|
F#CK the *cure*...Find the CAUSE
'Pinkwashing' reaches all-time high as symbol of commercialization, corruption of breast cancer industry
F#CK "Running for the Cure"! F#CK "Walking for the Cure"! F#CK "Wearing Pink for the Cure"! F#CK wearing wristbands for the cure! F#CK Relays for Life! What is this...some kind of CLUB? A social event? It's time to get off your ass and wake up to what is being done to us, our wives, our children, our parents, neighbors. WAKE UP...these are EUGENICS based corporations. They profit off of your sickness. And now, well I guess it's becoming in vogue to be SICK with CANCER?????? Join the club...we're having fun. It's a party! God, I want to throw up at stupid we are. I recently read that the tiniest amount of Selenium helps prevent cancer. Anyone remember talking to your "doctor" about NUTRITION? No, I'm sure though that they talked to you plenty about the cocktail of synthetic drugs to address your many diseases...THAT MOST ARE CAUSED FROM LACK OF NUTRITION! People...we are nutritionally deprived. It's not unlike running your beloved X5 with old broken down oil. The engine will breakdown as it was never intended to not replace the oil in your car. Never mind putting poisons into your old tired oil...yeah, that'll make it run better...NOT. Your food and water is POISONED. GMO food...yum. How about fluoride in your water...along with many other chemicals just waiting to attack your brain. Heck, I've heard they're now even using Lithium in many municipal water supplies. WHY DO WE BLINDLY TRUST THAT THESE PRICKS HAVE OUR BEST INTEREST IN THE DECISIONS MADE DAILY WITH OUR FOOD AND WATER? So, next time you see pink ribbons and run for the cure(s) or relays for life...ask yourself, why aren't they talking about the CAUSES of cancer? If we know the cause...we can prevent cancer in the first place! Oh, yeah...that would mean people could actually be healthy and not need to fund their F#CKED up operations to keep us sick. I don't know, just a thought! |
I'm not sure how you really feel about this. ;)
Our society has become over medicated. People don't feel like their doctor did his/her job unless they leave with a script in hand. Big Pharma is scary. There is a ribbon or wristband for everything now and the pink breast cancer thing has become an industry unto itself. It's not unlike NYC banning big sodas. It's not the big sodas that are the problem. It's people's inability or unwillingness to take responsibility for their own health and well being. You can't legislate out stupidity, apathy, ignorance, etc, etc. |
I wish it was as simple as all cancers being caused by poor nutrition. Unfortunately, it isn't.
Yes, society is overmedicated. And people have come to think that they can take a supplement instead of eating more healthy style foods. So eating healthy can help. But that doesn't mean it will prevent all cancers. |
Having lost my mother, my sister, my mother-in-law and, a dozen friends to the Big C, I fear it like the fookin Eternal Footman.
I read my azz off on the topic, (non-med journal versions), and I still have no clue; I suspect 'they' don't either. I wonder if our ancestors had it cruising in their DNA and most simply never lived to 'get it', and they couldn't recognize it. But back at the Rant Ranch, while I have several friends, both M&F, currently battling it, I have zip inclination to give a dime to SBK, et al, and that ilk. Imo, it's like pissing in the ocean, and an overblown theme... Cancel a war or two, and really fund the research on the various and seemingly changing cancer varieties. GL, mD |
Cancer is so scary and I agree it's not something that can be prevented by eating right, which is a good idea anyway. Of course there are things that can cause cancer such as smoking and known carcinogens but there are so many cases where there does not seem to be any known cause or way to prevent it.
My brother-in-law is an oncologist and he has told me about several young adults, as in 18 or 19, who developed cancer with no apparent cause. This past summer he told me about one of his patients who is (was) an 18 year old girl with no explanation for her cancerous brain tumor. |
There's a cause alright...it's in our food, water and air. Hidden in plain sight. As for brain cancer...maybe cell phones?! Ask Cheryl Crow why she's dealing with brain cancer...I think she believes it was from cell phone usage. I stopped holding them at my head and either use speaker or earbuds.
This just appeared on infowars...» Video: Surviving The Great Culling with Filmmaker Chris Maple Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! "The Great Culling" Official Water Trailer 1 - YouTube I'm not suggesting that all cancers are prevented from eating properly...it's nearly impossible to eat properly with nutrient rich foods today. All natural...doesn't mean as found in nature!!! I think I've even read that organic doesn't necessarily mean that it's grown organically. Do you guys know anything about chemtrails? GMO's? All the numerous issues with our cattle, chickens, pigs, etc.? Sheesh, never mind all the preservatives! I am however suggesting that there are benefits to fighting the effects of our food, water and air with nutrition. At least I HOPE there are benefits. 'Cause we need something other than what the medical community is shoving down our throats. I personally have run out of trust for most anything that the medical community "believes" in today. For them to admit that they're wrong...simply means they're out of a job. Not likely going to happen. Sadly, there are many within the medical industry that think they're doing the right thing for their patients...but are too compartmentalized to ever see beyond their area of "expertise". Yeah, no pink shirts or ribbons for me. No running, walking or jumping for the cure for me. I've participated in the past...but, NO MORE. Time to take a stand and call this pig...a pig. And yes, I do believe that there is a conspiracy to "thin the herd". My father became one of their victims at 58 years of age...an otherwise healthy man. I won't go into details...but it changed my perspective on this life and world! |
i bought a loaf bread in Moscow, freshly baked, late in the evening. got home, left it on the kitchen table, covered by a kitchen towel... in the morning, the loaf was moldy and hard...
i bought a loaf of bread, in plastic wrap at a local grocery store in the US on Monday night... left it on the kitchen table... on saturday, there was NO mold, and it was still edable... halliluya!!! or... is it?.. even mold did not want to poison itself with that bread... |
Quote:
:bustingup :iagree: |
Everyone has cancer gene's in them, it's just whether it gets activated or not, it's just luck of the draw?
|
Quote:
How to respond to this????? Have you ever looked at the effects of vibration frequency? There are some really cool vids on youtube that demonstrate how water or sand when placed on a flat surface can change shape into geometric patterns with various frequencies running through the surface. Once the vibrational frequency is stopped, the sand/water return to it's normal state. I've recently read that it's thought that we have a bunch of "junk" DNA. They're not sure what it's for. Maybe this is where you're getting your cancer gene idea? Well, what if our DNA has been manipulated by frequency to turn some of our DNA into "junk"? Is that natural? It's my very basic understanding that our DNA strand is not unlike a fractal antenna. Quick search on google rendered this: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagneti... [Int J Radiat Biol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI This is an area that I would like to educate myself so I could have some kind of real discussion! Anyway, it's suggested that it could be possible to alter the DNA through frequency vibrational change...triggering various illnesses. So, while I agree with what you're saying that we have a ticking time bomb inside all of us...IMHO that it was PURPOSELY CHANGED IN US TO THEIR BENEFIT...keep us sick and unconscious. There's another part of this DNA process...consciousness. Evidently, the DNA for consciousness has been turned off or turned into what looks like "junk". If this is correct...we've been REPROGRAMED to only "compute" certain functions...hence the reason why we only use something like 10-20% of our brain. Again, just started scratching the surface. It intrigues me and have always wondered why we don't utilize much of our brain. There is so much more to this life. Many are kept from questioning the "hows" and "whys". I'm headed down the rabbit hole and there's only one way to go...DEEPER. :D Now for some mind bending exercise... If everything is made up of atoms and atoms are mostly made up of "space" and no solidity...can anything be solid? I'll start another thread with that one! :D |
Quote:
|
Still comes down to the luck of the draw?
I have known people in there 90's smoked & drank all there lives and died of old age, yet 6 month old babies developed cancer? I put it down too s**t happens? |
Cancer conspiracy theory? Seems to have a lot in common with other conspiracy theories.
Is There a Conspiracy to Suppress Cancer Cures? |
[QUOTE=JCL;905324]Cancer conspiracy theory? Seems to have a lot in common with other conspiracy theories.
REALLY???? Written by an MD. Wow, could've never guessed. :rolleyes: Well JCL, just keep believing in the establishment...who are KNOWN liars. I'm sure they want to keep you safe and healthy. Don't forget...BAD DRUGS prescribed by MD's are the NUMBER 1 cause of death in the USA. But, they have family and loved ones...so, I'm sure they'd NEVER let their own family members take those drugs. But wait, I happen to know several that will not allow their family to take any meds that they prescribe. Yeah, what's good for you is not good for their own family.:bustingup Nice try JCL :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Take a look. Stephen Barrett, M.D. Biographical Sketch /rant /resume tinfoil hat protective shield. :rofl: |
Quote:
From Wiki... Barrett has become a "lightning rod" for controversy as a result of his criticisms of alternative medicine theories and practitioners. Barrett says he does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be "way outside [his] scope."[16][25] He states he does not give equal time to some subjects, and has written on his web site that "Quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish 'balanced' articles about unbalanced subjects."[26] Barrett is at the forefront of exposing questionable aspects of chiropractic.[2 A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine oppose Barrett and Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.[25][29] Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable due to methodological flaws. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture as examples of alternative treatments with no plausible mechanism of action. AGAIN...REALLY???? Another useful idiot for the establishment. It's all about deflection and ad homonyms. I don't pretend to have all the answers...but, at least I know what questions to be asking. You've completely ignored the fact that our food, water and air are being poisoned. I would think that any rational person would question...why. Anyway, I feel sorry for you JCL. You seem so content in the way things are. Trying to make people like myself seem like wild crazy conspiracy theorists. It's not working anymore JCL. Those days are over. People are waking up and asking the hard questions. JCL, did you spend all day trying to pull up some kind of bs article written by an MD that admits he "does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be way outside his scope". I generally like a good debate. But, can't help but think that you're just looking for ways to call me crazy. So, have it your way...stick your head firmly in the sand. But know this...with your head in the sand...you're on your knees...bowing to tyranny...and in a perfect position to get your ass raped!:thumbup: |
Quote:
The shortcomings of using a solar system model to describe particles that behave as waves. Energy states. Quantum mechanics. Relativity. String theory. This could be a really long thread. ;) |
Quote:
You started off with a rant about big companies making a profit off of health issues. When I referenced an individual that runs a non profit consumer education organization fighting that problem, you called him an idiot working for the establishment. How do you reconcile those two positions? It seems to me that he is working to help educate people. |
Quote:
I'm up way past my bedtime. Last response tonight from me..."Barrett says he does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be "way outside [his] scope."[16][25] He states he does not give equal time to some subjects, and has written on his web site that "Quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish 'balanced' articles about unbalanced subjects."[26] Barrett is at the forefront of exposing questionable aspects of chiropractic.[27]" Hmm, doesn't criticize conventional medicine? Why? It's "way outside of [his] scope". You mentioned that he's non-profit? I'm too tired...but, is it a 501-c3...tax exempt by any chance? I'll look into it tomorrow for sure. I'm done for the night JCL. Thanks for playing! I'll address your other post...no to hallucinogenics...I'm not pretending to have any...let alone all the answers with quantum physics...I do find it a bit intriguing. I will attempt to educate myself with both sides of the argument. Good night. |
Quote:
That doesn't make me content to accept things. I'm debating with you, aren't I? And you know that Sheryl Crow doesn't have brain cancer, don't you? And that she is probably not very qualified to determine a causal link between radio frequencies and cancer, given the distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Why would you accept her comments on a talk show as proof, or even as a credible theory? It is another example of people not applying critical thinking skills. Not just you, lots of people. But you quote her comments as if they are founded on some logical basis. And how about if we cut the rape comments? They have no place in a debate. |
Quote:
So, back to our discussion: You understand that we're getting poisoned but feel "it's due to society not having figured out the consequences of their actions, or the political will to do something about it". Your perspective on the mass scale poisoning sounds like it's all innocent and golly gee whiz if we could only figure this thing out and if the politicians would just quit thinking about being a politician...then we could clean things up. I find that thought to be a bit naive. I'm going to provide some links...a lot of links!:D Maybe you'll decide to watch...maybe you won't. It's my last attempt to try to get you to see the big picture...that they're doing it ON PURPOSE. Innocence left the building a long time ago. And political will???? Bought and paid for...plain and simple. Govt's are corporate run institutions today...I can put some links up for that one too!:bustingup If you can't see this after exposing yourself to the links below...then I don't have a prescription strong enough to open your eyes and mind. Somehow though, I feel like I'm being played;) I suspect that you are well aware of what's going on...but like to play devils advocate. Maybe not. If you're truly interested, you'll watch and hear various perspectives. Are these references "all knowing"?...nope. But, they do make sense to my ears. Anyway... I know this is voluminous...but, some time invested will provide some insight into some of the things that I am talking about. The end video is not something that I normally tune into....but, it's pretty passionate and frankly, hits the nail on the head with the political process. BTW, I've never researched this guy or his music. I also added some comedic relief in the next to last video. All work and no play makes Jack... Air: What in the World Are They Spraying? (Full Length) - YouTube Water: Blaylock: Fluoride's Deadly Secret - YouTube 'The Fluoride Deception' - Christopher Bryson - YouTube Food: Conversations w/ Great Minds - Jeffrey Smith GMOs - Seeds of Deception P1 - YouTube Conversations w/Great Minds - Jeffrey Smith GMOs - Seeds of Deception P2 - YouTube Documentary on Monsanto... The World According to Monsanto GMO Documentary - YouTube Vaccines: Interview with Sherri Tenpenny about dangers of vaccines - YouTube Healthcare: The History of Modern Healthcare with Dr. Peter Glidden - YouTube Dr. Peter Glidden on Curing Type 2 Diabetes - YouTube Dr. Glidden - Cholesterol, A Necessary Component of Human Biology - YouTube Politics: The False Left Right Paradigm - YouTube MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan touches upon the false left/right paradigm 8/10/11 - YouTube Chris Rock debunks the 2-party, false left-right paradigm - YouTube And the grand finale: WARNING: Strong Language New Video: Ice Cube "Everythang's Corrupt" Polictically Charged Hip-Hop | Vibe I added this one only because this is likely what the youth are watching. I don't agree with all of the content...especially the remark about capitalism...IMHO, he's mistaken cronyism with capitalism. I'm sure there are other references that I would disagree with as I've not looked up the lyrics. But, kudos to him for touching on the entire system being corrupt. |
Eric, is that you?
|
Interesting topic, just adding my 2˘ yes I do believe big government poisons our food water etc.. However people are so caught up in there little box nobody pays attention. By the time enough people discover the truth it will be to late. If your interested here are 2 documentaries that are eye opening (food inc.) and (fork over knife) it's on Netflix if you have it. Like I said just my opinion check them out and let me know what y'all think.
|
the cavemen did not have much of impact on the surroundings... but.. the wooly mammoths are gone... so.. the cavemen grow into a bigger society and the local cave's shaman realizes, that he does not have to hunt for food, all he has to do is BS his way around and the hunters wil bring him the food...
fast forwards a bit... now we have pharaohs, at the top of the food chain, who force a lot of people into servitude, with the help of the next tier of privileged, the nobility, who manipulates the next layer, the soldiers who keep the general populace at bay... the environmental impact is less noticiable, but the politics are born, as the underdog elite, the priests (the shamans!!), are the ones installing and removing the pharaohs, to futher their agenda, such as getting the resources without extending much of effort (granted, the temples kept the corporate knowledge)... the priest are doing their deeds with the help of "gods", and they manipulate the "public opinion" - this pharaoh was bad by the gods and they struck him down, and they installed the other pharaoh, who is good by the gods... the pharaoh is just is a marionet in the hands of the priests... fast forward, say to our times... we have democracy but not direct popular vote... the last standing european dictatorship, Belorus, has direct popular vote... our military fights communist ideas but lives in a communist bubble of free education (heavily subsidised), free medical, early retirement - i find it very interesting how can society give them the communist perks and charge them to fight communism?...the priests have changed their ropes and now they are corporate barons, they still like the idea to get the resources and not hunt for them... when in Rome, do as romans do - and the romans wanted bread and entertainment... so, you have the football, the baseball (and Congressional hearings about how to play those games, as the Congress has no OTHER things to worry about), and then you need to feed the masses - the well fed do not revolt... so, the priests.. errr... the corporations invent preservatives, that extend the shelf life of any given product, and the store shelves are full of all kinds of food... the quality of the food is not the same any longer, but hey - your body can't tell the difference... wait... was it corn syrup? or sugar? anyways... do as romans do - keep the legions occupied, do not let them back into metropoly, have them fight wars, overfeed your population, relax, rule the world, enjoy the life... hahaha, i went waaay out on the limb with this one, didn't i? |
ohh... and since the romans are too fat to work, let the provinces do their work for them... i mean, let the chinese built toys for the kids, computers for the grown ups... bangladeshese will dress everybody up...
you know, if the chinese government will decide to open up their DIRECT distribution stores in the US, and sell the goods that they manufacture in China for the US market directly, at a 10% markup, they will UNDERCUT all the prices in the US - the WalMart or Target will look like super luxury outlets in comparasion to the chinese direct store, while selling identical crap... :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The failure of a group to collectively do what is right or best doesn't define that there is a sole bad guy doing evil, pulling the puppet strings. I find that line of thinking to be a bit paranoid. |
Quote:
|
Serious topics can't be posted to youtube????
Listen to Dr. Russell Blaylock. Also, Dr. Glidden references a published report or two. Oh well. Like I said, I hope the system you trust takes good care of you.;) I heard Dr. Blaylock say that either this is a conspiracy for population control or they are incredibly stupid. Ken: Hey JCL...the sky is blue you know...here's a video showing the color of the sky. JCL: You saw that on youtube. Youtube is for entertainment only...never mind that the video showed a blue sky...it can't be proven...since it's on youtube. Lead a horse to water... |
you guys started an interesting subject but it came down to petty stuff real fast...
there are facts, regardless of the media - it could be carved in stone or exist in electrons in some virtual clouds - the sky is blue due to laws of optics... there are chemical preservatives in the food that kill people... some of them are addictive... corporations can provoke wars - we go to save Kuwait from hussein (oh my God, oil has NOTHING to do with it!!!!), and we are not bombing moscow for athrocities in Chechnya... and Darfur goes unnoticed...oh... yeah.. no oil in darfur... follow the money (greed has moved this world, greed and lust), and half of the conspiracy theories will be resolved... follow the energy sources and food - and the other half of the conspiracies will get resolved... after we resolve those - the only one left, will be the Roswell - are there aliens at the base 51??? |
Quote:
If I want to see what colour the sky is I will walk outside and look at it. I won't rely on edited You Tube clips as my sole source of information. That doesn't mean that some of the videos on You Tube don't actually show a blue sky, you made a faulty leap of logic there. But what would you do if there was a video showing a blue sky, and another showing a green sky? Just go with which ever one you found first? |
tynash- one question, so I can determine if you are a whack job or not:
Do you believe children should be vaccinated? Say the standard US vaccination set. Yes or No The reason I ask is that- unlike the stuff you and JCL are 'discussing', the jury is in on vaccines. Just curious |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are we talking about "clean" vaccinations or what the masses receive??? It's obvious that there are issues with the vaccines given to the general public. The elite can get "clean" vaccines...but, not us. From my non scientific base of information...I'm sick that my kids got vaccines back in the early '90's. Fortunately, they survived...no complications discovered...YET. Sadly, the system is fixed to force vaccination unless you're home schooling. If my wife and I could do it again...we'd home school and no vaccinations! What you do for your kids is your choice. But, if you do choose to vaccinate...don't fear those that choose not to do so...after all, if you're vaccinated, you should have no worries with contracting the disease, right? But, the system cries bloody murder if your child comes to school without all their shots. WTF? Honestly, I really don't care what anybody thinks about me.;) |
Quote:
Touche! |
Quote:
Consider this though. Where does money come from? Who issues that money? Who controls how much money is in the marketplace? If you understand these basic things about fiat currency, then you will quickly understand that money is NOT the objective of the controlling elite...they can create it out of thin air. Money is for the rest of us to wage their wars, destroy our food, water and air. It's used as a control system that is multi-layered. It is worshipped today. Think I'm crazy...try to live without it! If it's not worshipped, wouldn't we stop pursuing money when we could have our basic needs met...nope, we want more...most of us anyway. We are enslaved, made stupid, docile and sick with all the various chemicals in food, water, air and lets not even talk about the TV and the trance inducing state it brings. One more thing...I've heard it said that we are being made into beings that are using less and less of our right brain. The ultimate control is to reduce someone down to using the left side of their brain. Gotta see it to believe...gotta touch it...right, the 5 senses. The 5 senses can easily be manipulated and controlled! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'd say that is a no. So, what is the verdict? |
money as a concept is a tangible equivalent of time put into labor. time = money. the tangible portion of it could be anything, from shells, gold, to paper currency...
you make $5 an hour at work, you need you grass cut, you cut it yourself, since you can't afford to pay someone to cut it for you... your time = $5 an hour... you make $100 an hour, you need your grass cut, you hire someone to cut it for you because 1 hour spent cutting grass could be spent with your family, tv, or just sitting and watching another guy cut it for you for $5 ah hour... so... money = time... some people accumulate a lot of other people's time - these are millionaires and the like... regardless, if the wealth is in shells, or gold or dollars... some people manage to dig the wealth from the ground, gold, oil, iron, etc... that digging diminishes the value of the money, as the money created not by time put into the labor but by creating the symbols (currency) of the time of labor, while not backed up by labor... I cite Karl Marx, his work "Capital"... i am grossly paraphrasing, it was good 20-25 years as i glanced inside that book... you are citing the same things that i mentioned, greed, lust (women have caused a few conflicts), food, resources... i am not following your thought line where the powers of this world are treated a bit different then the rest of us ... maybe they can buy a few more days of their life, but - they still take a dump same way as i do, and if they are struck by a lightning, they are toasted, like anyone else would... i don't think they take super pills that prevent cancer (i think Steve Jobs could afford a super pill and would stay alive)... so... i agree with most of your points but not all... |
Quote:
It's a NO with a caveat. *If* vaccines were clean...I'm for it and can absolutely see the benefit. Unfortunately, reality is these things are laced with substances known to be harmful to our brains. In some cases, live polio was given in vaccinations...not cool! |
Quote:
TerminatorX5...thanks for bearing with me. I'll do my best to explain further. I was in a rush and couldn't expound with my previous post. Yes, as far as I know, they take a dump like anyone else.:D I suspect that they have access to the best known health care. Did you watch any of the vids with Dr. Blaylock or Dr. Glidden? There are known things to do and avoid for preserving your health. The elites know this and probably so much more. But, on a much larger scale...think about this for a minute or two: If you were so wealthy and you could literally create money out of thin air, would you get bored with money? I mean seriously, how many yachts, homes, islands, countries to own before you get bored with the "game"? So, what's left? Screw with humanity. I think we've got some very unsatisfied people at the top of this entire pyramid that have turned their attention to destruction. No longer satisfied with seeing some humans advance in wealth, education and health...they are destroying those things. Is this making any sense? Can you see how the "game" got boring and how it's turned into dominating humans on every level? They are acting as our slave owners...and sadly, most slave owners don't empathize with their slaves. I don't think boredom is the only reason for destroying the essentials in our lives. I happen to think that this idea of them using these chemicals to shut down the right side of our brain and only using the left side...makes us much more "computer" like. Do you think it's easier to control someone that has consciousness or a computer? If you possess consciousness...I would think that you would have clarity of who you are, what you are and how you fit into this experience here on earth and the universe and beyond. Could there be power in that kind of knowledge? I'd say yes. What if through consciousness you knew how to live completely independent from the "system"? What if God really did give us the ability to heal ourselves and not be dependent on a man made healthcare system? What if we knew how the power structure built around us was really the Wizard of Oz? I could keep going...but, would that be something that only a few would want to know and keep to themselves? I would think so. Otherwise, they would no longer possess the power to enslave. So, assuming you're a slave owner....do you want your slaves to have consciousness or be more computer like? Obviously, I think you want computer like humanoids...easily programmed and manipulated. This my friend is the ultimate battle that I think we wage with those at the top of the pyramid and the rest of us that have been kept from reaching our true conscious state. A battle between consciousness and evil. How else can I say it? It's obvious that there are those like JCL and many others that would prefer us to be more like computers. Some seemingly love the prison that has been built. I don't. I want freedom from all the things that bind me to this sick system of greed, corruption and the ultimate destruction of our consciousness. Wow, hope this makes some sense. I've been watching election results...unreal. |
|
well... the science was not at the same stage as today, but hitler managed to get german people brainwashed... Marat, Robespier (spelling?) of french revolution???... doctor Guiliom creates guiliotine and his own head rolls off... did they have the technology back then? probably not, but they still managed to do same things that are being done today...
my greatgrandfather lived off land in the hills of mount ararat in turkey, kebobed lamb, the fattier the better and drunk wine and water from the creek... died of old age but not before fathering last kid at 65... and seeing him grow too... maybe he died from cancer... maybe not... i think you point about food chain being poisoned is right on spot... other points about brain... well... you are giving the rich too much credit they don't deserve.. lol... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thanks for playing! |
Quote:
My favourite parts are the 8 foot tall alien lizard people living at the centre of the earth in the molten lava, and secretly running a single world government; CHAOS and CONTROL on Get Smart being real; and germ theory being wrong. My biggest disappointment is that the Columbian chapter of the Illuminati is only responsible for the district of Columbia, CBS, Columbia University, and one of the space shuttles. I was sort of hoping they had also created British Columbia, where I live, as a sort of joint venture with their UK counterparts. It would have all fit together then. |
Quote:
When you're hungry and your way of life ceases to exist...yep, you're primed for brainwashing. How many lives have been disrupted around the world today???? Have we learned anything yet or just waiting for the next charismatic politician to take us by the hand and brainwash us into further killing more and more groups of people? You know, it's being reported that youth (kids) are being seen now wearing Mao t-shirts. WTF? How many did Mao slaughter? 65 million...more? Can you believe that in this day and age...China is now thought to be THE example for the world?! That is alarming. You mentioned food poisoning...please don't discount what they're doing to our water in the US today. The Nazi's used fluoride to make the concentration camp prisoners compliant/submissive. Why do we have a system in place in the US today where 75% of our water is being fluoridated? You know, you're right...we do give the elites too much credit...for thinking they have our best interest in the policies that are used to control our lives. When will the many wake up to the fact that the few want to poison and control our lives? I say when we get our bodies and mind cleaned from the toxic poisons used to dumb us down. That would be a good start anyway! |
Quote:
Yes, but... 78 percent of Pakistani children with polio were given polio vaccines |
Quote:
I wish you'd stop using conspiracy theorist as not being part of real life. Since when is it wrong to question known liars and criminals? Granted, there are some far out ideas. But, live and let live JCL. If you attempt to "cleanse" the thoughts and expressions of people that question ANYTHING...isn't that a form of genocide? It's kind of like saying....everything would be so much better if everyone agreed with my way of thinking. No it wouldn't! BTW, I'm not saying YOUR way of thinking....just those who disagree with anyone voicing their concerns over what is being done. It's a very interesting game...ad homonyms used to deflect potential truths from being exposed. Think about the context in which the term conspiracy theory is used...it's derogatory, no? What is a conspiracy? "In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced." Now, why is wrong to question and theorize about known criminals? |
when i was in military service, "they" used to give us brominated "something" in our tea to keep our male desires down - I served in other then US military... Since then I do not drink sweet hot tea...
When did you check the label on the Mountain Dew last time?... it is right in the open, no conspiracy there... lol... also, don't forget about the air - it is polluted to the point of no return... lol... |
Quote:
It did not suggest that polio vaccine, of either kind, was the culprit in the A'stan kids developing polio, but that water/food sources may have become contaminated from the lingering, down-chain source of the virus... Anecdotal: I was one of the very lucky 'test kids' that got Salk's old method vaccine way back in 1st grade, circa '53. Kids in my school/my gang were getting polio like kids get strep throat and 'allergies' today. I got the real stuff in the blind test, and glad I did. Back at the vaccine ranch, what the hell does a batch of A'stan kids getting polio have to do with whether polio vaccine today, is good or not good? |
Quote:
Wait for it.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Then you use all sorts of logical fallacies to make it seem like you have a real argument. What you have is a collection of internet trivia claims, spread by people who by and large, would have benefited greatly from having developed some critical thinking skills when they went to school. But that might mean that they have to use the left side of their brains for a few minutes, and apparently that makes us 'controlled'. Psst...that is another logical fallacy. PolitiFact Florida | Truth about fluoride doesn't include Nazi myth Please read and comment on the specific link. Or provide evidence for your absurd claims. |
Quote:
It occurs to me that you may not be able to tell the difference between a conspiracy theory and real life. Earlier, you called it 'going down the rabbit hole', I believe. "Disagreement....cleanse the thoughts of those who question....genocide". See what you did there? You just said, or at least suggested, that those who don't agree with you are like murderers. I don't want to debate what you call potential truths. I want to debate real truths. You know, like true ones. A complete lie is a 'potential truth' I suppose. It might be accidentally true. But why don't we just call it what it is, an unsubstantiated claim that doesn't pass the litmus test, to use a phrase from earlier in this thread. Of course conspiracy theorist is a derogatory term. But it is more polite that whack job or nut, two other phrases that have been used in this thread to describe your ideas. |
Quote:
Quote:
So, the natural health news website you quote, the one run out of Taiwan and published by a group called "Truth Publishing", seems not to be able to look up basic facts. Now, I know nothing about Truth Publishing, but based on how easy it was to determine that they made some pretty basic mistakes, their credibility is shot, at least to me. This is all apart from the fact that their article, as MD points out, doesn't show causality. It just tries to suggest it by sensationalizing the story, thus tricking readers who may not be able to separate fact from fiction. Apparently that strategy is working. |
Quote:
"Despite the fact that it was not widely disseminated in the US, possibly because of the dangers associated with its use, OPV is the vaccine of choice in countries like Pakistan because, soon after vaccination, weakened virus can be found in children's fecal matter. Immunity can then spread to communal water sources and increase immunity for greater portions of the population. So even if parents refuse OPV treatment, their children may still receive it indirectly through the drinking water." This is not the cause for getting polio. It's why they utilize the OPV in places like Pakistan...due to the way it can reach more people. As for your second question. Statistic don't mean a thing UNTIL YOU BECOME ONE. Obviously, there's something going on for those children to contract the disease, no? Read this please: Vaccines, Neurodevelopment, and Autism Spectrum Disorders – Russell L. Blaylock, MD, neurosurgeon | The Refusers How about this....PROVE TO ME THAT THEY ARE SAFE. PROVE TO ME THAT THIMEROSAL IS SAFE TO USE IN VACCINES. PROVE TO ME THAT MERCURY IS SAFE TO USE IN VACCINES. I've said more than once that vaccines should be used if they are CLEAN!!!! Got it this time????:wow: |
Quote:
Here's the quote for those who don't know: "Under Frits ter Meers direction, I.G. Farben used a fluoridation program to control the population at the Auschwitz concentration camp in any given area through the mass medication of drinking water supplies.“By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication (fluoride) that would produce sterility in women, and so on.” Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'm sure you're well aware of Charles Eliot Perkins. Lots of dots... Fluorides & Fluoridation - the facts I'm sure I don't have to show you this Harvard study...but for those who haven't seen it: Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal | Reuters |
You are ignoring the fact that OPV was used in the US from 1963 until 1990. Because it worked better. The choice of which vaccine to use depended on whether wild polio still existed. In the US it didn't, because OPV worked so well. Not the same in all countries, some of whom still have wild polio.
|
Quote:
JCL, I think it's time to be done. I think we both agree that our water, food and air are being chemically induced to the detriment of society. I think you would also agree that there are so many bad drugs prescribed today that are causing serious illnesses and death, right? So, what's the problem? Is it me questioning why these things are being done that's a problem? |
Questioning is good. It is the lack of questioning, that comes across like an automatic response to blame a hidden, anonymous, secretive "elite" for everything.
People making money off those web pages you are quoting aren't interested in truth. They are just making a buck in another way, by catering to people who may not be able to figure out they are being had. You are railing against a group that you think is controlling things, while giving in to another group that is doing exactly the same thing. |
Quote:
Really? I'm not ignoring it. Something happened to a batch that was given to a bunch of children in Pakistan. Honestly, I'll say this AGAIN. I have no issues with CLEAN vaccinations. I'm not aware of the benefits of using these things: Thimerosal, Mercury, Aluminum, Formaldehyde in vaccines. But hey, now they are saying radiation is actually good for us. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Yes, I completely agree with your point. I've called bs on many of the theories I've heard. There's just a lot of "dots" that can seemingly be connected to make some of these theories more than just a theory. Time will tell. I just want the deception to stop from all angles! |
Quote:
Wait for this...F#ck YOU and the horse you rode in on. I've not dodged your bullshit 'nut litmus test'. You just don't have the ability to comprehend evidently. ard, I wrote the above to show you how it serves absolutely NO purpose other than to try to make me look like a tough guy and make you look like a piss ant. This is exactly what you're doing to me with this post. Why did you write it? Did you feel more like a MAN...really gonna put me in my place, huh? Anyway, I've answered several times now and you've yet to post your response...waiting with baited breath...God I hope I'm not a whack, nut job, etc. etc. etc. Too funny that you think you are my judge and jury as to my sanity!:bustingup |
Is it over? Did the entertaining thread come to an end?. It did take me away from the televeision for a bit. Perhaps I should read more as I don't think I was able to fully comprehend what was going in and indeed what the goal of the poster was.
I do thank you though for the entertainment provided. And while I am not a judge or jury of anything, I can form my own opinions about things. And my opinion of you OP is that while you may not necessarily be a nut job, you are definitely rude, condescending and full of yourself. You obviously have issues that concern you very much.Your attitude comes through loud and clear. You are corrrect in whatever you say. I bow to your unique insight on the world as you see it. Good luck with spreading the word. And unlike JCL, I will not be sparring with you. I know a superior opponent when I see him and you sir are definitely superior to me. You win. |
Quote:
But clearly I was wrong and you've proven yourself to be a towering intellect. Apologies- carry on, I'll just read and educate myself. |
how do i unsubscribe from this thread?
|
Well, I guess the entertainment is over. My only excuse is that it was a slow night. At least it was in the lounge. :rofl:
I think I'll go make a donation to a global vaccination project. For anyone wanting it to continue, search on poster eric5273. It's like deja vu all over again. |
Dr Blaylock Neurosurgeon- Mainstream Science Now Says Vaccines Are Not Safe 1-2 - YouTube
Dr. Blaylock in a quick 15 minute interview sums up what this thread is about. The deception and lies of a system that is poisoning our bodies and minds. I would suggest that this is happening in more ways than just vaccines! Anyone want to debate Dr. Blaylock? GMO's, Fluoride, Aluminum, Mercury, Thimerosal, Formaldehyde, Lead, etc., etc., etc....as far as I know these are not good for us but actually cause significant damage. So, please feel free to educate me as to why these are used today in vaccines, water, food and air. FOLLOW THE MONEY....FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY As I suggested earlier in my thread...it's ultimately about EUGENICS or they're incredibly stupid. I don't think they're stupid. Think we are being deceived with their propaganda? That said, I don't like the tone that this thread took on in the last page or so. I've helped contribute to that negative tone and regret doing so. My concern is for the safety and health of my family and friends. And sadly, I've seen too much abuse in most areas of our system. I'd guess that anyone here reading this, would want the same for their own family and friends! You may not like the science behind what is being said, but one cannot deny that there are significant issues within our health care system, food safety, water safety and air. I happen to believe Dr. Blaylock and others. It sounds like those within the establishment are also publishing his work and are becoming believers. So, where's the rub? Maybe it was my delivery? Maybe readers are too vested in what they believe and feel a need to defend status quo? I don't know. Thank you JCL for your logic and your ability to research and point out some inaccuracies. If this thread can turn away from the name calling and implication that someone is crazy, stupid, etc. for raising concerns over the issues we face...then maybe it can get back to a civil discussion. Or maybe it just dies on the vine right now! |
Quote:
Quote:
It is worth reading this link, as there is a lot of evidence-based information included. Dr. Blaylock's wonder pills, marketed as the Brain Repair Formula, are sold here: Brain Repair Formula by Dr. Russell Blaylock If I was cynical I could suggest that one should FOLLOW THE MONEY to Dr. Blaylock and his pills. But I am not cynical, so I will go on the assumption that he is giving them away to deserving people, and not selling them for a profit. The part where he asks his followers to send him $100 for a 30 day supply of vitamin pills must be wrong. Beware false prophets. I read that once. I can't remember what verse it was, sorry. |
Quote:
Game. Set. Match. Sorry Eric v2.0 :yikes: |
Quote:
Dr. of Philosophy? Guess he knows more than a neurosurgeon? Here's what's on wiki...but, of course you already know: "Career Until his retirement in 2007, Carroll was a professor of philosophy at Sacramento City College. A longtime advocate of scientific skepticism and critical thinking, in 1994 Carroll set up the Skeptic's Dictionary website online. It initially consisted of fewer than fifty articles, mostly on logical fallacies and pseudoscience. The site has now grown to several hundred articles, including many on the paranormal and the supernatural. It attracts more than a million visitors per month.[2] Entries from the dictionary have been translated into more than a dozen languages. Carroll's views have attracted numerous interviews for him from mainstream media and local newspapers, such as the Davis Enterprise.[3] In addition, he has been interviewed by representatives of groups promoting scientific skepticism, such as the New England Skeptical Society[4] and Media Man Australia.[5] In January 2010 Carroll was elected as a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry[6] He is viewed by some commentators in the alternative science community as a pseudoskeptic [7][8] for his alleged dogmatism and scoffing attitude. Richard Milton has accused him of misrepresentations and fabrications of opponents' arguments.[9]" Robert T. Carroll seems to like the CDC and WHO. I would call those two entities as being big pharma friendly. Think he might be influenced to write stories with ad hominem's against anyone critical of big pharma? I guess that Dr. Blaylock and others should be researching, producing and giving away their remedies for free?! Otherwise, they must be in it for the money! Of course I find this logic absurd. Here's a nice treat about the CDC and vaccines: Swine Flu 1976 & Propaganda - Vidéo Dailymotion I'm all for critical thinking. However, can individuals be persuaded to write about topics that they themselves are not experts? Who holds this guy accountable? Maybe we need a "skeptical of the skeptics dictionary!" :D I'd like to find out how he's funded. That might be interesting to see what his money flow looks like. Maybe he's squeaky clean and is writing from his heart. I don't know. Why is it OK for Merck, Bristol Myers, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, etc. to sell us their drugs? And yet, there's skepticism regarding the sale of nutrients or pills from a neurosurgeon and others? $100 for a 30 day supply is not that expensive for your brains health, no? Oh, right...insurance companies don't provide coverage for holistic medicine...so, I guess it does sound expensive. So, tell me this...how should Dr. Russell Blaylock recover costs associated with R&D and manufacturing of his pills? JCL, may I ask...do you currently work in some type of career or have you worked in the past for money? If you have or currently do work for money...does that negate the quality of work you provide? I'm really curious to know what you do or have done in this world to make a claim that someone that's in medicine should be giving away their work/product for free...actually it wouldn't be free as it costs money for R&D and manufacturing of product. So, by your logic he should foot the bill to provide you with pills that he says will help heal your brain or else he's a fraud? By the way, Dr. Blaylock does give free advice to reduce the toxic effects of vaccinations:Russell Blaylock, MD - What To Do If Force Vaccinated It's too easy for me to see the angle of the industry trying to protect itself. I wish I could believe that the mega companies actually had our best interest in their business plans. I'm sorry to say that I've lost any type of trust for them. I'd much rather take my chances with someone that is more holistic. That's my choice. I've said more than once, for anyone that believes big pharma has your back...good for you. I hope they treat you well and not cause other issues as has been noted in my many references that you and others dispute. |
Quote:
Really? Did you read the reference? The guy is a professor in philosophy. Whoop dee do. Well, if you're that easily swayed...I guess it is over.:rolleyes: I'm trying really hard to not put a page of ROTFLAMAO's all over the screen. But, I won't. And, frankly I'm getting bored. No one has addressed this: When was it good to put: GMO's, Fluoride, Aluminum, Mercury, Thimerosal, Formaldehyde, Lead in our food, water, air and vaccines? Please step right up and show me the proof! 'Cause that's what this thread is about! ;) Well, that and my assertion that it's been done with malicious intent. |
Quote:
We appear to have different definitions of critical thinking. It is fine for drug companies to sell drugs. Millions of lives have been saved by some of those drugs, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that your hero, a proponent of your theory that profits cause the sale of unnecessary drugs, has just been outed as a vendor of unnecessary drugs. Of course he can sell them. But he can't say that we all need them just because some other evil people are (gasp) making money selling their drugs. And you can't use him as a source for why selling (other) drugs is bad. A further issue is that his medicine is not based on science, but rather fear. Not that it is relevant, but yes, I work. General management, engineering, product development related to automotive technologies. Critical thinking plays a big role. And I studied philosophy for a short while a long time ago, a course called the history of scientific reasoning. So don't diss the philosophers ;) |
Quote:
By way of introduction, Amanda Peet said in public that people who didn't vaccinate their kids were parasites. The post is well worth reading. Oh, and the chemicals you mention? Some of them are preservatives. None of them are harmful in the dosages in question. But more important is the downside of not vaccinating children. Read on. All the proof you want. With references and citations. Science-Based Medicine » Amanda Peet is My Hero(1) Check that website for articles on the non-linkage to autism. If you are all for critical thinking, you will likely be ashamed of your previous posts on not vaccinating children. |
Quote:
I think we should have a few beers and discuss critical thinking!:thumbup: Yeah, in my way of thinking, we've been duped by the "system". I've mentioned before that I'm in finance and have witnessed the abuses within that industry. I've had first hand conversations with big pharma types and have heard the abuses with drugs like Adderall. MD's paid by big pharma to pimp their brand of pills. It goes on and on and on. So, when I see someone criticize and it doesn't include the abuses within big pharma...I just can't take them seriously. However, I've not had a chance to see if Robert Carroll has any skepticisms on big pharma and how they pay MD's to speak at conventions to push their pills. As for fear...what isn't based in fear today? Govt's based in fear, markets based more in fear today than greed...greed at the top of the pyramid but selling fear to everyone else. I would suggest that fear also plays a big part in how meds are dispensed...just watch tv for a few minutes and you'll see the ads. |
Quote:
OK, I will look into Amanda Peet and the link you provided. But, you have to look at: Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted presence of SV40, AIDS and cancer viruses in vaccines In case you didn't like the natural news link above, although it looks credible to me...maybe this one below is better suited? Leading Vaccine Doctor States Cancer Linked to Polio Vaccine After seeing that link, wouldn't critical thinking lead you to really question big pharma? I sure do. Back to Dr. Blaylock, why is it that no one will take Dr. Blaylock up on studying the Amish children that haven't been vaccinated and compare children that have been vaccinated? Seems a slam dunk for pro-vaccination, right? So, why aren't there any takers? Did you watch that short 15 minute video I posted earlier? I found it odd and it does leave questions...in my mind anyway and I suppose in others as well. |
Actually, critical thinking leads me to dismiss both Natural News and Mercola.com as frauds. The science based website I gave you calls the two of them "wretched hives of scum and quackery" but that just seems mean. Let them go about their misguided mission without subjecting us to them.
You continue with the non sequitur that because some drug companies oversell their medications, that all medicine is bad. Vaccination hoaxes, including the Amish one, were covered in the link I gave you. You haven't read it yet, or you wouldn't have posted that. |
Quote:
Ha, I work for a living, have a wife and kids. I'm trying my best to digest everything you're throwing at me.:nanana: I'll go back and read again as I didn't see it.:dunno: Of course they're "scum and quackery"...their way is being called into question.:D I'm not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water. I guess it does sound that way. I'm sure there are some really good drugs...I don't know, the only drugs I take are fluticasone and allegra d...frick'n allergies. I would like to try something holistic though to see if I could prevent sinusitis. Not sure if we're just dealing with so many toxins that it's triggering allergies or not. I know more and more people that didn't have allergies are now dealing with them. I started looking at Dr. Mark Crislip...I see he's an Internal Medicine Doctor. I'll look into him a bit more. I'm too tired...east coast time zone! I used to use an Internal Medicine Doctor...too many pills pushed on me. I stopped going. I see Dr. Crislip is rated 2.5 stars out of four: Dr. Mark Crislip, MD - Internist - Portland, OR - Internal Medicine |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...-natural-news/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh, I see the confusion. I wasn't saying look at Mercola...I was referencing Dr. Hilleman in both of the links. Was the transcript in the link I posted on Natural News a fraud? |
Quote:
rebound, what time frame are we talking for your "kill off"...days, months, years, decades? I've been witness to business plans that make products with a pre-determined life cycle. These items could be made to last longer, but the idea was that you need to have people dependent on your product...so you can keep selling. Makes sense, right? No one really wants to make products that will last infinitely...because it would be a one and done sale and you'd have to charge too much money to compensate you for the rest of your life. So, you make things with a known cycle life...which will keep rev's flowing on a predictable basis. Anyway, why would this be any different in ALL areas of business that produce a product for consumption? You don't want a one and done...not a good business model. For predictable cash flow...you want to create: A product that people become dependent upon and have to keep coming back for more and frankly, why not create some issues within one area that will lead to solutions from another area where there may be a vested interest? Which is why I'm so frustrated with the idea of "finding cures"...BS, for them to "find cures"...it's a one and done. Not a good business model. Now, how many of the companies today working on "finding the cure" are publicly traded stock co's? Seems to me, we have the "hope" of "them" finding a "cure" that will ultimately put them out of business...IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. But, we rally around hope and change, don't we?! How much money is donated every year to fund these "cures" they're working on? Oh boy, I'm sure I've opened a whole new can of worms now. You see, my distrust goes deep...because I've been in the pit with some vipers...and it's not pretty or nice. |
Quote:
:iagree: I was really tired and should've quit before I posted that lame rating system on him.:bustingup OK, back to critical thinking...I had a chance to go back to Science-Based Medicine and look over the info. This is the part where I suspect you and I will never be able to agree. The name of the site says it all...it's Science-Based...and who better to quote to support science: CDC and WHO I will NEVER trust these organizations. There's a vested interest...CDC and WHO serve it up...the Problem...Govt's react...we have a problem and must do something or else and big pharma steps in....with a solution and the cycle goes on and on and on. The other thing I will never trust...numbers and the quality of such information. Look at govt stats...multi-layered deceptions to serve their interest. So, trash in, trash out. As for the Dr. that wrote that piece...I think he has good intentions. I don't think he's trying to hurt anyone...most of us aren't...we're just so compartmentalized and will find ways to justify what we're doing as being the correct course of action. Maybe it is...maybe it isn't. In most cases on an individual basis, we're trying to be good people. Unfortunately, good people can get sucked into a corrupt system and not fully understand "the business model". I do think though, that at some point in our lives, we are faced with the truth about what we're doing and if we're playing for the right team or not. |
tynashracing,
I have some questions: -were you, your siblings, your spouse and any of your children vaccinated? -if so, any ill effects then, or at this later time as a mature adult? -how many children do you think die each year, in the US/North America, as a result of vaccinations? -how many children, in vaccinating countries, do you think develop severe disease if they are allowed to skip vaccinations? |
Quote:
Quote:
Here is a simple one. Do you agree we are collectively living longer? Do you trust the mortality rates and records of births and deaths? Forget the causes, just focus on the end number. Do you agree we are living longer? If so, that is where your theory of "them" killing us falls apart. People have forgotten the horrors of childhood illnesses that have been largely erradicated. And your fear of "them" would cause you to take risks of returning to that age, and subject your children to those risks. That is why there are laws to deal with parents who are uneducated. |
Quote:
motordavid, All great questions. Yes, vaccinated...all of us. No complications known from taking them. I honestly do not know the answer to the other questions. I suspect that there are some that pose more risk than reward. But, I don't have any stats to provide other than the links I've provided thus far. This thread has really honed in on this one subject...vaccination. My thread was a lot more encompassing. I have a much broader view. It's not my place to suggest to anyone what they should or should not do with regards to vaccines and medicine in general. However, I have said multiple times...clean vaccinations seem to be the best of both worlds. Is everyone clear that that's how I feel? It's a bit unfair, really! I got painted into a corner to prove whether I'm a nut job or not with this vaccination stuff. I said, if they're clean...I'm for them. I think the Dr.'s I've linked have said the same thing?! I played along and have provided some opinions that I think support what I'm saying? Make vaccines clean for everyone. Don't put them on the market until they're proven safe and effective. Isn't that what we all want? I'm not a scientist, nor am I in the medical field, nor am I researching cures or treatments for infectious disease. So, I'm not in a position to continue arguing over the particulars of vaccinations. Maybe you guys are in that business? Maybe you have worked with the science that creates them? I don't know. All I know is that there are those people that have helped create them or Dr.'s that have witnessed how they can potentially harm us. And, the ones who create and administer these vaccines vehemently despise any such suggestions that there is anything wrong. It seems to come down to trust. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Last response of the evening for me...heading to a friends 50th b-day party! Yes, you're right, and wrong with the first statement. They saved us, right. But, we also got better about our handling of food, environment cleanliness...massive improvements were made there, so we shouldn't discount that as having some major benefits for our health also. No coin flipping. Just have to read deeper. Understand how the system is built to anticipate their next move before they move. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong...but, it's usually just a timing thing. The bigger picture of what's going on is pretty easy to see...for some anyway. Yes, we're living longer. Although, if I'm not mistaken there's some evidence that this might be reversing?! I'll have to look and talk with some actuarials. Again, it's not the type of kill associated with say nuclear bombs. It's a slow kill process. If you were a virus and latched onto a host...would you suck the life out of the host quickly, or would you slowly feed...to preserve YOUR way of life? The smart ones will do it slowly. This accomplishes two things: Longevity for the entity that has invaded. No one is immediately alerted that there is a dire consequence that should be eradicated. Good night gents. |
Quote:
|
No, you answered with an ad hominem. Because the information was published on a site with the name science in the title, you considered it unworthy of your time. You didn't read the information, and follow the logic, you dismissed it because it didn't fit with your preconcieved notions.
Follow the logic. |
Quote:
|
From the back row of the peanut gallery, and glad you all got your vaccinations...
Quote:
|
Now you know why I made the Eric comment, way back when...
|
I have just been enjoying the foolishness.
And since I am not an immunologist, I refuse to be drawn in. I am just a simple guy who saves lives for a living. You know, those silly conspiracy-created heart attacks, gunshot wounds and car crashes. :) |
» Leading World Bank Demographer: Vaccination Campaigns Part Of Population Reduction Policy Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Please be sure to see all the links. |
On with the foolishness!
Bill Gates has spoken quite a bit about population reduction, and the relationship to vaccines. He has described communities where parents have 8 children, not because they want 8 children, but because they know that in all probability a high percentage of them will die in childhood. So, using vaccines to reduce infant mortality, over time, causes parents to have fewer children, because those parents have a realistic expectation that more of their children will live. Lots of links if you want to read about it. What Gates said was along the lines of "we have 6.x billion people, and we are heading for 9 billiion. Vaccination programs can reduce that." Note that he didn't say reduce 6 billion, he said reduce the growth, ie the rate of increase. The growth fueled by parents having 8 children, and expecting a percentage of their children to die young. We know vaccines work. We know that our increased life expectancy has to do with greatly reduced infant mortality, among other things. So why shouldn't the third world get access to vaccines? It becomes a moral imperative. Yes, in the above example, vaccines can be said to reduce (future) populations (and the growth in populations, more importantly). But what did the Nutcase News say? They said that the WHO (and others) admitted that vaccines reduced populations. They said that Gates said it too. Of course they did! But the headlines didn't accurately portray the story. And then some conspiracist got on the case, and said that the WHO actually had vaccines that killed a portion of the kids who got them, and they were doing it on purpose. That is why they are called the Nutcase News. And now those same news stories and web sites (Alex Jones? Seriously?) are being quoted by posters here as 'proof' that vaccines are bad. Time to connect some dots. Not the ones that describe a conspiracy. The ones that show that the media is very easily able to manipulate readers when they want to. That would be a better subject to debate than whether we should use vaccines, which is simply a stand in for any one of the many issues that are being warped and distorted by junk science, scam artists, and a media that thinks it can fool its readers. Unfortunately, they are being proven to be correct. And so the foolishness continues. |
Quote:
From the Bond study (bold formatting for emphasis is mine): Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
You brought up the vac card again. I agree with my GWN amigos: that link and its 'facts' and 'points' is akin to the months of political ads we just lived through. Lots of frags, things out of context, and general gibberish unless one is caught up in the 'let's hunker down, live off the termites in the crawl space, and out wait the gov't plan to eradicate all of us good people', ... :rolleyes: Besides the fringe 'news sites' and links, and the imo, suspect links here is a question: Do you really feel that there is a group or gov't agency(s), or subversive collection of under the radar people that want to target you or your family or your friend's physical well being? By that, I don't mean some Big Pharma or local generic brew mill screwing up a drug; I mean a concerted effort by some group or company(s), or agency to make bad food, bad drugs, incorrect health care, inject our environment intentionally, in order to harm you, me, us? Carbon emissions and toxic materials released in the normal or abnormal course of biz, manufacturing, accidents, etc. don't count. Remember, I don't really like much about 'government', at any level, but I realize I would have an arduous time trying to keep my lifestyle and even stay alive, with 'them', so save your typing on I need to be released... GL, mD |
Quote:
I've said before that I don't swallow everything they say hook, line and sinker. I do think though that there are legit questions raised. Each reader has to digest and think their way through this. Some will immediately disregard such information just because of where it was posted. Some people might look at this as having real potential. It's really no different than seeing govt released figures...some will take the release as being 100% accurate while others question the information. If you question...think about Jack Welch recently...his tweet concerning the release of job numbers before the election. The lash back was massive!!! How dare anyone question the establishment. What I think is dangerous is when there are questions raised about the establishment...and the questioners are labeled...nuts, quacks, conspiracy theorist, etc. Since when was it wrong to question ANYTHING and EVERYTHING? If I'm wrong for agreeing with the questions raised, I will admit and move on. But, isn't it healthy to question to keep everyone accountable? I think so. For the umpteenth time, as for vaccinations...it seems that if these shots are "clean"...it doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Do we get too many shots today? Maybe so? As I've mentioned, it's not an area that I really know much about...other than what has been posted and how a vaccine scientist, neurosurgeon and others are crying foul. At what point do we question what we're told? You asked, "Do you really feel that there is a group or gov't agency(s), or subversive collection of under the radar people that want to target you or your family or your friend's physical well being?" I'm going to answer with a question(s) for you...do you think Agenda 21 is real and if so, is it good? Do you think GMO's are safe for consumption? Do you think it's OK to put aluminum, mercury and other chemicals in food, water, air and vaccines? I personally have serious questions about the implications of Agenda 21. I can see it as a blueprint for a control process. I don't like the direction we are seemingly headed. One other thing I just thought about...do you know about Codex Alimentarius? http://www.temcat.com/009-Health-Sec...rius%20101.pdf Now, I can see how this might sound like a case of sour grapes...but, why snuff out holistic medicine? Isn't it my choice to decide? I guess not if they get their way?! I'm not suggesting that we not have govt. My concern is who's interest is being served by our govt today? Seems to me that it's a lot less about my individual rights and more about corporate rights. I don't know man, lots of questions for sure. HOWEVER, it's important for me to say....there is a lot of good in this world. Family and friends and the experiences we share is the most important aspect of my life. We're here to support one another...not tear down. Sadly, I've found myself on the tearing down side from time to time and I'm not proud of it. I suspect that even as hard headed and manipulated as I might seem...I'm worthy of sharing a laugh, a drink and thoughts with you and others about our experiences. My guess is that you'd probably actually like hanging out with me.:D We're all trying to find our way through this process of life on earth. There is much good in spite of the issues raised in this thread. |
Quote:
snopes.com: Codex Alimentarius |
Well, MD can answer for himself, but since you aren't answering my questions or posts, allow me to respond:
Quote:
GMOs can be safe or not safe. Just like any other food. The fact that it is GMO doesn't make it automatically unsafe, IMO. Neither is it automatically safe. No to putting most of those chemicals in the air and water. See point 1. Yes to some of them, including aluminum and mercury (thiomersal) and certain others, when they perform a useful function in a vaccine, and at the dosage limits designed in to the vaccine. In some cases they are what makes a vaccine function. Other times they are preservatives. Not much point in injecting people with diseases, or a vaccine that is ineffective, is there? |
Quote:
Not sure what that snopes article had to do with anything. They wrote that article well after the fact. I guess someone was saying that the Pres. had signed it? Never heard that one! |
Quote:
Agenda 21...motherhood???? OK. I hope mommy treats you well. |
Agenda 21: An initiative to recognize the impacts we as humanity have on the environment, and to work towards more sustainable development.
Yes, I consider polluting less to be a motherhood issue. Not sure how it can be seen otherwise. Unless you are referring to the Agenda 21 world control hoax, as opposed to the Agenda 21 action plan from 1992. The one that says we should probably pollute less. |
|
Quote:
Republican Party Officially Embraces 'Garbage' Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theories As Its National Platform | ThinkProgress This isn't actually a political post. We have a separate forum for that, appropriately titled Politics. The attached article isn't about the Republican platform, but rather about how ideas like Agenda 21 being a global conspiracy are entering mainstream organizations like the Republican Party. |
Just wondering here.
If one isn't for sustainability, does that imply that one is for its opposite, namely unsustainability? How long can that last? If one isn't for smart growth, does one actually want the opposite? Seriously? |
Quote:
This sums up your sustainability issue from someone that lives in America: The diabolical, green sustainability scam Taken from the above link... "In a nutshell, the purposes of the "sustainable development" agenda are to limit people's ability to use their own land as they see fit, to severely curtail people's energy consumption, and to cram people into metropolitan centers (stack 'em and pack 'em) while prohibiting development outside of "approved" land areas, what these "smart growth" Einsteins call "suburban sprawl," as if land development is a bad thing. The agenda aims to corral people into such close quarters that they will be encouraged to walk everywhere they go instead of drive those evil cars. We see the rotten fruit of this movement all around us, from the dangerous, radio frequency-emitting "smart meters," to low-volume flush toilets, to so-called "energy efficient" appliances (which only means they don't work nearly as well as they used to), to the hideously ugly, tiny cars rolling around on the streets. Green building codes are another sign, and believe it or not, the explosion of bike and walking paths all over the place is yet another sign of the movement. When you hear terms like "smart growth," "comprehensive planning," "sustainable communities" and "visioning," understand that these are communist code terms that are about nothing more than government control of land use, robbing us of our individual rights and freedoms, and redistributing our wealth to the federal government and to "developing" nations. In Henry Lamb's Freedom 21 publication, Mr. Lamb explains, "The goals of sustainable development amount to a complete transformation of American society. Sustainable development embraces education, economics, and social justice, as well as environmental issues. Once the new collaborative decision process has been established, it can be used to develop policy in all these issue areas. Whenever public policy is developed by government-funded advocacy groups, administrators, or bureaucrats, there can be no accountability to the people. Private property rights are eroded and individual freedom evaporates. Advocates of government control of land use have exerted their influence since long before the term 'sustainable development' was first uttered. The 1976 U.N. Conference on Human Settlements uses the raw language: 'Government control of land use is therefore indispensable.' By 1992, the advocates of government control had learned that words matter, and rather than use words such as 'government control of land use...' they coined terms such as sustainable development, smart growth, and sustainable communities. It matters not what euphemism is used to shield the reality of government control. Sustainable development, smart growth, and sustainable communities all describe a government-controlled society. Every time a public policy requires a private citizen to ask permission from government, another expression of freedom is destroyed." This is a broad rundown of the complex and detailed issue of the environmental whacko, "sustainable development" agenda, and it is important that we make an effort to become informed by studying the extensive amount of materials available on the Internet and elsewhere. The good news is that more and more people are becoming aware of this sinister movement and are working tirelessly to inform leaders at the local, state and federal levels. Tea Party groups are doing a good job of this, including our own local South Mississippi Tea Party, which has a special section on its website for Agenda 21 information and has hosted Agenda 21 educational events. As with most issues in life, ignorance is our greatest liability. An uninformed citizenry is an enslaved citizenry. We must embrace the knowledge we need to combat these communistic efforts to rob our freedoms. The sustainable movement has infested the entire nation, and beating it back will take a massive effort. There is a ton of money and power involved in pushing this radical agenda, and when community leaders cannot resist the handout of federal taxpayer money grants, they place their whole area under the iron thumb of the tyrannical "green" movement. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have embraced this movement. In the story with which I opened this broadcast, one of our Republican Senators, Roger Wicker, was the one who presented the "green" award to the Ocean Springs housing development. He should know better, but apparently he does not. A good place to start reversing this communist "sustainable" movement is in our local city councils and planning commissions. Many of these elected and appointed officials are ignorant of what these issues mean, and they need to be taught. As with other freedom-robbing initiatives of the communist Left, if we do nothing it will continue to grow ever more powerful. I will close with another quote from Mr. Lamb's Freedom 21 report, "The current attack on America's freedom is not with bombs and bullets from foreign tyrants. It is from an internal enemy of freedom that is just as vicious and much more sinister. America is a nation created expressly to defend and protect the freedom of its citizens. Any system of government that replaces that freedom with government control is an enemy. Sustainable development, as defined in Agenda 21 and the documents published by the President's Council on Sustainable Development, cannot exist without government management and control. To the extent that local, state, and federal government yields to the demands of sustainable development, freedom is diminished. To the extent that local, state, and federal government rejects the principles of sustainable development, freedom is advanced. The only power on earth sufficient to constrain a government out of control is the determination of an informed, involved, and inspired electorate, exercised at the ballot box." © Gina Miller" |
Quote:
Quote:
We have a whole new batch of conspiracies to debate now, as introduced in the post above: * Land use planning by municipalities is a Communist (UN) plot * Smart meters kill us with their EMF * Low volume flush toilets are part of the plot * Energy efficient appliances are part of the plot * Tiny cars are being forced on us by the UN. And they are ugly, besides. * Building codes that promote energy efficiency are a way of controlling us * Bike paths and walking paths are a Communist (UN) plot * It is all a way of redistributing wealth * Education, economics, and social justice are secret weapons of the Communist UN. They are everywhere. Trust no-one. * The Tea Party is our saviour * Green is the new Red (Menace) This should keep us going for awhile. Pick your favourite to debate. And we got a whole cut-and-paste poste without a single mention of vaccinations or fluoride! For any discussion on whether the Republican Party adopting some of the above in their 2012 platform impacted the results in the recent US election, recommend we move it over to the Politics forum. General conspiracy and control discussions could perhaps carry on here. I think that Communist plots in general are probably fair topic for the conspiracy discussion, while the benefits (if any) of Communism should similarly be in the Politics forum. There are all just tongue in cheek suggestions. I am having trouble taking some of it seriously. |
[QUOTE=tynashracing;906771]
You asked, "Do you really feel that there is a group or gov't agency(s), or subversive collection of under the radar people that want to target you or your family or your friend's physical well being?" I'm going to answer with a question(s) for you...do you think Agenda 21 is real and if so, is it good? I think the premise is 'good', but idealistic, impractical in putting into effect, and since it's a UN thing, (3rd World Supper Club, imo), its 'adoption', let alone any kind of real subscription or 'enforcement' is slim to none, and Slim's on the bus. Do you think GMO's are safe for consumption? Probably, to yes I have no concern with GMO foods. I'm 65, smoke a few butts on occasion, drink wine, work out; something is gonna get me in the next... my concerns with GMOs havw to do with lack of/or crappy labelling, their potential effect on similar crops/organisms, and the slightly creepy push they get from the GiantAgs, eg Monsanto, et al. Not anti-big biz, but they, like Big Pharma, don't necessarily have our long term concerns in their corporate hearts. Back at the GMO ranch, people have been cross breeding and hybridizing plants and animals to a fare thee well for a couple hundred years, but I guess that's 'natural' vs GMO. Do you think it's OK to put aluminum, mercury and other chemicals in food, water, air and vaccines? All those chemicals, (as all 'things' are chemically based), go into, seep into, float into our environment every day, though I suspect there is 'less' these days in US/CDA then there was a couple decades ago. And, those chemicals, in the proper amount, add benefits to many items, food and non food. Simplistic, but so was your question "...think it's OK to put"... I personally have serious questions about the implications of Agenda 21. I can see it as a blueprint for a control process. I don't like the direction we are seemingly headed. See my comment above; it's UN orgin basically, and not going anywhere, imo. Your Repub ref was lmao funny! The Rep or Dem 'party' could not agree on what time to go to lunch or where, within their own parties. Grover Norquist, et al, are having nervous breakdowns right now, and None of us should give a flying fook what either 'party' has for a 'platform', or likes or unlikes, here in 2012 and beyond, imo. One other thing I just thought about...do you know about Codex Alimentarius? http://www.temcat.com/009-Health-Sec...rius%20101.pdf Now, I can see how this might sound like a case of sour grapes...but, why snuff out holistic medicine? Isn't it my choice to decide? I guess not if they get their way?! Glanced at it until my eyes glazed over, and I am usually fairly focused on taking in 'info'. I have no prob with people seeking alt med. In the end, nothing will prevent the Eternal Footman, for each of us. I'm not suggesting that we not have govt. My concern is who's interest is being served by our govt today? Seems to me that it's a lot less about my individual rights and more about corporate rights. No freakin kidding! I left most of my idealism on the steps of the U, when I left, circa 1970. You are preaching to the choir, (funny analogy for me being an atheist), as 'my interests' are seldom 'served' by gov't. I don't know man, lots of questions for sure. HOWEVER, it's important for me to say....there is a lot of good in this world. Family and friends and the experiences we share is the most important aspect of my life. We're here to support one another...not tear down. ...[/QUOTE] Now you are are the proper, correct and human track! And, you never answered my question: Besides the fringe 'news sites' and links, and the imo, suspect links here is a question: Do you really feel that there is a group or gov't agency(s), or subversive collection of under the radar people that want to target you or your family or your friends' physical well being? ;) GL, mD |
[QUOTE=motordavid;907006]
Quote:
Physical well being...like them putting poisons in water, food, air and vaccines? Heck yes. I don't think it's personal...I think they'd like to see massive amounts of people sick or dead. Ha, ever heard Ted Turner open his mouth? How about Bill Gates? Yes, there is a bit of irony with those that smoke, drink, eat all the wrong foods, etc. that live past life expectancy. And conversely, those that do everything "the right way" that die young. It's a funny world for sure. motordavid, consider the advances in technology in the last hundred years. Pretty significant, right? Now consider cancer research...how much money has been thrown at cancer research? Not a cure in sight. Just more walks, runs, ribbons and t-shirts. And so it seems I've finally come full circle. |
Just finished watching this interview with Aaron Russo. Wow. This gives a pretty good overview of the control system I spoke of in this thread.
God help us...we need more Aaron Russo's! I'm going to watch "America Freedom To Fascism" and "Mad As Hell". Sadly, I think this was Aaron's last interview prior to his death. Reflections And Warnings - An Interview With Aaron Russo {Full Film} - YouTube |
Would be more interested in seeing an interview with Russo if it didn't have Alex Jones continually opinionizing.
After the first few minutes, I scanned through it. Why does he say that all the federal banks in the G8 are privately owned? |
Quote:
Did he say all "federal" banks or *Central* banks? I think it's Central banks that are all privately owned. |
Quote:
Yes, Central banks are 'privately owned', if one considers all governments to be 'private'. Lots of info on Central Banks...here is a 101 level snippet from Wiki: Central bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
Quote:
First, I was referencing the video that I posted. I think JCL has mistaken the term "federal" banks. I've yet to go back and watch the vid again...but, from my recollection...it was Central banks that were discussed as being privately owned. Let me be clear....the Central bank in the USA is PRIVATE. The Federal Reserve is PRIVATELY OWNED...it's not a govt entity. I'm not sure why you're referencing governments and Central banks together...as if they're a part of govt.?! I don't know what you're saying MD? |
Quote:
'Central Banks', in most countries are governmental at the least, in every case I am aware of. The 'central bank' of the United States, may be referred to as the Federal Reserve, imo. As you probably know it is comprised of federal banks and state chartered banks and some quasi-public banks that fall under its 12 geographical jurisdictions. So, in that respect it is 'private', but a not for profit overseer. Its Fed Open Mkt Comm & Board of Governors, are the mgmt people whispering in the Fed Chairman's ear, and that 7 member BoG is appointed by a prez. Their decisions need not be approved by Congress or any prez...they are 'overseen' by Congress. They are not funded by the government, but they aren't exactly 'private' eg a private, for profit company, other than its members are all probably quite wealthy. I had heard about Russo and his stuff; when I have an hour and a half to kill, I may watch more than the cursory skim I gave it. Back at the Rant Ranch, their is little to nothing any of us can or will do to 'change' most of those issues, imo. |
Quote:
Better check your info on the G8. The central banks aren't all private. And even in the US, it isn't private in the way you suggest. See MD's comments above. |
OWNERSHIP OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml "Opposing Views: Although the Federal Reserve Bank claims not to be private as their website claims, the clearly operate under terms that no other "government institution" operates by. For example, they are not required to submit financial information and are not subject to IRS audits, nor do they even publish the amount of money they print to the American public. So given these terms it's hard to believe the Federal Reserve's claims that they are a government institution providing a genuine service to the American people. A commonly held position not mentioned on their website is that The FED is a privately owned central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including the United States FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit. There have been three central banks in the nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by the current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking." Who really owns the FED? 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. The FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money. Forty cents in every dollar of US taxes." And then there's the court ruling: Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned Case Reveals Fed's Status as a Private Institution Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency: Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982) John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/Appellee. No. 80-5905 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 2, 1982. Decided April 19, 1982. As Amended June 24, 1982. Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations. Affirmed. 1. United States There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but critical factor is existence of federal government control over "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an entity. . . . 2. United States Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . . 3. United States Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when a tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Bank, which performs important activities for the government. . . . 4. Taxation The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. 5. States Taxation Tests for determining whether an entity is federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, is very broad: whether entity performs important governmental function. -------------- Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant. James R. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before Poole and Boochever, Circuit Judges, and Soloman, District Judge. (The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation) Poole, Circuit Judge: On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . "Federal agency" is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States. 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671. [1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations. Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361. Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made. It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks: It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine. H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913). The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services. The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act. Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . . Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process. [3] The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." . . . The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government. [4, 5] The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. . . . The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function. Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. . . . State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. . . . Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. Sect. 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purpose of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667. Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured. For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court. AFFIRMED. It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent." The only area where one might disagree with the judge's decision is where he states that the Fed furthers the federal government's fiscal policy, and therefore performs an important governmental function. While we would like to think that the federal government and the Fed work cooperatively with each other, and they may on occasion, the Fed is by no means required to do so. One example is where Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said in the Congressional Record back in the '60s, that depending on the temperament of the Fed's Chairman, sometimes the Fed worked with the government's fiscal policy, and other times either went in the complete opposite direction, or threatens to do so in order to influence policy. The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses. Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to. It would appear that the Fed Chairman can say anything he wants to to Congress, and they'll have to accept what he says, because verification of what he says is not always possible. [END] "Who Owns The Federal Reserve? The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks By Ellen Brown Global Research, October 08, 2008 webofdebt.com 8 October 2008 Region: USA Theme: Global Economy 290 11 62 13.4K “Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.” – The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.1 In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a “government takeover,” but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported: “The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs.”2 This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly “the lender of last resort” created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17: “The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters.” Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website): “The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable.” “To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable” means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered “risk-free” for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, “Bailout Bedlam,” webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.) In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3: “The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank.”3 If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving? Not Private and Not for Profit? The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a “lender of last resort” to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look. The website states: * “The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.” * “[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.” * “The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.”5 So let’s review: 1. The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government. 2. The fact that the Fed does not get “appropriations” from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in “open market operations.” Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to “expand the money supply” (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called “open market operations” because the Fed buys the bonds on the “open market” from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the “reserves” that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as “fractional reserve” lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve “a total money-making machine.” He wrote: “When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check.” 3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders. The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered “for profit” corporations. In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.” The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in “reserve” can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total “loans and leases in bank credit” as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans. The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ — for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks. Time to Change the Statute? According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this: “[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute.” As we know from watching the business news, “oversight” basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it “can alter its responsibilities by statute.” It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies. If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly “federal” Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades. Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature’s Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, and Forbidden Medicine. Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com . " |
Holy Cut and Paste, Batman!
The links from which you simply copied the content into here would have been sufficient. I see that your first source, The Lawful Path, has an interesting range of articles on their website. Various militia articles, why driver's licenses are not legal, how the Russians brainwash us, and so on. Your second source, Ellen Brown, is on a campaign to eliminate fractional reserve banking, when she isn't writing about non-traditional medicine, including herbal cancer cures. Maybe we are going full circle here, given where this thread started. I don't know if it is worth getting into the split government/private nature of the US Federal Reserve. You seem to be focusing on the banks that belong to the reserve, and not the Federal Reserve System, including the governance of that system. Hard to call something private, IMO, when the decision-makers are appointed by government and the profits flow to government. But how about we consider your claim that all central banks are private, and just start off with the Central Bank of Canada, which is owned by the Government of Canada? I think that pretty much qualifies as non-private. |
:wow:
Just :wow: ... :rolleyes: |
And the pseudo-Eric drama continues...
Just like him, some people don't know when to give it a rest. |
Quote:
Oh well, the cut and paste didn't come out as well as it looked on screen. Just didn't transfer aesthetically pleasing. I find it interesting that you stand so proud in judging anyone with an opinion that differs from you. Those people that have researched and signed their name to their causes should be applauded...whether you think they're crazy or not. They are exercising their freedom of speech. They are at least attempting to stand up to the Socialist, Fascist, Corporatist takeover here in this country. I know I don't need to remind you that America was founded as a Republic...and I know that just runs all over you, doesn't it? Well, this country might be on it's knees...but it's not over...yet. I love the link below...Secrets of Vancouver: "Where Being Conservative Means You Must Keep It Secret". Does your area have a witch hunt for those with any kind of thoughts for individualism and capitalism? From your past comments...I'm sure you love your nanny state, huh?! The Ugly Side Of Socialism | The Secrets Of Vancouver BC, Canada You sound like you love your corporate/govt masters. I see why you have such a distaste for Alex Jones...too brash for you. He's kind of a bulldog that's fighting for our REPUBLIC. Aaron Russo came to the same conclusions as Alex Jones...and Ron Paul and the others that are fighting to preserve our God given rights. This country is under attack to destroy our individual freedoms...that attack began in 1913. If you really believe that our Govt chooses the Fed Chairman...wow, you're quite naive. Yes, there's a dog and pony show for the masses to think that the "appointee" has been carefully selected.:rolleyes: As for your accusation that I said something about the Central Bank of Canada...I think you owe me an apology! I said, "I've yet to go back and watch the vid again...but, from my recollection...it was Central banks that were discussed as being privately owned. Let me be clear....the Central bank in the USA is PRIVATE. The Federal Reserve is PRIVATELY OWNED...it's not a govt entity." Now, where did I say anything about Canada's Central Bank or any other Central Bank????? The reference in that first sentence was in reference to what was in the interview with Aaron Russo. I'm quite tired of your lack of comprehension and taking my words out of context in an attempt to belittle me. Be a man and admit you were wrong. |
Quote:
Really, did Eric ever tell you to go "F" yourself? I think I will continue spewing here and anywhere else I can...if for no other reason than to protect what's left of my rights to speak against tyranny. Another one with ad hominems! Man, I'd like to think that someone sporting a Semper Fi decal would be defending his Republic and the rights of others to express their thoughts and opinions. It's what makes/made our country great. God help us! You should be ashamed sir! |
Quote:
I simply asked why your link claimed that all the central banks in the G8 were privately owned. I declined to debate you on the US Federal Reserve, though to call it private is a stretch IMO. I point simply to the Bank of Canada (Canada being part of the G8) for a central bank that is not privately owned, but rather owned by the Government of Canada. So, instead of twisting around the words central and federal, and dodging the question, accept that the statement that they are all privately owned is demonstrably false, without even having to debate the nuances of the private/public institution that is the US Federal Reserve System. Want to talk about the other six countries in the G8? Yes, it was your link that stated that all the central banks are privately owned. But when I asked the question why, you went off on a tangent. Yes, I am happy in Vancouver, thank you. Yes, we have people like Alex Jones here as well. Thankfully, we also have what you would call socialist health care, so the good news is that they can get access to treatment if they so wish. I am not belittling you. You are simply demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension. When you say you are in finance, what exactly does that mean? Banking? Investments? Accounting? Economics? |
Quote:
Just :wow:....that you think the Federal Reserve isn't private!!! :bustingup:bustingup:bustingup Your socialist buddy hates the court decision...notice he didn't have anything to say about that, huh! :wow::wow::wow: :rolleyes: had to edit in the "roll eyes" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Bullshit. You said "But how about we consider your claim that all central banks are private, and just start off with the Central Bank of Canada, which is owned by the Government of Canada? I think that pretty much qualifies as non-private." It wasn't MY claim or do I need to spell it out again? I knew you wouldn't man up and admit you were wrong. As for my occupation...f' off. Oh, and as for me lacking comprehension...pot calling the kettle... |
OK, understand now about your occupation.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're a real piece of work. Is manipulation a common trait amongst Socialists? Still waiting for that apology...from when you falsely accused me of saying something I didn't. |
OMG, this thread is still around!!!
Is there a special process to petition the moderators to lock this thread?? The freedom of speech right has been exercised and now it has gone out on a tangent, and has more personal references than actual discussion about anything... I just realized, I subscribed myself again to this nonsense |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
. |
Quote:
No need for the mods to lock this thread....just stop looking and posting and you won't subscribe...again.:bustingup |
Quote:
You're right and I sincerely apologize. It didn't turn out well...it's really the "family tree" history that screwed it up. Sadly, it's nice and neat on the actual website...it just didn't transfer over properly. I can go back and try to edit the post and provide a link instead! ;) OK, original post has been edited with link. |
Who Posted? Total Posts: 136
User Name Posts tynashracing 52 JCL 45 motordavid 9 TerminatorX5 9 rebound 5 ard 4 PersonaNonGrata 2 watrob 2 Michelle 1 pink_roundel 1 statdoc 1 Lubehead 1 cmyX6go 1 FSETH 1 rayxi 1 Quicksilver 1 Show Thread & Close Window OMG, I have posted 10 (!!!) times in this thread!!! I feel ashamed now!!! I am going to unsubscribe, but is there a way to make it STOP popping up at the top of my screen?? |
Quote:
How many views? Ha, maybe this thing can get more views than the iPhone or iPad or i"whatever" thread...nah, that would be dreaming. :bustingup You're the one that keeps coming back AND posting on it. If you're really this appalled by the thread...just stop looking and posting. :dunno: Don't worry terminator...I probably won't post anything else to this thread. I noticed that the view count continued climbing while it was dying on the vine...so, thought maybe some new life was warranted. Views have jumped over 400+ in a matter of days. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
At least you recognize your betters, and refer to them as "sir..." :rolleyes: |
Quote:
I'm posting a new thread with a hilarious video. I hope y'all will watch. |
Quote:
Yeah, I think in the video they said...banks. What I don't think they ever said were *all* central banks are privately owned. Just because someone uses the plural...doesn't mean *all*...just more than one?! Again, I've not watched the video a second time to vet this out. But really, let's just give it a rest...for everyone's sanity;) I just thought it was a cool interview with Aaron Russo. I would've liked to talk to him personally about his experiences. I'm sure he had a ton of stories to tell. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So, now suddenly you have respect for Eric? You guys have been busting on him like he's a lunatic. Hence the reason why I said it's just another post with ad hominems...a personal attack (someone compared to another nut job from a former thread...and doesn't know when to give it a rest. I'm well aware of your inference/judgement(s) while comparing me to Eric. Am I wrong in my assumption that Eric isn't thought of too highly in this forum due to his past posting(s)? I've yet to search his posts...so, I don't know. As for the "dirt road of disinformation comment"...please enlighten me and anyone else with what you use for your information. As far as recognizing you as being "better" :bustingup...that's your delusion...not mine. It was written with a touch of respect...if you have in fact served our country in the military. |
Quote:
Like I've not been personally attacked?;) I'll have a chance to listen this evening. But, let's agree that you're correct and he made the flaw of calling all central banks private. Does it change anything concerning the Federal Reserve in my country? I don't think it does. So, do we throw out everything he says due to a mistake? We're human...we make mistakes. Maybe he was under the impression that all CB's are/were private? Misguided at best. I don't think he was attempting to intentionally deceive?! I guess we'll never know since he's dead and can't get clarification. |
Quote:
It always helps to look at motivations. Look at what Russo describes as his awakening. He lost an IRS judgement over a tax return. That was when he decided that there is a "them" that is running everything, pulling all the strings, stomping on the little guy. He felt powerless, and wanted someone to blame for those feelings. |
Quote:
Tragedy and loss are things that will motivate people to change their ways. The man was also dealing with cancer. You can't say you know where his heart was during the latter years of his life. How much does money mean...when it can't save your life? While I do see your point, I'm not buying your conclusion. His issue was here in the United States. He learned that the Federal Reserve is privately run...and that tax collection is paid ultimately to the Federal Reserve. Look up "Grace Commission". It's interesting when people find out that there is NO LAW in the USA for sovereign citizens to pay taxes on their income. Don't believe me???...look up Joe Banister. Quite a story if you've never heard it. Anyway, the interview doesn't negate the fact that we're dealing with this issue of a privately run central bank here in the USA. The video should've been corrected prior to being released. But if I'm not mistaken, I think he died very soon afterwards? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:32 PM. |
vBulletin, Copyright 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
© 2017 Xoutpost.com. All rights reserved.