Rick Reuben wrote:

numberthirty wrote: They've got you right where they want you. Marginalized.

I hate to break it to you, but we're all marginalized. Difference is, I'm telling the truth and you're fumbling with basic logic and language.

So, You're finally starting to see that the white shadow's got you right where he wants you?

Rick Reuben wrote:And affirming a false choice is also allowing others to drive the bus. And pick the color of the bus. There's nothing to celebrate about affirming a false choice, if both options will make the country continue to get worse.

I am kind of curious, if the country is "continu[ing] to get worse", which point is it falling off from? When were we at our highest, according to you and what factors made this such a good time (or at the least, better than the others)?

I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical strategy yet, the question just kind of popped into my head.

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm telling the truth and you're fumbling with basic logic and language.

Basic logic and language are the tools with which we humans attempt to discern the truth.

Merely stating "I tell the truth" does not make one's statement(s) true. The speaker may be lying, he may be honestly misinformed or he may be ceritfiably batshit crazy, but nobody has a monopoly on the truth. Whenever you hear somebody saying "I always tell the truth," then all sorts of red flags ought to be popping up in your mind that the person is full of shit, because they're obviously incapable of admitting that they may be wrong in some way.

And once again, Rick has successfully cornered a thread into the same goddamn topic. Every. Fucking. Time.

When are we going to learn? (I admit that I partially fell into the trap by getting into Swift Boat, which is only somewhat related to the topic at hand.) Or do you really think you're going to change his mind? What is the point of arguing with Rick on his handful of pet issues? You know that he will divert, misrepresent, selectively ignore, bully, take whatever rhetorical tack he must to keep the conversation where he wants it.

Weren't we talking about the Corsi book and the Obama campaign?

Here's an example of staying on topic. Obama has released his first official response to the Corsi book, including a PDF:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/corsi

the$inmusicisallmine wrote:
Choosing not to participate in the system, when there is no available alternative, is just allowing others to drive the bus.Griping about politics and not even voting does not seem intellectually honest to me.

You don't think the bus is already being driven? You seem to think that the only mature and rightheaded thing to do is blindly accept what is presented to you by Corporate parties A and B and make a choice based on the lesser of 2 evils. How's that worked out for everyone over the last 30 years? I don't have to pick one. If I choose not to validate the fraud that is our current day 2 party system, it's my choice.

Can I come back and talk politics after the November election if I show you my I Voted sticker? Will I be approved to have an opinion then?

the$inmusicisallmine wrote:Choosing not to participate in the system, when there is no available alternative, is just allowing others to drive the bus. Griping about politics and not even voting does not seem intellectually honest to me.

Someone is always driving the bus, and it's rare that the type of "driver" we'd like is represented in a two party system.

Voting depends on whether or not you believe change can be brought through it. If not, some other outlet is needed. Politics and discussion is not solely in the hands of those who accept to go along with this system.

Rick Reuben wrote:In this thread, I have explained America.

that is my favorite line -ever. RR - you are a wonderful source of amusement to me. Thanks, don't go changin'.....

Rick Reuben wrote:America was probably at its fairest in the 1790's, despite slavery and no womens' rights and Indian killing.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah, those two pesky little things and we were this close to Ricky Bobby Tommy's utopia. Are we worse off now than in 1790? Such tortured logic to live in your brain.

Rick Reuben wrote:[Yes, it is illegal. ( The Act was passed in 1913, not 1931. ) If a sufficient number of congressmen are bribed to violate their oath to the Constitution, which orders that control of the money supply not be privatized, then they have committed treason.

Welcome to life in a capitalist republic. In our government, the legality or illegality of the FRB is really a matter for the Judicial Branch to decide, not you or me. Remember, in this country we have a representative government, not government by Clocker Rick.

BTW, is there any actual evidence of the bribes? How do you know that the Congress were bribed? The majority of Congress committed treason, you say? If you're going to make an accusation of that scale, I would hope you have some concrete evidence to support your claim. Your usage of the word "if" implies to me that your accusation is entirely speculative and you have no evidence to support it.

Rick Reuben wrote:To change the Constitutional prohibition against taking the issuance of money out of the hands of Congress requires a Constitutional referendum, to be ratified by 2/3 of the states. The framers worded the Constitution very specifically in a way to prevent Congress from doing what it did. Congress cannot make a law giving away a power it is instructed to keep, like issuing the money.

Interpreting the Constitution is the job of the judiciary. There is a law that established The Federal Reserve System and a body of laws that govern it. The Supreme Court has not ruled these laws to be unconstitutional, so it is, in fact, legal.

I'm not saying I think the Fed is necessarily a good thing, and I'm not denying that its existence in its present form might not conflict with some part of the Constitution, but deeming it illegal is not my privilege. As a citizen, I don't make the laws of this country. I might take exception or even object to certain laws, but to deny them outright is unrealistic.

Hell, I could say that all US drug and gun laws and the IRS are unconstitutional (as many people have) and therefore I have a right to own whatever weaponry and use whatever drugs I want and never pay any taxes. That of course would not insulate me from getting busted if I were caught possessing heroin or anti-aircraft missiles or failing to file tax returns. If I did end up getting arrested and tried for weapons or drug possession or tax evasion, I could even use my belief in the unconstitutionality of the US drug and tax laws as a point in my defense, but let's face it, I would most likely end up going to jail.

As it stands, the constitutionality of The Fed is a matter for the judiciary. Until the Supreme Court decides that The Fed is unconstitutional and therefore illegal, then I must acknowledge its legality within the current system and live with that.

Rick Reuben wrote:To think otherwise is retarded.

I resent this accusation. I underwent a rigorous battery of tests which definitively ruled out mental retardation.

Rick Reuben wrote:If you hired a police force, and the police force said 'We've decided that we're going to shoot citizens in the back', would you agree? Of course not. The police cannot choose for themselves what laws they will follow. Congress are employed by the people, same as the police. You can't hire people and then have them just throw away their responsibilities just because somebody paid them to do it.

Big difference. The federal, state, and local police forces are a part of the Executive branch of government. They do not make the laws. That's the job of the Legislature. The police only enforce and execute the Law. Private security forces and even deputized quasi-police agents like bounty hunters are likewise bound by the laws set down by the legislature, as are all private citizens.

If you're referring to mercenary organizations like Blackwater USA, then I agree that granting legal immunity to such organizations and their agents is very very bad. But while I feel that this state of affairs is very irresponsible and wrong, I have to acknowledge that it is the law at this time and I sincerely hope that the US Congress will correct this serious lapse of accountability and I will place a very high priority on this in my future voting considerations.

Rick Reuben wrote:Every Congress that tried to sell the money supply to private bankers committed treason.

The entire Congress committed treason, you say? If you're going to make an accusation of that scale, I would hope you have some concrete evidence to support your claim.

Let me add that if you really feel that strongly about it, then besides ranting on an indie music website, maybe you ought to start working right now on your law degree so you can get in there and fix these wrongs within our governmental system.

Rick Reuben wrote:If Congress wrote a law that said 'We're going to have a private corporation run the Department of Justice for us', would you consider that a 'legal' law,

All laws are 'legal'. That's the definition of the word 'legal': "of, or pertaining to laws".

But to answer your question, Congress alone does not make laws. They draft bills which then must be signed by the sitting president to become Law. I would hope the President would have the common sense to veto such a bill. After all, that's what we elect him for. If the President did not veto such a bill and it became law, and the Supreme Court likewise upheld it, I would seriously have to consider moving the hell off this sinking ship of a country.

Again, I fully agree that there have been many, many bad, destructive and/or self-serving decisions made in the past by US Presidents and Congresses regarding legislation and policy, especially monetary policy. I agree with you on that. It's also my opinion that The Federal Reserve System places entirely too much power over the economy into the hands of too few members of a privileged class in our society.

The difference is that I try to avoid using misnomers like "illegal" as buzzwords, just because it appears to add weight to my argument.

Rick Reuben wrote:Colonel Disinfo Who Lies For Bankers? I would hope not. But since you are a turd who lies for elite bankers, you claim that it is 'legal' to turn the monetary system over to a private corporation.

See, this the kind of stuff that makes a lot of people not want to talk with you around here.

Rick Reuben wrote:*furiously masturbating into mirror*

FYP


And if you actually read a goddamn word anyone else wrote instead of just looking for your next opening, you would've noticed that I said absolutely nothing about the content or quality of Obama's response. It was merely an attempt to get the 1,342,567th conversation on the Federal Reserve BACK on the thread topic.

But it does amuse me to see that my little post prompted you to forth at the mouth for a half a page.

As far as "independent investigation", who gives a fuck, you megalomaniac? I don't treat this forum like a brain toilet the way you do. I do try to inform myself as well as I can and with as many sources as I can on topics I'm particularly interested in (Pakistan, Russia, the Middle East, counterinsurgency). The difference is that I don't feel the need vomit all that information on this forum every single chance I get so that I can admire the plumping effect on my genitalia in the mirror mounted beside my keyboard. Instead, like an adult, I bring that information into civil conversations and to help provide nuance to my opinions. You child.

P.S. This is my monthly acknowledgment of your presence. Bask in it.