Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: Britons told: Cuts will affect 'everyone'

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    Are you a Ron Paul supporter? He is for abolishing the Federal Reserve.
    From what I have seen, Ron Paul makes a lot of sense. IMHO, the PRIVATELY owned Federal Reserve is a con-job on the American people. I would love to know the major shareholders of this organization are. I have heard that their names are not in the public domain. Do you know if this is true?



    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    No country is rich enough to support oversized governments. The USSR was the largest country in the history of the world, and the richest in natural resources. And look at what happened to them.
    I know what you are getting at,but look how long they survived and one can only wonder if they would have survived a whole lot longer if they were not involved in that crazy arms race during the cold war, and had concentrated their efforts at exploiting their natural resources and developing their non-military industry.

    On the other hand one can look at countries in Scandenavia where the system seems to be a pretty healthy marriage of socialism with capitalism.



    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    "Do you think if the "ruling elite" controlled the elections, that we would have Obama, Reid and Pelosi in charge? The "rich elite" got where they are by building businesses, creating things, investing in things--this administration is blatantly anti-business, anti-wealth. The only "elite" they don't want to destroy is the "hollywood elite!" Get out into the fresh air."
    IMHO, the elite have been choosing almost every president for the last century and beyon, I don't think that they would suddenly say "hey, lets just let the people decide this time".

    The elite that I talk about are not just rich businessmen. These people eat rich businessmen for lunch. I also believe that their real wealth (power and influence) is never revealed in the public domain, that is the "richest men in America", list, because if it was, then people would start asking questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    Another thing to consider is how the Obama regime bailed out GM, and it's effects. Obama fired the CEO they had pre-bailout and replaced him with a new CEO Obama chose. Obama also set the new CEOs pay, he did not get to enrich himself (or the Board of GM) with the bailout (ie the taxpayer's) money. The ones who got the money were not the rich guys, it was the union workers. Without the bailout, they would have lost everything, their jobs, their pensions, their healthcare, etc. So it was not taking from the taxpayers and giving the rich. It was taking from the taxpayers and giving it to union workers.
    Very true, but again he is keeping a business enterprise alive. That enterprise is ultimately owned by the banks and not the US government, because the US government owes trillions of dollars to them.

    This is a debt that cannot be paid, at least looking at it at the present. So, in effect the creditors, the BANKS, or more correctly, non-elected BANKERS, whoever, they may be, own the assets of the US government, so the more Obama takes over businesses in the name of "rescuing" them, the more collateral he provides for his creditors to lay claim to. To make matters worse, Obama is INCREASING the government debt by spending even more money that the government does not have.

    This is a huge fraud and scam on the American people. It is basically a transfer of wealth to the banking elite, while the government plays the role of the dishonest middle man, lying through its teeth and using sugar coated slogans to carry out as much as this con-job as it can and as soon as it can, as probably it fears people awakening to the scam.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    And what Obama did with Chrysler is even worse. He took the stock from the investors (the rich) and GAVE it to the people of his choosing! Lawsuits were filed by those whose stocks were literally stolen from them, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is assigned to emergency motions arising from the United States Appeals Court for the Second Circuit, in a one-sentence order, stayed the orders of the bankruptcy judge allowing the sale, pending further order by Justice Ginsburg or the Supreme Court.

    Source:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/bu...sler.html?_r=1
    The looting will continue until America turns into a two class level society. The elite on top and the working class on the bottom, living in a country whose national identity and true independence has been eroded for a long time, make it end up as just another state in a regional community of countries..
    This is a real possibility.

    Obama was brought in to do a job and follow an agenda which has been in existance for a long time and which through different governments has been brought to its fruition. The "War on Terrorism", "Global Warming" scam and others, are also playing their part in centralizing world power and turning once powerful countries into relatively insignificant members withing regional powers, that is the New World Order.

    The European Community is one such example and element of what I am talking about. we are having a New World Order installed, but somehow, no one asked the people if they wanted to be controlled by a centralized world dictatorship, owned and ultimately controlled, lock, stock and barrel, by private banking interests (families that own them) and their politician yes- men.

    1bad65, from reading your past posts, I have noticed that you are no lover of socialism nor communism, but this system has been in the works for the West for a long time, going back to at least the early 20th century..

    A communist style systeme is one of the best ways to control the sheep, in a manner of speaking, and every authoritarian regime is looking for ways of controlling the masses as best as they can.

    I hope that people snap out of this state of hypnotism that is stopping them from seeing where their being herded!

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    From what I have seen, Ron Paul makes a lot of sense. IMHO, the PRIVATELY owned Federal Reserve is a con-job on the American people. I would love to know the major shareholders of this organization are. I have heard that their names are not in the public domain. Do you know if this is true?
    I really don't know much about the Federal Reserve to be honest. I did know that Congressman Paul was for abolishing it though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    I know what you are getting at,but look how long they survived and one can only wonder if they would have survived a whole lot longer if they were not involved in that crazy arms race during the cold war, and had concentrated their efforts at exploiting their natural resources and developing their non-military industry.

    On the other hand one can look at countries in Scandenavia where the system seems to be a pretty healthy marriage of socialism with capitalism.
    Well, Reagan did say the arms race would bankrupt them, and the man was right.

    Socialism/communism has always failed, even in countries where there is no arms race. The premise of socialism, that people will bust their butts for others, is a premise doomed to failure.

    Many socialist European countries are facing financial implosions as we speak. None of the Scandinavian ones are YET, but the Dutch just gave the far right Party a huge victory. It appears they do not want to end up like Greece, England, Portugal, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    The elite that I talk about are not just rich businessmen. These people eat rich businessmen for lunch. I also believe that their real wealth (power and influence) is never revealed in the public domain, that is the "richest men in America", list, because if it was, then people would start asking questions.
    True. That's why I disagree about the "rich" being behind big governments. They have NEVER been the big winners in big government/socialist countries.

    Look at Cuba, for example. You do have rich people in Cuba, but they are not "Big Business" guys, they are ruling class guys.

    Rich people who call for big government fall into one of 3 categories: 1) the useful idiots-these are the guys who are like the chickens helping out Col Sanders. They are cluless. 2) The ones who think the socialists will allow them to keep their money for helping them win power. These guys are just one step up from the useful idiots. 3) The ones who plan on entering the political class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    Very true, but again he is keeping a business enterprise alive. That enterprise is ultimately owned by the banks and not the US government, because the US government owes trillions of dollars to them.
    The UAW got a huge share of both Chrysler and GM. Don't forget that aspect. The "banks" really did not get much out of those bailous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    This is a debt that cannot be paid, at least looking at it at the present. So, in effect the creditors, the BANKS, or more correctly, non-elected BANKERS, whoever, they may be, own the assets of the US government, so the more Obama takes over businesses in the name of "rescuing" them, the more collateral he provides for his creditors to lay claim to. To make matters worse, Obama is INCREASING the government debt by spending even more money that the government does not have.

    This is a huge fraud and scam on the American people. It is basically a transfer of wealth to the banking elite, while the government plays the role of the dishonest middle man, lying through its teeth and using sugar coated slogans to carry out as much as this con-job as it can and as soon as it can, as probably it fears people awakening to the scam.
    Agreed, but only somewhat.

    It's not the bankers who are benefitting, it's the "political class". The banks are losing their abilities to engage in many forms of commerce that make them money, and Obama is now wanting to set their salaries. How is that the banks winning? Obama is not out for the rich, he is out for the political class, people like himself. Notice Obama has never worked a job in the private sector that produces anything.

    To me, the political class has become way too detached from reality. You cannot spend your way out of debt. Joe Six-Pack knows this, but yet somehow a brilliant (their words, not mine) man like Obama doesn't know this? Obama truly frightens me. If his policies are enacted and allowed to be in place for an extended period of time, we will financially implode. This is a fact. My only questions is this: Is he doing it because he is flat-out wrong and unwilling/unable to see this or is he doing it on purpose?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    The looting will continue until America turns into a two class level society. The elite on top and the working class on the bottom, living in a country whose national identity and true independence has been eroded for a long time, make it end up as just another state in a regional community of countries..
    This is a real possibility.
    You are 100% correct here. Of course we may disagree on who is on top. I say the elite will be the "political class", not the rich. This is how it ALWAYS ends up when socialism is allowed to run its course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    Obama was brought in to do a job and follow an agenda which has been in existance for a long time and which through different governments has been brought to its fruition. The "War on Terrorism", "Global Warming" scam and others, are also playing their part in centralizing world power and turning once powerful countries into relatively insignificant members withing regional powers, that is the New World Order.
    This is a part I'm not willing to buy into however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    The European Community is one such example and element of what I am talking about. we are having a New World Order installed, but somehow, no one asked the people if they wanted to be controlled by a centralized world dictatorship, owned and ultimately controlled, lock, stock and barrel, by private banking interests (families that own them) and their politician yes- men.
    But recent elections are showing the people in many of those countries are voting to now move in a different direction, a conservative/free direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    1bad65, from reading your past posts, I have noticed that you are no lover of socialism nor communism, but this system has been in the works for the West for a long time, going back to at least the early 20th century..
    I'll die before I live under socialism/communism, you are right. Of course the socialists have been at EVERY country since they read Marx's garbage. They just haven't gotten as much traction over here as they have in Europe. And that's good, as americans can now look at Europe and see our future if we keep electing people like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. And I truly hope (and pray) that November will bring a change. If not, I fear we are in HUGE trouble. It's getting dangerously close to the point where it's gonna be too late, our debt is only getting bigger while the Democrats are furiously ramping up entitlements simply to guarantee their re-elections over and over again. But they have failed to see the problem staring them right in the face: Who wants to be the rulers of a bankrupt kingdom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    A communist style systeme is one of the best ways to control the sheep, in a manner of speaking, and every authoritarian regime is looking for ways of controlling the masses as best as they can.

    I hope that people snap out of this state of hypnotism that is stopping them from seeing where their being herded!
    Agreed 100%
    Last edited by 1bad65; 06-10-2010 at 11:20 AM.
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    I really don't know much about the Federal Reserve to be honest. I did know that Congressman Paul was for abolishing it though.
    Ron Paul has good and solid reasons for wanting to do so, including the fact that the existance of the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. There is actually an interesting story on how the FD came into being.

    Anyway, these are Ron Paul's own words on this specific subject matter:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    Well, Reagan did say the arms race would bankrupt them, and the man was right.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    Socialism/communism has always failed, even in countries where there is no arms race. The premise of socialism, that people will bust their butts for others, is a premise doomed to failure.
    I don't see a totally socialist or Communist system working but an intelligent mix of capitalism with socialism can work, such as in Sweden. However, that does not mean that all countries should follow their model. There are always cultural and historical factors that are at play here. What works in Japan will not necessarily work in Mexico, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    Many socialist European countries are facing financial implosions as we speak. None of the Scandinavian ones are YET, but the Dutch just gave the far right Party a huge victory. It appears they do not want to end up like Greece, England, Portugal, etc.
    True. However, I believe that the financial crisis is not totally due to the system nor to "careless" lending by the banks. I believe that there was some intent to cause this crisis to get the governments the excuse to bail out banks and businesses, hence to increase in size and give cash handouts that ultimately benefited the owners of the banking cartels who were also enjoying the takeover of the assets of the people whose land and businesses they took over (through foreclosures), because of this crisis.

    I have at least one banker friend in London who seems to agree with this, that is, she believes that the crisis was an artificial creation that was long time in planning. Of course, one or two people's opinion does not make that a fact, but I personally, based on my readings and research, believe this to be likely - create problem then offer the solution, and the current "solution" seems to be the increasiing the size of the government in the US and in some European countries.



    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    True. That's why I disagree about the "rich" being behind big governments. They have NEVER been the big winners in big government/socialist countries.
    True, but what is different nowadays is that the "rich" elite, at least from what I can see, seem to be creating it.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    Look at Cuba, for example. You do have rich people in Cuba, but they are not "Big Business" guys, they are ruling class guys.
    I guess in Cuba and other countries cases where there has been violent takeover, the political class becomes the rich business class. So, it kind of works in reverse of what I am seeing in Eurpoe and the US. Or at least, this is my perception.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    Rich people who call for big government fall into one of 3 categories: 1) the useful idiots-these are the guys who are like the chickens helping out Col Sanders. They are cluless. 2) The ones who think the socialists will allow them to keep their money for helping them win power. These guys are just one step up from the useful idiots. 3) The ones who plan on entering the political class.
    LOL, there is a lot of truth in that.

    To be honest what bothers me is the rich people we don't see. They are there, they have the money and the power to lobby and influence, which in my humble opinion they do, to get their people elected. Personally I believe that they are the bankers for the most part.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    The UAW got a huge share of both Chrysler and GM. Don't forget that aspect. The "banks" really did not get much out of those bailous.
    The way I see it, no matter how big the government gets acquiring business assets, those assets are still collateral for its creditors.

    So, if in theory the creditors were to foreclose on the US government, then they would be entitled to the government assets such as GM and so on. Of course, we don't hear about foreclosure on that level, but what if that is next on the agenda?

    I ask because the US and some European countries are inside uncharted territories where theoretically anything is possible, and that is really worrying.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    Agreed, but only somewhat.

    It's not the bankers who are benefitting, it's the "political class". The banks are losing their abilities to engage in many forms of commerce that make them money, and Obama is now wanting to set their salaries. How is that the banks winning? Obama is not out for the rich, he is out for the political class, people like himself. Notice Obama has never worked a job in the private sector that produces anything.
    I see what you are saying but what about the major shareholders in the main banks? Families such as the Rothchilds and Rockefellers, etc. I really don't think that they loose anything but stand to gain a lot and IMHO they have been in control of the political class for a long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    To me, the political class has become way too detached from reality. You cannot spend your way out of debt. Joe Six-Pack knows this, but yet somehow a brilliant (their words, not mine) man like Obama doesn't know this? Obama truly frightens me. If his policies are enacted and allowed to be in place for an extended period of time, we will financially implode. This is a fact. My only questions is this: Is he doing it because he is flat-out wrong and unwilling/unable to see this or is he doing it on purpose?
    I believe that he knows very well what he is doing. The plan may be to implode the economy and blaming Capitalism for it, hence justifying their Communist, Socialist, even Fascist solutions that they so desire to implement. Or doing enough damage to create unrest for the same purpose.

    In some ways fascism seems to be a better definition of where they are going, but to me there is not much difference between the far right and the far left. So possibly you will get the big centralized government (as in communism) but it will be "married" with big business, as in fascism. That may be the plan.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    You are 100% correct here. Of course we may disagree on who is on top. I say the elite will be the "political class", not the rich. This is how it ALWAYS ends up when socialism is allowed to run its course.
    We may disagree about who is on top but we know where we are headed if Obama's madness continues. So, that puts us ahead of a lot of people.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    This is a part I'm not willing to buy into however.
    To be honest, I see it as the truth but I wish that I didn't see it that way. The New World Order is being mentioned by major politicians nowadays. They do this in relation to worldwide regulations to handle yet more "problems" such as the "Global Warming" (scam!), "Terrorism", "Pandemics" and of course economic crisis.

    NWO is basically a system of world Collective government, where the world is divided into regions so as to make their governing easier. That is why we are seeing the socialistic trends.

    The NWO seems to be a cross party agenda. Bush and Clinton, among others in the US have referred to it and James Cameron and Tony Blair, among others, have done the same in the UK.

    It is a good idea to research this and keep an eye on how things are developing in regards the NWO, as this is no longer a "conspiracy theory" anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    But recent elections are showing the people in many of those countries are voting to now move in a different direction, a conservative/free direction.
    I hope that the people are waking up. You can have friendship with neighboring countries with friendly trading agreements, without turning a whole region into a dictatorial centralized block.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    I'll die before I live under socialism/communism, you are right. Of course the socialists have been at EVERY country since they read Marx's garbage. They just haven't gotten as much traction over here as they have in Europe. And that's good, as americans can now look at Europe and see our future if we keep electing people like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. And I truly hope (and pray) that November will bring a change. If not, I fear we are in HUGE trouble. It's getting dangerously close to the point where it's gonna be too late, our debt is only getting bigger while the Democrats are furiously ramping up entitlements simply to guarantee their re-elections over and over again. But they have failed to see the problem staring them right in the face: Who wants to be the rulers of a bankrupt kingdom?
    November will be a chance to start the changes. Unfortunately, Obama will do his best to implement as much damage as he can before then. Also, we need to see the direction the non Democratic winners will take. I say that because I have stopped trusting politicians...LOL



    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    Agreed 100%
    Going on with this mysterious trend toward communism, I can say that this is not a recent development and it was in the works for a long time.

    I came across this interview from 1982 with one Norman Dodd, the late Congressional Investigator of Tax Exempt Foundations. This guy is no tin hat wearing conspiracy theorist and inspite of the sensationalist heading of the interview, the man makes some sobering revelations, that are very relevant today in light of the way politics have developed since his interview, and Mr Dodd's death (shortly afterwards), over 25 years ago.

    Please, please, watch it if you can.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM
    Last edited by Hardwork108; 06-11-2010 at 12:13 AM.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Not gonna reply section by section, its getting too long.

    I do see the trend becoming a bit more like facism than communism/socialism as well. Keep in mind, the Democrats who ran as anti-greed are in bed with (or they themselves are) some very rich people/corporations. Obama and BP Oil comes to mind. And we've all seen the Democrats and Obama slam oil companies, and now we know they are benefitting big time from their money.

    To me, the main difference between facism and communism/socialism is who is allowed to have welath. In a fascist state there are rich non-political people allowed to keep their money, such as Porsche, IG Farben, and Krupp in Nazi Germany. But in the communist countries, the only ones allowed to be wealthy are members of the political class. Of course in the fascist countries the rich allowed to keep their money are also in bed with the leaders. It's very scary to see Obama is doing EXACTLY this.

    I agree that some socialism can work succesfuly with capitalism, but it's a balancing act. Our problem is that we have one political Party who is actually trying to get as many voters on the dole (ie increasing the socialism) to ensure their re-elections. This is what is getting the US dangerously close to tipping the scale.

    On to the bank crisis. It's very hard for me to determine if it was planned, or if bad decisions alone caused it. The Democrats did pass (during Carter) the Community Reinvestment Act. This FORCED banks to make a certain percentage of loans to high-risk borrowers. This was done under the guise of increasing minority home ownership. Of course the banks had to do it now, and so they were forced to come up with ways to still be profitable when they were FORCED to make bad business decisions. Of course this got way, way out of control. Banks were making way too many bad loans now (even more than they were forced too), but they had found that since the Federal Government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteeing the loans, they could sell the bad loans. And people bought the bad loans knowing the Government would cover them if the loans could not be paid back. But there was a huge problem, Fannie and Freddie did not have the money to cover all the loans, only a percentage. The Rupublicans in 2002 (with Bush) tried to force Fannie and Freddie to open their books so the banks could see this, but they were beaten back in Congress by the Democrats (who played the race card). Once more homes went into foreclosure than Fannie and Freddie could cover, the whole house of cards came tumbling down. The only question is was it done by sheer ignorance, or on purpose? That's the million dollar question....

    As to Obama's role, I'm really looking at it this way; either he is the most ignorant President we've ever elected in terms of knowledge of how the private sector works, or it is indeed being done on purpose. But I look at it this way; right now, it doesn't matter why. Period. It just must be stopped, and fast. After (assuming we do) we diffuse the ticking time bomb he has set on our economy, then we can figure out why it was done. But Priority #1 should be stopping him, and those like him.
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    Not gonna reply section by section, its getting too long.

    I do see the trend becoming a bit more like facism than communism/socialism as well. Keep in mind, the Democrats who ran as anti-greed are in bed with (or they themselves are) some very rich people/corporations. Obama and BP Oil comes to mind. And we've all seen the Democrats and Obama slam oil companies, and now we know they are benefitting big time from their money.
    Obama might even use this ecological disaster to increase "green" taxes for "clean up" operations.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    To me, the main difference between facism and communism/socialism is who is allowed to have welath. In a fascist state there are rich non-political people allowed to keep their money, such as Porsche, IG Farben, and Krupp in Nazi Germany. But in the communist countries, the only ones allowed to be wealthy are members of the political class. Of course in the fascist countries the rich allowed to keep their money are also in bed with the leaders. It's very scary to see Obama is doing EXACTLY this.
    That is why I am worried as his assault on big business, at least in my humble opinion, may not be what it seems, specially in view of the fact (in my belief) that elements among the business/banking elite/establishment were the ones who put him in power, to start with.

    It seems that this trend towards collective big government "in bed" with big business has been an agenda that forgoes party political differences. That is what the links I provided in my previous post to you indicate.

    It seems that many people are in on it and they are not restricted to one party. I really believe that the political parties in the US have been infiltrated by people who ultimately think that big government, together with restricted rights for US citizens and the destruction of the Constitution, is a good thing. I believe that this fascist/communist trend has strong support from powerful people, who hope to be sitting on top of the pyramid if this plan succeeds.

    I would suggest a little bit of research on the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission in the US and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in the UK. This political organizations have as their goal, the promotion and implementation of the New World Order. They have members from ALL political parties.

    The Trilateral Commissiom, was founded by none other than David Rockefeller, the head of Chase Manhattan Bank - an elite banker - by all definitions!

    Among its members this organization can count on people like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger,both of whom are nasty pieces of work, as far as I am concerned. The Trilateral Commission includes members from the THREE grouping of the US, Europe and Japan.

    Just so that you get an idea of where Brzezinski comes from, so to speak, I will give you a quote from his book, "Between Two Ages: America's Role In The Technetronic Era". In the book he says, "National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept", suggesting a movement in stages "toward a larger community of the developed nations....." READ: Europea Community; a North American Community; South American Community, and so on..

    I don't know about now but at one stage Brzezinski was selected as Trilateral Commission's Director by the Banker, David Rockefeller.

    I have written all this info to back up my belief that when political leaders come to power and follow a certain agenda, it is not because it is their agenda but that it has hidden and powerful backers.

    Politics is truly a can of worms. LOL

    Since the formation of the Council on Foreign Relations, every president up to George Bush senior, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, had been its member. I don't have the data on others who came after, but I guess that they will follow the trend. That is why I don't buy too much of the inter party political sparring. How can one buy those conflicts when the same guys belong to the same semi-secret political organizations?

    One of the elements that makes me believe this theory even more is the fact that the US security agencies (CIA, DIA, NSA, etc.) are silent about this takeover. Can you imagine what these same agencies would have done during the Cold War era, if they had suspected a Soviet infiltration of US political parties?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    I agree that some socialism can work succesfuly with capitalism, but it's a balancing act. Our problem is that we have one political Party who is actually trying to get as many voters on the dole (ie increasing the socialism) to ensure their re-elections. This is what is getting the US dangerously close to tipping the scale.
    Agreed.

    And as far as any system working is concerned, before anything else, you need a leadership that cares and is not corrupt. Then they will work for the good of the population, meaning if they see that a certain political approach is not working, then they can adapt and change, until it starts working, for the BENEFIT of the man in the street. We rarely see a government that way inclined, anywhere, nowaday.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    On to the bank crisis. It's very hard for me to determine if it was planned, or if bad decisions alone caused it. The Democrats did pass (during Carter) the Community Reinvestment Act. This FORCED banks to make a certain percentage of loans to high-risk borrowers. This was done under the guise of increasing minority home ownership. Of course the banks had to do it now, and so they were forced to come up with ways to still be profitable when they were FORCED to make bad business decisions. Of course this got way, way out of control. Banks were making way too many bad loans now (even more than they were forced too), but they had found that since the Federal Government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteeing the loans, they could sell the bad loans. And people bought the bad loans knowing the Government would cover them if the loans could not be paid back. But there was a huge problem, Fannie and Freddie did not have the money to cover all the loans, only a percentage. The Rupublicans in 2002 (with Bush) tried to force Fannie and Freddie to open their books so the banks could see this, but they were beaten back in Congress by the Democrats (who played the race card). Once more homes went into foreclosure than Fannie and Freddie could cover, the whole house of cards came tumbling down. The only question is was it done by sheer ignorance, or on purpose? That's the million dollar question....
    Well, you know what I think. Also, due to the influence and lobbying power of big business, I would think that it is very likely that the banking elite "bought" the Democratic decision that "forced" them to lend more. I say that because they made bundles of money for many years and that money is still in the pockets of the shareholders and the real owners of these banks.

    So, some banks may close, while others cut down on staff and people may lose their jobs in those banks, but the multi billionaire owners are still laughing all the way to one of their other banks. We must also remember that many of the banks made forclosures on assets of their debtors during this crisis. As a resut the debtors ended up homeless, which we hear about all the time, while the banks ended up with their assets, which we don't hear about that much. Then some of these same banks were given billions of dollars of aid. This means even more transference of wealth into the hands of the few, than we are told.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    As to Obama's role, I'm really looking at it this way; either he is the most ignorant President we've ever elected in terms of knowledge of how the private sector works, or it is indeed being done on purpose.
    I believe that Obama is intelligent enough to know what he is doing and for whom. After all, nobody is that stupid to do what he is doing without seeing where it is going to end up. I am of the opinion that he was brought in to do a job and he is doing it, and him being intelligent does not mean that he is a good person or that he cares, because he isn't good person and he doesn't care.

    He probably has psychopathic tendencies not unlike many other selected leaders in the world. That means, he does not care about the human damage that are caused by his decisions, or rather, the decisions of others that he is implementing.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65
    But I look at it this way; right now, it doesn't matter why. Period. It just must be stopped, and fast. After (assuming we do) we diffuse the ticking time bomb he has set on our economy, then we can figure out why it was done. But Priority #1 should be stopping him, and those like him.
    Very true. It is in the voters' hands but those same voters have to vary of whoever replaces the Democrats, and keep a close eye on their performance, because as I implied , I believe that the NWO has very strong support across the different political parties inside the US (and Europe).

    Did you know that there are those who are forcasting total economical collapse in 2010? It is d@mn scary, I tell you, specially in view of the fact that on both side of the Atlantic, big government has been getting bigger and has been spending trillions of dollars/Euros (borrowed money) on "bail outs" and so on.
    Last edited by Hardwork108; 06-13-2010 at 02:25 AM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Once again, we do agree alot, but I'm still not in on all the conspiracy stuff just yet. I notice you said Reagan was not part of it, if true, thats not surprising. And the good news is that Reagan won 2 landslide elections. In 1984, he carried 49 States! There really is hope, we just need someone who can spread the message like he did. He stated conservatism and the benefits of small government simply, and in words people could easily grasp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardwork108 View Post
    Did you know that there are those who are forcasting total economical collapse in 2010? It is d@mn scary, I tell you, specially in view of the fact that on both side of the Atlantic, big government has been getting bigger and has been spending trillions of dollars/Euros (borrowed money) on "bail outs" and so on.
    I have noticed how both America and Europe are in big financial trouble. Now Europe has been socialist for a long time now, and we are still lagging behind them there (which is good).

    But notice which country has an economy that is prospering right now...

    And then notice in what direction they recently took their economy...
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •