Rick Reuben wrote:But namecalling was just 'fun' for you, wasn't it?

linus van pelt wrote:Alex Jones is a despicable liar.

But sometimes it's not fun for you?

Sometimes namecalling serves a purpose. I'm sorry if you read my comment as saying all namecalling is always bad. Actually, if you read more carefully, I wasn't saying namecalling was ever bad (although I do believe it is sometimes). All I was saying is that all I anticipated reading from a discussion with you about Alex Jones is namecalling, and I wasn't interested.

Rick Reuben wrote:Define slander? Calling someone a 'despicable liar' and then running away when asked to name five lies.

Hey! It's easy to accuse somebody of something, when you can afterwards redefine that word to mean whatever that person did! Easy! But not honest!

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:not honest!

Do you have a case against Alex Jones? I pointed you right at the C/NC. Do you have a case, or do you have slander? Calling someone a despicable liar and then refusing to name the lies looks like slander to me.

Well, whatever it looks like to you, it's not slander. I don't have a "case" against Alex Jones. I don't give a shit about Alex Jones. I didn't even bring up Alex Jones; my only point was you don't have to consider him credible to be concerned about mercury in the vaccines. If you're upset by my comments about Alex Jones, feel free to ignore them. If it will make you feel better, you can try to figure out who I have a boner for and call them a liar.

Continue to operate on only approved sources, Linus. You'll be fine. The Fed is a government agency,

For someone so certain it's not, you sure have a lot of trouble providing a source that supports you. Note: the 12 member banks of the Federal Reserve (which are privately owned, as is required by law) are not "The Fed."

the 16th amendment was ratified,

Yep.

mercury and fluoride are good for you,

Nice reading comp, Bob. All I've been saying in this thread is that mercury is bad for you. As to fluoride, I'd be glad if you pointed me to a post of mine where I said it was good for you.

kerosene blows up steel skyscrapers,

Excellent strawman.

Israel is a legal land transfer,

I'd be glad if you pointed me to a post of mine where I said it was.

FDR never got warned about Pearl Harbor, Oswald shot five times in six seconds, and all the wars started not for profit but because everyday Brits, Americans, and Germans just suddenly woke up mad at each other one morning and went to war.

I'd be glad if you pointed me to a post of mine where I indicated I believe any of these things.

This is typical Clocker Bob argument: anyone who disagrees with you about anything disagrees with you about everything - it's all about the "blue pill." It's lazy, it's dishonest, and it is one thing that keeps people from taking you seriously.

Hey! I agree with most of the things you say on this forum! That blue pill I took must not have worked! Or maybe I took the red pill and it didn't work all the way, since I still think the Fed isn't privately owned. Or - wait - maybe there is no pill. Maybe the pill is a crutch for dogmatists who have trouble with anything other than an absolutist worldview.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote: I didn't even bring up Alex Jones

Yes, you did. What are you talking about? Why would I be asking about your slander if I didn't read your words against him??

o_d_m brought up Alex Jones in this thread, not me.

Linus Van Pelt wrote: If you're upset by my comments about Alex Jones, feel free to ignore them.

No.

That's fine too.

You do believe FDR had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor?

I have no belief either way on this subject. I have heard evidence I consider creditable on both sides, but I recognize that I haven't looked into either enough to form an informed opinion. I'm right with you on the Maine and the Gulf of Tonkin, though.

You do believe there were more shooters and a wider conspiracy against JFK?

I have no belief either way on how many shooters there were. I tend to think there probably was a wider conspiracy against JFK, but I have no strong belief either way.

You do believe that the theft of Palestine was illegal?

Yes.

You do believe that fluoride was added to water supplies even though it was a known toxin, and that the truth has been covered up?

I have no belief either way on this subject. I believe fluoride, like a lot of things, is good for you in some ways and bad for you in other ways. I don't know which it's more of.

You do believe that WWI and II were orchestrated for profit?

Not in the sense I think you mean, no. But I also don't believe they were started "because everyday Brits, Americans, and Germans just suddenly woke up mad at each other one morning and went to war."
I subscribe to neither prong of your false dichotomy.

I pointed out that you were anti-mercury in vaccines. Read my post again.

Yes. I started my response before you made your edit, and finished it afterwards.

You're wrong about the Fed. Case law proves it.

Two problems with this statement: first, no case you've shown me holds that the Fed is privately owned. I believe I have read three cases from Skronk, endorsed by you, that point out that the Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, which is true, but not the same thing. It's interesting to point out that, for as much as you claim the Fed is so completely unregulated, the law actually requires private banks to own shares in the Fed member banks, and that those banks aren't allowed to trade those shares.
The second problem is that case law doesn't prove a statement of fact. I can point you to case law where a particular house was found to be haunted. Do you think this "proves" that the house was haunted? Of course not. I can point you to a case where someone who had been employed by one company was found to have been employed by another company instead, or a product manufactured by one company was found to have been manufactured by another company instead. Did those findings for those cases make those things true? Of course not, that would be impossible. If the Fed is privately owned, no case saying it's not makes it not. If the Fed is not privately owned, no case saying it is makes it so. Having said that, if you were to point me to a case holding that the Fed is privately owned, I would find that pretty interesting.

Why the hell would privately-held stock exist for a public agency? Can you buy stock in the government dept. of motor vehicles?

Can you buy stock in the Fed?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:o_d_m brought up Alex Jones in this thread, not me.

You called him a despicable person, so you did bring him up.

You and I have two different definitions of "bring up," which is fine.

And you're still laughably confused about the Fed. It's mainstream knowledge that the Fed is a privately-owned legal cartel that has been granted a monopoly over the credit and currency systems. The Treasury is a client of the Fed. Read the Greider book.

There are a lot of books I'd like to read right now, I'll put it on my list. I took a look over at Amazon - man, Publisher's Weekly really screwed up in their review. They said that Greider claims that the Fed Chairman is the second most powerful officer of government. Fed Chairman as an officer of government? The review also says that Greider claims the federal government deliberately induces recessions. Federal government? What does that have to do with the Fed?

That's the A1 'mainstream' history of the Fed. You'll figure it out eventually.

This week, former chairman of the Fed Reserve Alan Greenspan in an interview aired on PBS’ News Hour was asked by Jim Lehrer what should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and The President of the United States. In a shockingly honest tone Greenspan replies,

"Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't, frankly, matter.”

Tell me who regulates the Fed if it is a public agency, Van Pelt. After Greenspan just crossed Congress and the President off the list.

That's the third time I've seen you misread that quote. The first time was in a thread I wasn't really involved in, so I ignored it. The second time, I pointed out that you were misreading it, and you made some sort of insult at me, I don't remember. Let me explain to you what Greenspan is saying. First, he's saying that the Fed is an independent agency. Then he says no other agency of government can overrule them. Wait, why say "other agency of government" if the Fed isn't an agency of government? That doesn't make sense. If I say I like apples more than any other fruit, it means apples are fruit. If I say I like apples more than any other cheese, that doesn't make sense. I should say I like apples more than cheese. So there's that. But he's saying no other government agency can overrule them. What is a government agency? Is Congress a government agency? No. Is the president a government agency? No. So by saying other government agencies can't overrule them, he's not saying Congress and the president can't overrule them. But in case that's still not clear, look at what he says next: "As long as . . . there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't, frankly, matter." Let me make another analogy - if I say "As long as my mom or dad don't mind, I can come over to play," am I saying that my mom or dad can or can't overrule me? He's saying this - If the administration has something to say, we have to abide by it. If Congress has something to say, we have to abide by it. But if a government agency other than ourselves has something to say, we don't have to abide by it. This quote by Greenspan actually undermines your point. You should stop presenting it as true (or "shockingly honest"), and start claiming that Greenspan is lying in service of his Bilderberg masters.

Is it somehow personally threatening for you to believe that the Fed is privately-held? Is that why you block it out?

That's interesting, I've been wanting to ask you pretty much the same thing: Is it somehow personally threatening for you to believe that the Fed is not privately held? Is that why you block it out?

To be fair, since I'd like you to answer that question, I'll answer yours. No, it is not personally threatening for me to believe that the Fed is privately held. I just have trouble believing things for which I have never seen any evidence presented.

Where the hell in the constitution do you see a provision for a branch of government that neither Congress or the Executive branch has oversight powers over, other than the Supreme Court? Do you actually think that the framers intended to allow an 'independent' ( ? ) privately-held central bank to control the monetary system?

This question would make sense if the Fed were (a) a branch of government that neither Congress or the Executive branch has oversight powers over, and (b) a privately held central bank.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote: First, he's saying that the Fed is an independent agency. Then he says no other agency of government can overrule them. Wait, why say "other agency of government" if the Fed isn't an agency of government?

Then why doesn't Greenspan refer to the bank as a GOVERNMENT agency that no other government agency can overrule? He calls it an independent agency.

It's an independent government agency. Why he says "independent agency" instead of "independent government agency" is probably because there was no need to say "government." He and the interviewer both knew that it was a government agency, but the point he was trying to make was that it was an independent agency.

This is how the brain of LVP works:

LVP believes that the Fed became constitutional because Aldrich introduced the bill and Wilson signed it. Therefore, the Fed is constitutional, according to Van Pelt.

I have never said this nor do I believe it.

But the invention of a private bank was never permitted by the Constitution. Just because it happened

You still haven't shown that it happened.

The fundamental reason why the truth eludes you over and over is this: you believe that if the Fed was unconstitutional, the Fed couldn't exist.

I have not said this and I do not believe it.

On the contrary: the prohibition against a private central bank is clear in the Constitution, so therefore, the existence of the Fed proves that constitutional law does not exist.

Where to start on this? First off, no evidence has been shown to support this claim that the Fed is a private central bank. Second, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean that there is no constitutional law. Do you believe that the Sedition Acts were unconstitutional? I do. Does that mean constitutional law didn't exist from 1798-1802?

Why don't you guys start a new thread on this topic?

Rick Reuben wrote:Of course it's a privately held central bank.

Sorry, that's only the twenty thousandth time you've said it. You have to say it fifty thousand times for it to become true. Keep at it! Repetition is easier than providing evidence!

You have a lot of reading to do, but don't bother. You'll be practicing admiralty law for the corporation soon enough and you can put this education in a locked box somewhere.

That's at least the second time you've attempted to criticize me by claiming that I'll be practicing admiralty law. What exactly do you think admiralty law is? Why do you think I'll be practicing it? And why do you think it's a criticism of me to suggest I'll be practicing admiralty law? (Note: I have no plans to practice admiralty law.)

newberry wrote:Why don't you guys start a new thread on this topic?

Sorry, for some reason when Bob derails a thread like this I have a hard time not getting sucked into it... back to mercury talk!

It's awfully convenient that, before today, the wikipedia entry said that the Fed was "a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system." If I wanted to, I could make it say that again. Do you really not know how wikipedia works? The edit making it say it was "PRIVATE" was made 38 minutes before you posted your post quoting it. But I'm a propagandist.

It's also interesting that you -- er, I mean, not you, I mean whoever edited the wikipedia page to say that it's PRIVATE -- left the source the same. The same source that used to purport to support the statement that it was quasi-public now purports to support the statement that it is PRIVATE. You -- I mean, not you, I mean whoever edited the wikipedia entry -- should really be more careful.

As to the other dumb shit - putting words in my mouth, repetition in lieu of evidence, unsupported factual statements, suing wikipedia, gold fringed flag and other CT canards... they don't really deserve a response. I'm comfortable with you considering me a "propagandist." Are you comfortable with believing things utterly unsupported by evidence?

Guys, could you please start a new thread or stay on topic? Thanks.