exist, the more pressures for competition will exist, and the greater propensity for crises will exist because tiny fluctuations will have greater boomerang effects. Humanity will always keep expanding to the very edge of the envelope, such that tiny changes in supply and demand will suddenly and drastically change the livelihoods of billions of people living on the knife's edge. This will be funneled into government rationing and regulation whether we want it or not. It's going to have to either be taxes, or population control. Or chaos and mass killing.

It would be great to believe in a utopian future where everyone is free from taxes and burdens and government and everyone has enough and nobody fights over it, but that's just not going to happen unless something seriously budges, and abolishing the Fed and attacking the secret banker conspiracy is not going to solve our problems.

 

[Neomega]

Ok, so you want a different Fed, or no Fed at all?

A different fed, or a different system. Perhaps one with a constricted money supply growth, based on population growth.

I did, at least the Godwin part. But anyway, you must realize that this is a plain economic fact, not some vast conspiracy. The more we try to cram people onto the planet, the more strain on resources will exist, the more pressures for competition will exist, and the greater propensity for crises will exist because tiny fluctuations will have greater boomerang effects. Humanity will always keep expanding to the very edge of the envelope, such that tiny changes in supply and demand will suddenly and drastically change the livelihoods of billions of people living on the knife's edge. This will be funneled into government rationing and regulation whether we want it or not. It's going to have to either be taxes, or population control. Or chaos and mass killing.

It would be great to believe in a utopian future where everyone is free from taxes and burdens and government and everyone has enough and nobody fights over it, but that's just not going to happen unless something seriously budges, and abolishing the Fed and attacking the secret banker conspiracy is not going to solve our problems.

So now you are trying to tell me Malthusian theory is the reason we must accept the massive corruption of the banks? The two don't even tie into each other. I agree there will always be competition for resources. But that doesn't mean we need our economy controlled by banks. In fact, the only thing you try to tie these two thought together with is your mocking of conspiracies.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

and rightfully so

Ridiculous. The national debt didn't cause the housing meltdown, and Obama is doing just as much to contribute to it. I hate seeing this crap. Where's the fed in this? Tell me!

How does speculation occur in the first place? Low taxes and high gov't spending? Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

 

[pau17]

So now you are trying to tell me Malthusian theory is the reason we must accept the massive corruption of the banks? The two don't even tie into each other. I agree there will always be competition for resources. But that doesn't mean we need our economy controlled by banks. In fact, the only thing you try to tie these two thought together with is your mocking of conspiracies.

Corruption is always bad, of course. Nobody is justifying that, and I'm not saying people shouldn't complain. But I thought the video pretty much blamed the Fed and a secret banker conspiracy for everything, and at this point I'm wondering whether you and the video are railing against anything in particular. It seems more like an existential cry of anguish against whatever secretive entity it can pin its problems on, rather than a definite policy proposal. It was two hours of "Zomg! The bankers control all! It's like Burger King, you try to talk to the franchise owner when your burger is cold and you CAN'T! We will be slaves no more! Down with the banking conspiracy! Nazis!" Sorry, but there's a lot to mock in that video.

And we lost the Africa part a while back. How will the powers at be have to make up a crisis when there are plenty of crises already?

 

[Neomega]

I'm wondering whether you and the video are railing against anything in particular.

How about

THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Jesus, I thought the video and myself had made it pretty clear what we were railing against. Now, it should be pretty clear.

But just in case

THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS TEH EVIL!!!!11!!! THEY CONTROL EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!!!1!!! LOOK OUT!!1 THE SECRET BANKERS ARE TRYING OT RUEL THE WORLD!!11!!

Do you know now, or are you gonna ask me one more time?

And we lost the Africa part a while back. How will the powers at be have to make up a crisis when there are plenty of crises already?

No we didn't lose it. I already gave you my answer.

 

[pau17]

Do you know now, or are you gonna ask me one more time?

I have gathered that you dislike the Federal Reserve. The question basically is:

Are there corrupt bankers that are single-handedly, alone creating the world's problems? Or are the world's problems creating corrupt bankers?

Corruption, on the individual or even group level: I'll give you that. But is it easier to believe that there is a secret organization plotting everything, or is it more plausible to believe that there are people trying to do a good job, people stealing from the coffers, and a whole bunch of incompetent clueless people in between, all in a system that nobody is really controlling? Either it is impossible for there to be such large-scale schemes, or we're all so screwed it doesn't matter anyway.

No we didn't lose it. I already gave you my answer.

You said:

What? I know we have interests there, I am sure we have advisors and special forces in Ethiopia right now. But I mean in a big way.

I said:

Any of those examples could have been used for "big" interventions. Plenty of neocons already want to be there.

Reminds me of the MadTV parody in which an actor starts an Africa genocide so he can star in the movie about it.

 

[Neomega]

I have gathered that you dislike the Federal Reserve. The question basically is:

Are there corrupt bankers that are single-handedly, alone creating the world's problems? Or are the world's problems creating corrupt bankers?

The first. It's not just bankers, but it is definitely a cabal of the rich and powerful. I think the AIG fiasco shows how much out of touch the incredibly rich really are with reality. They truly believe they deserve everything. I believe that. I also think anybody born to a millionaire could never possibly have any idea what the value of the dollar is to someone like me, and that is why stuff like this makes me so angry. their arrogance is on a level that only someone born with a silver spoon in their mouth could ever possibly dream of.

They do believe they are the best int eh world, the brightest, and that they know best. They also believe that it is only natural they reap the lion's share of the rewards in the system that they are planning, because, well, it was their plan, and naturally, they are rich because they have the best stock, and are the smartest people in the world.

You said:

I said:

and I said one more thing which you missed.

 

[pau17]

The first. It's not just bankers, but it is definitely a cabal of the rich and powerful. I think the AIG fiasco shows how much out of touch the incredibly rich really are with reality. They truly believe they deserve everything. I believe that. I also think anybody born to a millionaire could never possibly have any idea what the value of the dollar is to someone like me, and that is why stuff like this makes me so angry. their arrogance is on a level that only someone born with a silver spoon in their mouth could ever possibly dream of.

They do believe they are the best int eh world, the brightest, and that they know best. They also believe that it is only natural they reap the lion's share of the rewards in the system that they are planning, because, well, it was their plan, and naturally, they are rich because they have the best stock, and are the smartest people in the world.

Just because this is true doesn't mean you have to believe in vast conspiracy theories, ya know. You think Paris Hilton is secretly plotting against you? Maybe you have a personal stake in this, but then again, according to your video, we all do. And this vague rant does not really tie into any specific policy proposals; you're just saying that just because there are rich people out there, they must be plotting on a global scale to control everything. I'll give them the effort, sure, but the capability, no way. Nobody can do that, and that's why people ridicule the video. It's just a bunch of people howling at the moon, creating demons in their minds who are controlling everything. But that's not to say that corruption doesn't exist, remember that!

and I said one more thing which you missed.

Where? Kindly repeat it, then.

 

[Neomega]

Just because this is true doesn't mean you have to believe in vast conspiracy theories, ya know. You think Paris Hilton is secretly plotting against you?

Was that necessary?

Maybe you have a personal stake in this, but then again, according to your video, we all do. And this vague rant does not really tie into any specific policy proposals; you're just saying that just because there are rich people out there, they must be plotting on a global scale to control everything. I'll give them the effort, sure, but the capability, no way. Nobody can do that, and that's why people ridicule the video. It's just a bunch of people howling at the moon, creating demons in their minds who are controlling everything. But that's not to say that corruption doesn't exist, remember that!

It's not just because there are rich people out there. It is because there are rich people out there, and it is way too obvious to anyone that can connect the dots that they are in control of everything.
Do they have a one world government agenda?
What powerful person, or groups of people in history, did not? It is the dream of powerful men to rule the world, and just because we live in the times of tee vee and automobiles, does not mean powerful men stopped having this dream.

Where? Kindly repeat it, then.

Basically Bush didnt have the political capital to go forward, Obama does, and the crisis hasn't happened yet, because it would need to get much more media play and hype.