The Tea Party...Why are they so Dangerous?

reply to post by MrPlow


From the Canadian Media....

OWS

Canadian organizers are revving up their plans for the Occupy Wall Street-conceived global action day, the most adventurous idea yet for a movement that some experts say has the potential to trigger a major shift in the economic thinking of governments and big corporations. The number of Occupy Canada cities for Saturday's rallies has grown to at least 15, while the international total is now more than 1,500. At least 20 cities also have Facebook pages dedicated solely to the movement.

The Occupy Wall Street movement began Sept. 17 with an encampment that continues today in the financial district of New York City. The movement grew out of an idea last summer by the Vancouver-based non-profit group the Adbusters Media Foundation, which was inspired by protests that toppled governments in the Middle East.

Whose media reported this?

Adbusters came on the scene 21 years Adbusters has been a staple of the counter-cultural scene since Lasn and co-founder Bill Schmalz put out its first issue in 1989. The inaugural issue challenged ads of the day that promoted the British Columbia logging industry, using spoof advertisements and articles to raise awareness of environmental issues at a time when the environment was hardly the mainstream topic it is today. The magazine has gone on to embrace other social causes, adopting the slogan, "Cultural revolution is our business." Its following is largely based in the U.S. — American readers account for 60 per cent of the bimonthly magazine's circulation of 100,000.

So it's their business to SELL propaganda. So then, Adbuster is the MEDIA also. This MEDIA sells propaganda, do you get that...SELLS. They are making money off telling others that making money and not sharing is wrong. Sorry, but what media again?

WarminIndy
reply to post by MrPlow

 

From the Canadian Media....

OWS

Canadian organizers are revving up their plans for the Occupy Wall Street-conceived global action day, the most adventurous idea yet for a movement that some experts say has the potential to trigger a major shift in the economic thinking of governments and big corporations. The number of Occupy Canada cities for Saturday's rallies has grown to at least 15, while the international total is now more than 1,500. At least 20 cities also have Facebook pages dedicated solely to the movement.

The Occupy Wall Street movement began Sept. 17 with an encampment that continues today in the financial district of New York City. The movement grew out of an idea last summer by the Vancouver-based non-profit group the Adbusters Media Foundation, which was inspired by protests that toppled governments in the Middle East.

Whose media reported this?

Adbusters came on the scene 21 years Adbusters has been a staple of the counter-cultural scene since Lasn and co-founder Bill Schmalz put out its first issue in 1989. The inaugural issue challenged ads of the day that promoted the British Columbia logging industry, using spoof advertisements and articles to raise awareness of environmental issues at a time when the environment was hardly the mainstream topic it is today. The magazine has gone on to embrace other social causes, adopting the slogan, "Cultural revolution is our business." Its following is largely based in the U.S. — American readers account for 60 per cent of the bimonthly magazine's circulation of 100,000.

So it's their business to SELL propaganda. So then, Adbuster is the MEDIA also. This MEDIA sells propaganda, do you get that...SELLS. They are making money off telling others that making money and not sharing is wrong. Sorry, but what media again?

I think you might be smoking your own articles there. Or at least, reading them upside down.
The actual first protests manifested first in the U.S.
How long adbusters has been around or what THEIR motivation is is irrelevant.
But no, you're right...it's all JUST "propaganda" in that so is this very website. Anyone who 'sells' ideas is obviously dealing in only propaganda. The banks and corporations are blameless. Just victims of the machine of social, libtard media...right?
Again, your defence of wall street and corporate interests in highly suspect.

Pejeu

NavyDoc
NO, the liar here is you.

Banks take money. They loan it out at interest. People pay the money back with the interest. A portion of that interest earned from the loan is paid to the depositor as his interest. Very much like buying stock.

Read some history. Without the advent of banking systems, such as in Florence, the flourishing trade that helped the renaissance would not have happened.

Like the guys you want to emulate, the Nazis, you are just trying to find a scapegoat to justify your totalitarian dreams and you say the exact same stuff that one can find in Mein Kampf...almost word for word.

You are correct that the Fed "creates money" and you are also correct that a nation having a central bank tied to the government is a dangerous thing, but you are incorrect that a bank or a bank is intrinsically evil or fraudulent. Without banking systems, we could not have developed international trade back at the end of the dark ages and thus would have had a much more difficult time coming out of them

You are the liar.

You can have payment intermediation and money and other valuables' warehousing/safekeeping.

That is not banking.

It is only banking when the clearing house (that's the name for a payment intermediation provider) and/or warehouse starts lending against its customers money or valuables, without their knowledge or permission.

By not allowing financial warehouses and payment intermediation providers to also lend you ban banking.

Banking is legal lending at interest of counterfeit money.

All banking is this, not just central banking.

beegoodbees
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I think you are both wrong and right. Banks are quite useful when they are dealing with real money. The problem we have with our system is that we don't have any real money. It is just paper and computerized digits. When all you need to be rich is a printing press the floodgates of corruption are opened.

Thanks alot Nixon

You think you had "real" (whatever that means) money before Nixon?

You are even more clueless than these other guys.

edit on 2013/10/22 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

LOL. My God, you really don't know how banking works and has always worked. I suggest you come to the US and takes some economics courses instead of obsessing over conspiracy gobblygook on youtube.

NavyDoc

Pejeu

NavyDoc
NO, the liar here is you.

Banks take money. They loan it out at interest. People pay the money back with the interest. A portion of that interest earned from the loan is paid to the depositor as his interest. Very much like buying stock.

Read some history. Without the advent of banking systems, such as in Florence, the flourishing trade that helped the renaissance would not have happened.

Like the guys you want to emulate, the Nazis, you are just trying to find a scapegoat to justify your totalitarian dreams and you say the exact same stuff that one can find in Mein Kampf...almost word for word.

You are correct that the Fed "creates money" and you are also correct that a nation having a central bank tied to the government is a dangerous thing, but you are incorrect that a bank or a bank is intrinsically evil or fraudulent. Without banking systems, we could not have developed international trade back at the end of the dark ages and thus would have had a much more difficult time coming out of them

You are the liar.

You can have payment intermediation and money and other valuables' warehousing/safekeeping.

That is not banking.

It is only banking when the clearing house (that's the name for a payment intermediation provider) and/or warehouse starts lending against its customers money or valuables, without their knowledge or permission.

By not allowing financial warehouses and payment intermediation providers to also lend you ban banking.

Banking is legal lending at interest of counterfeit money.

All banking is this, not just central banking.

beegoodbees
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I think you are both wrong and right. Banks are quite useful when they are dealing with real money. The problem we have with our system is that we don't have any real money. It is just paper and computerized digits. When all you need to be rich is a printing press the floodgates of corruption are opened.

Thanks alot Nixon

You think you had "real" (whatever that means) money before Nixon?

You are even more clueless than these other guys.

edit on 2013/10/22 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

LOL. My God, you really don't know how banking works and has always worked. I suggest you come to the US and takes some economics courses instead of obsessing over conspiracy gobblygook on youtube.

In fairness to Pejeu....

The book "The Bankers" from 1974 accurately describes the housing crisis we just went through in 2008, because these Bankers have been working on the "money making systems" that crashed in 2008, since the late 1960s.

The Bankers completely exposes just how 'not like banks' banks really have become.

It is good for Pejeu to be so suspicious of banking practices as not even genuine banking any more.

reply to post by MrPlow


How long Adbusters has been out is as relevant as any other publication, like say Mother Jones.

But you have made an assertion that I am an elitist, I want to you to show us how I am an elitist. You bandie the term around so much, but let's see if you can explain to me and the rest of us, just what an elitist is.

Pejeu
You are thicker than words can describe.

You belong in an asylum.

Seek help.

Or the camp you want to put me in, right? Seig Heil!!!



I am so very thankful that you are just a crank kid on the internet and not a leader of any sort of political movement. Europe has had enough rabid statists putting people into camps.

FreeMason

NavyDoc

Pejeu

NavyDoc
NO, the liar here is you.

Banks take money. They loan it out at interest. People pay the money back with the interest. A portion of that interest earned from the loan is paid to the depositor as his interest. Very much like buying stock.

Read some history. Without the advent of banking systems, such as in Florence, the flourishing trade that helped the renaissance would not have happened.

Like the guys you want to emulate, the Nazis, you are just trying to find a scapegoat to justify your totalitarian dreams and you say the exact same stuff that one can find in Mein Kampf...almost word for word.

You are correct that the Fed "creates money" and you are also correct that a nation having a central bank tied to the government is a dangerous thing, but you are incorrect that a bank or a bank is intrinsically evil or fraudulent. Without banking systems, we could not have developed international trade back at the end of the dark ages and thus would have had a much more difficult time coming out of them

You are the liar.

You can have payment intermediation and money and other valuables' warehousing/safekeeping.

That is not banking.

It is only banking when the clearing house (that's the name for a payment intermediation provider) and/or warehouse starts lending against its customers money or valuables, without their knowledge or permission.

By not allowing financial warehouses and payment intermediation providers to also lend you ban banking.

Banking is legal lending at interest of counterfeit money.

All banking is this, not just central banking.

beegoodbees
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I think you are both wrong and right. Banks are quite useful when they are dealing with real money. The problem we have with our system is that we don't have any real money. It is just paper and computerized digits. When all you need to be rich is a printing press the floodgates of corruption are opened.

Thanks alot Nixon

You think you had "real" (whatever that means) money before Nixon?

You are even more clueless than these other guys.

edit on 2013/10/22 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

LOL. My God, you really don't know how banking works and has always worked. I suggest you come to the US and takes some economics courses instead of obsessing over conspiracy gobblygook on youtube.

In fairness to Pejeu....

The book "The Bankers" from 1974 accurately describes the housing crisis we just went through in 2008, because these Bankers have been working on the "money making systems" that crashed in 2008, since the late 1960s.

The Bankers completely exposes just how 'not like banks' banks really have become.

It is good for Pejeu to be so suspicious of banking practices as not even genuine banking any more.

But that is not what he has been saying all along is it?

All banking is inherently fraudulent. All banking is legalised counterfeiting.

And has always been.

It's just you people don't understand the fraud.

Though it's simple enough.

Banking has not been fraudulent for the last 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 years.

Banking has always been inherently fraudulent.

Banking is legalised fraud.

If anyone else were doing with anything else what banks are doing with money they would go to gaol ('jail' for you yanks).

Better yet, if anyone else were doing with money what banks do, without being chartered to operate as a bank, they would go to gaol.

Banking is legalised fraud and/or counterfeiting.

Is it sinking in yet?

How can you visualize or conceptualize the fraud?

Simple.

Try and ponder whether it is possible for 10 or more folks to have the same singular federal reserve note (a $100 bill for instance) in all of their pockets.

At the same time.

Without cutting it in pieces first.

No?

Then claiming they do is a fraud and/or money counterfeiting.

Yet that is exactly what banks do.

Easy as pie.

If I lease you my mountain cabin over next weekend and, come next weekend, you show up there with a dozen suitcases and your honey by your side only to discover...

that I rented that same cabin out to 20 other people for the same weekend, all the while leading each and every single couple there to believe they were the sole lessees of that cabin over that weekend...

I'd have some explainin' to do, wouldn't I?

Yet that is exactly what banks do, legally, with money all the time.

What they have always done.

It's the very essence of what banking is and means.

Legalised fraud.

Not you, navydoc.

There's nothing there for realisation to sink into, as far concerns you.

FreeMason

NavyDoc

Pejeu

NavyDoc
NO, the liar here is you.

Banks take money. They loan it out at interest. People pay the money back with the interest. A portion of that interest earned from the loan is paid to the depositor as his interest. Very much like buying stock.

Read some history. Without the advent of banking systems, such as in Florence, the flourishing trade that helped the renaissance would not have happened.

Like the guys you want to emulate, the Nazis, you are just trying to find a scapegoat to justify your totalitarian dreams and you say the exact same stuff that one can find in Mein Kampf...almost word for word.

You are correct that the Fed "creates money" and you are also correct that a nation having a central bank tied to the government is a dangerous thing, but you are incorrect that a bank or a bank is intrinsically evil or fraudulent. Without banking systems, we could not have developed international trade back at the end of the dark ages and thus would have had a much more difficult time coming out of them

You are the liar.

You can have payment intermediation and money and other valuables' warehousing/safekeeping.

That is not banking.

It is only banking when the clearing house (that's the name for a payment intermediation provider) and/or warehouse starts lending against its customers money or valuables, without their knowledge or permission.

By not allowing financial warehouses and payment intermediation providers to also lend you ban banking.

Banking is legal lending at interest of counterfeit money.

All banking is this, not just central banking.

beegoodbees
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I think you are both wrong and right. Banks are quite useful when they are dealing with real money. The problem we have with our system is that we don't have any real money. It is just paper and computerized digits. When all you need to be rich is a printing press the floodgates of corruption are opened.

Thanks alot Nixon

You think you had "real" (whatever that means) money before Nixon?

You are even more clueless than these other guys.

edit on 2013/10/22 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

LOL. My God, you really don't know how banking works and has always worked. I suggest you come to the US and takes some economics courses instead of obsessing over conspiracy gobblygook on youtube.

In fairness to Pejeu....

The book "The Bankers" from 1974 accurately describes the housing crisis we just went through in 2008, because these Bankers have been working on the "money making systems" that crashed in 2008, since the late 1960s.

The Bankers completely exposes just how 'not like banks' banks really have become.

It is good for Pejeu to be so suspicious of banking practices as not even genuine banking any more.

See, I told you so! LOL.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Well I guess I agree lol.

For instance his argument of dollars in multiple pockets is explained by velocity or economic activity. ....

FreeMason
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Well I guess I agree lol.

For instance his argument of dollars in multiple pockets is explained by velocity or economic activity. ....

So counterfeiting (or fraud, if you refuse to accept that electronic cash is as much money as physical cash is) is ok because it increases money velocity?

Tell me what kind of velocity is that where the same $100 dollar bill can be in 10 different pockets at the same time?

What is that?

Infinite velocity?

Faster than the speed of light?

WTF?

Not just that, it's in a closed loop for #'s sake.

It continues to be in 10 different pockets this second, the next second, the second after that, the minute after that etc.

WTF?

Are you real?

Really?

Do people like you actually exist?

Please donate your body to science when you're done with it.

reply to post by Pejeu


Do you know what the gold standard is? Do you know what a fiat currency is? When we had the gold standard the money was real, it had intrinsic value because it was backed by gold. This was in the sixties and before. There were no computers in banks. Once we got off of the gold standard it was a green light to print away and inflate away the dollar. Do you understand now or should I get out the pop up books?

beegoodbees
reply to post by Pejeu

 

Do you know what the gold standard is? Do you know what a fiat currency is? When we had the gold standard the money was real, it had intrinsic value because it was backed by gold. This was in the sixties and before. There were no computers in banks. Once we got off of the gold standard it was a green light to print away and inflate away the dollar. Do you understand now or should I get out the pop up books?

Repeat after me:

Banks issue new money into circulation each and every single time they extend a new loan to somebody or something. That money is backed by nothing. Not even paper, federal reserve notes. It comes out of thin air when they credit the borrower's account. This is what banking is and what they do. It has always been this way. Even back when we had a gold standard. What do you think brought us off it? It is not only central banks that issue paper unbacked by gold. All banks issue electronic money unbacked by central bank paper. Central banks operate without any reserves whatsoever. Even though they might still have some gold left over from fdr's confiscation and even before that, you may not redeem said gold using their notes. They do not redeem their own notes but in other notes of theirs. But all non-central banks operate with fractional reserves consisting of the central banks' paper. For every $35 electronic dollars in the banking system there only exists one single, solitary actual, physical paper (cotton, whatever) dollar in their reserves. Both at the fed and in their own vaults.

Also kindly remember you are not debating me.

You are debating reality.

As admitted by economists, pseudonobel prize for economics winning economists, central bankers, bankers, industrialists, founders of nations (including yours), philosophers and other loftier than thou folk.

Here are but a few quotes on the matter:

www.themoneymasters.com...

www.positivemoney.org...


SNIP

Pejeu

FreeMason
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Well I guess I agree lol.

For instance his argument of dollars in multiple pockets is explained by velocity or economic activity. ....

So counterfeiting (or fraud, if you refuse to accept that electronic cash is as much money as physical cash is) is ok because it increases money velocity?

Tell me what kind of velocity is that where the same $100 dollar bill can be in 10 different pockets at the same time?

What is that?

Infinite velocity?

Faster than the speed of light?

WTF?

Not just that, it's in a closed loop for #'s sake.

It continues to be in 10 different pockets this second, the next second, the second after that, the minute after that etc.

WTF?

Are you real?

Really?

Do people like you actually exist?

Please donate your body to science when you're done with it.

edit on 2013/10/22 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

It's just not equivalent, counterfeiting is creating money from nothing, currently money is created from interest rates which means that a promised amount of circulation will exist at a certain time in the future.

It's terribly flawed, but not for the reasons you think, and since your reasons are wrong you won't be able to accurately argue against the system and therefore bring people to reason.

The proper argument against the system is that our debt is owned by our own central bank which monetizes it and causes an increase of inflation to increase the money supply, that is the problem.

Not that money is created by loans, that has existed for 600+ years and worked just fine.

reply to post by whyamIhere


What makes them so dangerous? Read the 15 Non Negotiable Core Beliefs from TeaParty.org. See if you can find the danger I found:

15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

I am not religious so number 15 leaves me out. Number 15 makes number 13 obsolete since they actively legislate and spend money against abortion and other adult choices. Which, in turn makes number 6 hypocritical.

reply to post by MOMof3


With Abortion you get into the dilemma Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.....what about the unborn child's right to Life? What about the Mother's Liberty to do as she deems. Which trumps the other???? It's not an easy choice.

MOMof3
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

What makes them so dangerous? Read the 15 Non Negotiable Core Beliefs from TeaParty.org. See if you can find the danger I found:

15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

I am not religious so number 15 leaves me out. Number 15 makes number 13 obsolete since they actively legislate and spend money against abortion and other adult choices. Which, in turn makes number 6 hypocritical.

edit on 24-10-2013 by MOMof3 because: add

That's the point. They are only "dangerous" to the free stuff army and those who buy votes off them.