A word from the president: "I'm a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country..."

page: 3
77
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by theshepherd2
 


You can start by looking at Rothschild, more than likely they had something to do with it. Could be the beginning of what we know as "The Bilderberg Group".


-Simms




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

"It doesn't matter if the quote is true - the Fed Reserve is a corrupt institution etc."

A credible debate can be had for that opinion without fabricating quotes. Perhaps even a more credible debate when dishonesty is not employed?


I say fight fire with fire. If people insist on using face quotes by former presidents, add your own in. Did you know Abe Lincoln said specifically "The republican party, the party I am part of and love, is an institution that demands all women earn no more than half that of a man in the respective field"

Misrepresentation not only makes the argument weak, but it makes the person whom is knowingly using it highly suspect and any defense mechanism will quickly go into protection mode, knowing this person has already lied to try and create a view...meaning its probably a corrupt view to begin with that cannot stand on its own merit. Trust nothing a liar tells you, they are not seeking out honest debate is the overall psychology humans tend to do.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
From what I gather this was history revisionism. Someone has pieced together several statements by Woodrow Wilson and added on the first line from out of thin air. Huge discussion here: Wikiquote: Talk: Woodrow Wilson where there seems to be a considerable amount of evidence that this is fabricated from several separate texts attributed to Woodrow Wilson.

Furthermore this article in Salon seems to indicate that it's not factual either since the quotes they are stringing together are from before the Federal Reserve was created. How could he have been said about it before he created it?



Now, this is all good rabble-rousing stuff, but its relevance to the creation of the Federal Reserve is nonexistent. The speeches these quotes were adapted from were delivered before the Federal Reserve was created. And as for the melodramatic utterance: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country," well, so far, the sourcing well is coming up dry.

UPDATE: Via e-mail, John M. Cooper, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, and the author of several books on Woodrow Wilson, writes:


"I can tell you categorically that this is not a statement of regret for having created the Federal Reserve. Wilson never had any regrets for having done that. It was an accomplishment in which he took great pride."

www.salon.com...


Read this previous discussion on the same topic: When and where did Woodrow Wilson say this??

edit on 8/26/2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
edit on 26-8-2011 by yaluk because: forget it



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
The sad thing is that some believe that this is of no consequence, that the FED and it's henchmen know what is good for the country......you see their ilk on here all the time.


edit on 26-8-2011 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
he was potus he had every chance to not do it and he did anyway.

i have no sympthay for the man he knew!

with regards to the federal reserve act and the 63rd congress he was in the party who control both the house and senate and the potus.

there were any number of chances and ways to kill the federal reserve act and they didnt.

he can blame himself all he wants and thats great but the blame for it all goes to the majority in the house senate and potus.

they are all gulity but i hear no remorse from them then or even that party of today.

whats more they did it agian with the consumer protection agency to pick up where the federal reserve left off.


nah
edit on 25-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Yeah I would say the same for Obama.

Well, except the unhappy part. The guy is livin it up on vaca while the country suffers.
edit on 26-8-2011 by WhiteDevil013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


What about RFK? Didn't he try an rid the country of the Federal Reserve?
And then got shot in the head....



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
he was potus he had every chance to not do it and he did anyway.

i have no sympthay for the man he knew!

with regards to the federal reserve act and the 63rd congress he was in the party who control both the house and senate and the potus.

there were any number of chances and ways to kill the federal reserve act and they didnt.

he can blame himself all he wants and thats great but the blame for it all goes to the majority in the house senate and potus.

they are all gulity but i hear no remorse from them then or even that party of today.

whats more they did it agian with the consumer protection agency to pick up where the federal reserve left off.


nah
edit on 25-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


You also have to look at the fact that all the president is, is a face to put with our government for the public to see and relate too. Presidents can be bribed, threatened, or controlled by higher powers. Ever seen the Manchurian Candidate? I believe things like this can and do happen in our world. Maybe the president did not have a choice. Maybe a higher unseen authority told him that if he did not sign this into effect that he could be assassinated, or his family as well. We don't know the circumstances around him signing this. We cannot pin the blame directly on him for we do not know the entire story, or ever will for that matter. If someone told you to do something or else it could mean the death of you or your family, chances are you are going to do whatever it takes to keep your family safe first and foremost..................... right? I'm just saying that we can't make snap judgments about these things without having all the facts before us.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


I said the same thing on the last page...it didn't seem to slow the discussion at all



Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


The sentiment of the quote is fair game for debate.

BUT this quote is a fabrication that has been often repeated in certain idealogical circles without a legitimate source..


The first two sentences appear to be complete fabrications. The rest of it is actually two separate quotes that are slightly altered and taken out of context. He is actually referring to monopolies. Source: The New Freedom

see here: "http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Woodrow_Wilson"

I have also researched it myself and the most common retort to those who question the legitmacy of the quote goes along the lines of "It doesn't matter if the quote is true - the Fed Reserve is a corrupt institution etc."

A credible debate can be had for that opinion without fabricating quotes. Perhaps even a more credible debate when dishonesty is not employed?

Again...the sentiment of the quote is worthy of debate.

The quote itself is a fabrication.

We teach our children to tell the truth for a reason.
edit on 26-8-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-8-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Andrew Jackson prevented the Central Banksters from assembling.

And lived.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Then can we add a HOAX tag to this thread? Not only is the title misleading, the subject matter is way more fallacy than fact.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


I find it amusing how we all think we're slaves, prisoners of this system. How can anyone really be enslaved by paper? If you really think about it thats all it is. Paper.

Everyone keeps talking about creating a debt free currency. How about not using a "currency"?

You know what would happen with a new currency? Somehow that will get corrupted and distorted beyond recognition.

Wanna know how to defeat these bastards? Don't use money at all. Don't buy or pay for a damn thing. Don't go to work. Communities all over band together and find a way to make sure everyone is taken care of. Kind of like a tribal mindset.

We the people are the machine. We are the gears that keep this damn system going.
I always say the same thing though. I guess most people are more concerned with which car to buy, or what movie to watch, or what fast food place to eat at.

Things are going to have to get extremely bad, people are going to have to start dying in masses before things start to change. No one has a good enough reason even though its clear we're on a speeding train heading off a cliff.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


I find it amusing how we all think we're slaves, prisoners of this system. How can anyone really be enslaved by paper? If you really think about it thats all it is. Paper.

Everyone keeps talking about creating a debt free currency. How about not using a "currency"?

You know what would happen with a new currency? Somehow that will get corrupted and distorted beyond recognition.

Wanna know how to defeat these bastards? Don't use money at all. Don't buy or pay for a damn thing. Don't go to work. Communities all over band together and find a way to make sure everyone is taken care of. Kind of like a tribal mindset.

We the people are the machine. We are the gears that keep this damn system going.
I always say the same thing though. I guess most people are more concerned with which car to buy, or what movie to watch, or what fast food place to eat at.

Things are going to have to get extremely bad, people are going to have to start dying in masses before things start to change. No one has a good enough reason even though its clear we're on a speeding train heading off a cliff.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Oh who cares if he said it. None of us were alive then so we wouldn't know.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Pwnt.

Now, are the statements attributed to him speaking truth, or are they false?

And why does everyone need a "personality" to be attached to a good quote to give it weight? Cult of personality only hurts the strength of a quote, look, now people are saying the quote is fake.

Oh well. How about attribute the quote to yourself, since that's legal. I can copy any quote from anyone, say it myself, and then quote myself. That's how quotes work, you can quote yourself quoting someone else.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


en.wikiquote.org...

No proof to him saying it.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Oh who cares if he said it. None of us were alive then so we wouldn't know.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Pwnt.



Right on!!

Just like Abraham Lincoln famously stated..

Dishonesty is part and parcel of the Conservative party and an adherance to the truth will not serve our parties ambitions well in the comming century!

When the evidence betrays our goals, change the evidence ....and when the evidence to further our agenda does not exist, invent it!

It is the conservative parties destiny to sway the public not by the merits of our actions, but by the number of falsehoods that we are able to convince them of.


Abraham Lincoln's 2nd inaugrial address 1865



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Here are the simple facts of the great betrayal. Wilson and House knew that they were doing something momentous. One cannot fathom men’s motives and this pair probably believed in what they were up to. What they did not believe in was representative government. They believed in government by an uncontrolled oligarchy whose acts would only become apparent after an interval so long that the electorate would be forever incapable of doing anything efficient to remedy depredations.

EZRA POUND

(St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C. 1950)


www.whale.to...


edit on 26-8-2011 by vermonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 




That quote is a well known fake.......

I don't know why people keep reposting it.


As John Adams once said "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770


This is NOT a well known fake. This quote was a combination of many from his book "The New Freedom" which sought to achieve this vision by attacking what Wilson called the TRIPLE WALL OF PRIVILEGE — the tariff, the banks, and the trusts.

It would have been nice of you to elaborate on your "this is fake" thesis but since you didn't I'll help you out.



I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country


You are right this does seem to have been made up entirely but whoever wrote it was spot on. And this is the ONLY line of that quote that was made up.



A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.


Taken out of context the entire quote is below:



A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all, and to this statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men.


The New Freedom, Section VIII: “Monopoly, Or Opportunity?”




We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."


This is just abbreviated from this quote:



We are at the parting of the ways. We have, not one or two or three, but many, established and formidable monopolies in the United States. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world — no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.


The New Freedom, Section IX: “Benevolence, Or Justice?”


So this quote is indeed misleading but the message behind the quote is still true. And yes it was true he was not speaking directly about the establishment of Federal Reserve as this book was published in early 1913 while the Federal Reserve Act passed the Senate on December 19, 1913. So this quote obviously cannot be talking about the Federal Reserve. But throughout the "The New Freedom" he illustrates his strong opposition to the concentration of power in the hands of the few. Some argue that this book merely consisted of his opposition to monopolies and the wealthy elite, but he makes it plain that there is a group of individuals who have the reins of the American political system even before the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

His views outlined in this book stand in stark contrast to his actions after he was elected to office. The guy who wrote the book doesn't seem to be the same man who took office does it? I have added a few more quotes from the book to further illustrate my point.



One of the wonderful things about America, to my mind, is this: that for more than a generation it has allowed itself to be governed by persons who were not invited to govern it.




Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.




The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States. It is written over every intimate page of the records of Congress, it is written all through the history of conferences at the White House, that the suggestions of economic policy in this country have come from one source, not from many sources. The benevolent guardians, the kind-hearted trustees who have taken the troubles of government off our hands, have become so conspicuous that almost anybody can write out a list of them. They have become so conspicuous that their names are mentioned upon almost every political platform. The men who have undertaken the interesting job of taking care of us do not force us to requite them with anonymously directed gratitude. We know them by name.




Suppose you go to Washington and try to get at your government. You will always find that while you are politely listened to, the men really consulted are the men who have the biggest stake,—the big bankers, the big manufacturers, the big masters of commerce, the heads of railroad corporations and of steamship corporations. I have no objection to these men being consulted, because they also, though they do not themselves seem to admit it, are part of the people of the United States. But I do very seriously object to these gentlemen being chiefly consulted, and particularly to their being exclusively consulted, for, if the government of the United States is to do the right thing by the people of the United States, it has got to do it directly and not through the intermediation of these gentlemen. Every time it has come to a critical question these gentlemen have been yielded to, and their demands have been treated as the demands that should be followed as a matter of course.




But I do mean to suggest this: That the wealth of the country has, in recent years, come from particular sources; it has come from those sources which have built up monopoly. Its point of view is a special point of view. It is the point of view of those men who do not wish that the people should determine their own affairs, because they do not believe that the people's judgment is sound.




I, for my part, don't want to belong to a nation, I believe that I do not belong to a nation, that needs to be taken care of by guardians




For my part, I am very much more afraid of the man who does a bad thing and does not know it is bad than of the man who does a bad thing and knows it is bad; because I think that in public affairs stupidity is more dangerous than knavery, because harder to fight and dislodge. If a man does not know enough to know what the consequences are going to be to the country, then he cannot govern the country in a way that is for its benefit. These gentlemen, whatever may have been their intentions, linked the government up with the men who control the finances. They may have done it innocently, or they may have done it corruptly, without affecting my argument at all. And they themselves cannot escape from that alliance.





That is what I mean when I say, "Bring the government back to the people." I do not mean anything demagogic; I do not mean to talk as if we wanted a great mass of men to rush in and destroy something. That is not the idea. I want the people to come in and take possession of their own premises; for I hold that the government belongs to the people, and that they have a right to that intimate access to it which will determine every turn of its policy.




I am not afraid of the American people getting up and doing something. I am only afraid they will not; and when I hear a popular vote spoken of as mob government, I feel like telling the man who dares so to speak that he has no right to call himself an American.




If there is nothing to conceal, then why conceal it? If it is a public game, why play it in private? If it is a public game, then why not come out into the open and play it in public?




Of course, the chief triumphs of committee work, of covert phrase and unexplained classification, are accomplished in the framing of tariffs. Ever since the passage of the outrageous Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act our people have been discovering the concealed meanings and purposes which lay hidden in it. They are discovering item by item how deeply and deliberately they were deceived and cheated. This did not happen by accident; it came about by design, by elaborated, secret design. Questions put upon the floor in the House and Senate were not frankly or truly answered, and an elaborate piece of legislation was foisted on the country which could not possibly have passed if it had been generally comprehended.




I am willing to admit that if the people of the United States cannot get justice for themselves, then it is high time that they should join the third party and get it from somebody else.




I don't care how benevolent the master is going to be, I will not live under a master. That is not what America was created for. America was created in order that every man should have the same chance as every other man to exercise mastery over his own fortunes.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 


Very nice work there.

So it is half and half.

It is true on one hand, that he said these words.

However it is also true, that they have been taken out of the context of the actual writings, and that they were complied together in this way.

Perhaps it would be wise to list citations after quoting him in the future, listing all of the page numbers that each part was found in.

That would make it legitimate.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Thanks, it just really annoys me when posters write "fake" with no references on how and why they came to this conclusion.

I got this from the web and it wasn't organized by page numbers but I could have at least given the sections I found these in. In the future I will certainly pay more attention to that. Every one one of those quotes was from the same book, here is a link:

www.gutenberg.org...





new topics
top topics
 
77
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join