If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd understand that I never said I support selling off the right to print currency and to manage the US economy to a private corporation (which is not what The Fed is anyway, but that's beside my point).

My main point was that The Fed is not illegal, because it exists within the body of Federal legislation, and that's what makes it legal. Get it? You or I do not have the power to declare what is legal or not legal. That power belongs to the US Supreme Court. Since The Fed has been created by an Act of Congress, is governed by Federal Law and the US Supreme Court has not ruled the Fed illegal, calling it 'illegal' is a false statement.

I also said that I agree with the opinion that The Fed places too much power over the economy in the hands of too few people and that it distributes the wealth of the country unfairly. However, I'm not a Congressman or a Supreme Court Justice, so what I think has no direct bearing on the US legal system.

Rick Reuben wrote:If Congress decided to sell the Department of Justice to a private corporation, would you need the Supreme Court to tell you that was a bad idea?

First of all, that's not the question you asked me. If you bothered to read my reply you would have seen that indeed I did answer that question in my last post.

However, to answer the question you just asked:

Rick Reuben wrote:If Congress decided to sell the Department of Justice to a private corporation, would you need the Supreme Court to tell you that was a bad idea?

No I wouldn't. I know that would be a bad idea from other examples I have seen of privatization of critical Federal agencies.

Whether or not it would be illegal, however, is not up to me to decide, because I don't write the laws or rule on them. Those are the jobs of the Congress and the Supreme Court, respectively. It's very simple, really.

Anyway, that sounds like the kind of policy change that your friend Ron Paul would support, and that's one of the reasons why I don't support the likes of Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche.

I'm through belaboring this really simple point with you.

You were wrong in calling the Fed illegal, and now you know why.

Rick Reuben wrote: Ty Webb the Fuhrer

aheh.


So awesome.

Can we permanently make that the descriptor under Ty's name?

Ty Webb
Ty Webb the Fuhrer



The redheaded adman Fuhrer.

SWEET.

dontfeartheringo wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote: Ty Webb the Fuhrer

aheh.


So awesome.

Can we permanently make that the descriptor under Ty's name?

Ty Webb
Ty Webb the Fuhrer

The redheaded adman Fuhrer.

SWEET.

Nah, I'm pretty sure the Nazzies killed gingers too.

Not hyper-specific to the debate at hand, but i'm inspired to note that:

More so than ever before, at least at the Federal/Executive level, the idea of 'legality' has been so successfully manipulated into one so seemingly arbitrary, malleable, and academic by the likes of Dr. Yoo and his bosses that it seems that we need a new set of terms for these kinds of debates.
In other words; legal shmegal. About where we are at, eh?

"Oh it's techinically 'illegal'?...Well, write up a memo for us John. By the time the debate has concluded we'll have enjoy the spoils to no end."

A very dangerous and slippery slope.

Corsi got his ass handed to him on Larry King. The Waldman/Corsi debate on that show revealed a lot of information about Corsi that most people would find unpleasant.

The number one rankings that books like this get are inflated by group buys from right-wing groups that support the author's views.

On Larry King, Corsi had to backpedal and admit to going onto hate group forums and posting anonymously.

Good info here:

http://mediamatters.org/index

Rick Reuben wrote:

etch wrote:Corsi got his ass handed to him on Larry King. The Waldman/Corsi debate on that show revealed a lot of information about Corsi that most people would find unpleasant.

But what does that mean about the Obama book? The book is about Obama, not Corsi. Even if only 50% of the Obama book is true, it's 50% more truth about Obama that we would have ever heard from most of the puff-piece media.

Truth fears no investigation. If the Obama campaign's strategy is to wage personal attacks on Corsi to try and shut down discussion of what is in the book, then they will fail. People will look at the book's claims even harder then.

At the risk of trying to stay on topic, I'm going to have to disagree with the 50/50 idea you're putting forward.

If 50% of what someone says is bull, I'm going to have a hard time taking them seriously when they are saying is finally on the money.

Factor in that both of the likely candidates are trying to steer clear of the type of way Corsi tends to operate and, it seems a lot less likely that his book will be taken seriously.

Rick Reuben wrote:Even if only 50% of the Obama book is true, it's 50% more truth about Obama that we would have ever heard from most of the puff-piece media.

Brilliant logic, sir!

Rick Reuben wrote:

Lonesome Bulldog wrote:So how is making it official any better?

Downsizing the government makes it harder to control the market. Don't believe me, just look at the facts. Government grows, at the same time that select groups of huge behemoth corporations crowd out smaller competitors. The behemoths use their tool, government contracts and regulations, to make capitalism less open. What you end up with is what we have got: a tight network of interlocked giant corporations and conglomerates, spanning borders, owned by huge shareholders who engage in market manipulation in a myriad of ways, primarily through their actual ownership of the system for creating money and credit.

When these behemoths complain in the press about 'big government choking off competition', they're hosing you. When the controlled media frightens you with terrifying predictions of a 'predator free-for-all' if government takes a smaller role in the economy, they're hosing you. Government is their tool for organizing their crime and keeping it all in the same club.

Fascism is corporatism is state/corporate synthesis. Obviously, if increasing the size of government just increases what you pay for your military, your health care, your pharmaceuticals, your energy, your schools, your roads, your water, your food, then what person in their right mind would think that making government even bigger is going to reverse any of those trends? Big Government polices markets so they can be made more profitable and exclusive.

Big Government is not the remedy for Big Corporations. Big Government is the goal of Big Corporations. It's a way for them to get free research and development, it's a way for them to make taxpayers pay for market expansion, and it's a way for them to socialize their risks of business back onto the taxpayers.

I mean, fuck- Big Government has spent the past year rescuing private investment banks with your money supply. Do you really think that Big Government is working for you?

No, I never did, Captain Puttingwordsinmouths. But if the gov is as bad as the corps, then NEITHER should be in charge of the things listed by that one nutjob I was referring to. Anyway whatever, I don't care to argue about it or even check this thread any more.

Rick Reuben wrote:Obviously, a non-vote is a valid vote. It's a vote against the legitimacy of the system. What would equal total rejection of the system? No one voting.

Know what would also work? If all the non-voters killed themselves. Either way, doing nothing but not-voting and posting on message boards ain't gonna do Jack Dick. This is coming from a guy (me) who thinks the voting system is rigged. I vote in case I'm wrong. I stock water and ammo in case I'm right.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Lonesome Bulldog wrote: But if the gov is as bad as the corps, then NEITHER should be in charge

Government and the corporations compose a single entity in America 2008. You need to stop seeing them as opponents. That is the essense of submission to the false paradigm. You can't kill either without killing both. They are both part of the visible face of the crime syndicate that purchased this country and controls it through the debt matrix, the credit supply, and the monetary system.

Ass, I know this. They are however located in different buildings. Requiring two separate grenades, capice?

Rick Reuben wrote:

lonesome bulldog wrote: Either way, doing nothing but not-voting and posting on message boards

Looks like you're deep under their spell at this point. Yet another person who keeps saying that those adding more truth to the world are doing nothing.

Enter the mind of those like LB who lash out at those who reject affirming the false choices: 'Wah wah wah... it depresses me to find out that the bankers control my country and wah wah wah, it depresses me to learn that all winning candidates will pledge allegiance to the bankers or they'll be persecuted or killed... wah wah wah, I don't want to believe that I'm not harming the plutocracy with my votes inside their false paradigm... wah wah wah, I want to believe in the power of my votes, wah wah wah I want to believe that my enemies are so stupid that they would give me the tools I need to defeat them... wah wah wah sob sob sob...'

You are powerless against the plutocracy if you use your votes for well-funded candidates who will not tell you the truth about the Federal Reserve. If all you plan to do with your votes is choose Democrats or Republicans, then you're a dickhead digging your own grave.

Rick if you continue to offer no alternatives other than Ron fucking Paul, then all you're doing here is reinforcing the world view you accuse me of having. I can't follow your financial advice because I haven't two pennies to rub together. I have no stock in the seed bank, no submarine, no share in Halliburton or Blackwater. You tell me to open my eyes; they have been wide open for a long time, and I see a lot of lies and evil faces. GIVE ME SOMETHING I CAN WORK WITH MOFO.

I agree with you that the Obama book should be judged by its facts, not its author. I have said before, I don't trust ANYONE in politics. I consider voting as realistic as playing the lottery. Unlike the lottery, I'm still going to do it. WHY? Because the only thing I know about our government is that I DON'T know what's going on behind the scenes. I can't pretend to, because I'm not there. But what the fuck. There's a chance that Obama could have a subversive drop of blood in him, whereas there's no fucking way McCain has any of my interests at heart. And everyone else is out of the running. There is no harm in my voting for O, because I'm not one of the people you describe who have fallen for the Democratic Obama hysteria. I'm still going to be an anarchist, I'm still going to fight to defend the weak.

By the way. I know you are a human being, not a bot. So I am saying to you, as a human, DON'T BE A FUCKING ASSHOLE TO ME. DON'T FUCKING PUT WORDS IN MY GODDAMN MOUTH. I didn't "lash out" at you, I never said wah wah about a fucking thing. If anyone is on here bitching and moaning about the state of the nation, it's you. Boo fucking you hoo.

You know jack shit about "the mind of those like LB." You probably don't know much about anybody's mind, since your social skills are practically invisible. You and I are at odds, yet we both hate the govt and corps. Why the paradox? Because you're not a teacher, you're a preacher. And you sure as fuck aren't a listener. And there's NOBODY "like" LB, motherfucker.