It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Dead Bankers and the ATS Cheering Section

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 


It's fairly easy to refuse to seize your own power, and then lay the blame elsewhere - ANYWHERE else than the self - on those shadowy "power people". I have little if any sympathy for folks who won't lay claim to their own power, just so they can whine and complain about those they have given it to, those who will feed the beast of banking, then complain that it thrives and eats into their own substance, which they willingly fork over to it.




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Could be - I really don't know. I never took Government 101, so I've no idea what it covers. What I know of it was covered in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law courses.

Whatever...I was being facetious, but I guess you didn't catch that. You were speaking to me as if I must be completely ignorant of how the justice system is "supposed" to work in this country. Yes, I know how the justice system is supposed to work.

One doesn't need to take a college course in government, criminal law or constitutional law to aware of that. However, I've done my coursework, too...and I am degreed, if that will help move our discussions along any so we don't have to start from scratch...But what I now know about the justice system, I did not learn in a college course.



Still, it answers your question of "who is qualified to judge any one for any thing, given that we all have a dark side". Peers. Peers are qualified. In the plural, so that not any one "dark side" gets to make the determination.

It wasn't my question, it was beezzer's. I was simply following his logic and asking him more about it, but he didn't answer. But since you want to answer for him, how are peers with their plural dark side "qualified" exactly?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   

hellnotes

Whatever...I was being facetious, but I guess you didn't catch that.



Yeah, I'm sort of slow like that. Now that you've pointed it out, however, I must tell you it looks good on you - you wear it well. It's as if facetiousness is an extension of your inner self.




You were speaking to me as if I must be completely ignorant of how the justice system is "supposed" to work in this country. Yes, I know how the justice system is supposed to work.



How, exactly, was I supposed to know what country you're in or from? My crystal ball is on the fritz. It's in the shop, but probably won't be fixed until next Thursday. Without it, I'm simply lost at identifying the life history of individuals just by looking at their avatar. You'd be amazed - or perhaps not - at how many college educated individuals I've run across who don't know the simple basics. I don't know you, nor do I know what or how much you know. Asking questions like "who is qualified to judge" would normally be an indicator, but maybe not in all cases, eh?




One doesn't need to take a college course in government, criminal law or constitutional law to aware of that. However, I've done my coursework, too...and I am degreed, if that will help move our discussions along any so we don't have to start from scratch...But what I now know about the justice system, I did not learn in a college course.



Now that I'm suitable impressed and mortified by your credentials, I'm not sure I've any business at all even speaking to you. Can I get you a cup of coffee or something?




It wasn't my question, it was beezzer's. I was simply following his logic and asking him more about it, but he didn't answer. But since you want to answer for him, how are peers with their plural dark side "qualified" exactly?



That's funny. I could have sworn you asked it here, in these words:




I mean what’s it for anyway, since we all have a “dark side” (as it has been pointed out numerous times in this thread), who is qualified to judge anyone for anything? Quoting you, if “there is arrogance and corruption at every strata of the economic scale”, then how can anybody judge anyone for anything, whether it be in a court of law or anywhere else in everyday life?



It appears to have been you who introduced the question of qualifications, which I answered. Beezzer, on the other hand, simply asked who gets to determine justice in the scenario presented, and didn't delve into the qualifications. His question was a rhetorical one, with the implication that the biggest pitchfork gets to determine it, regardless of qualification - even in the total absence of qualification.

Please excuse me now. If I don't hurry up, I'm going to be late for my remedial reading class.




edit on 2014/2/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



It's fairly easy to refuse to seize your own power, and then lay the blame elsewhere - ANYWHERE else than the self - on those shadowy "power people". I have little if any sympathy for folks who won't lay claim to their own power, just so they can whine and complain about those they have given it to, those who will feed the beast of banking, then complain that it thrives and eats into their own substance, which they willingly fork over to it.


First you say people should seize their own power, but when it comes to your discussion of justice, you say turn your power back over to the system. So which is it?

For the record, I'll just say I don't like the banking system, either. But as for the banking system, do you really see that as completely optional for everyone in this country?

Do you have a bank account? Do you use a debit card or any other type of electronic bank card? Do you pay cash for everything you purchase, no checks, no electronic payments? Do you work strictly for cash? Do you ever go to a bank for anything at all? Like to cash a check or anything? How do you pay your taxes? Do you mail a check or money order to the IRS, or do you take it to them in person yourself? Or do you pay them electronically? Do you ever mail a check to anyone for anything? Do you pay for any type of services, insurance, whatever, that you have to send payment to that are out-of-town?

What about people who work for companies that mandate direct deposit in a bank account for their paychecks? What about transportation? Is there enough public transportation if people can't pay cash for a vehicle? Should people stop buying homes through banks and just pitch a tent somewhere if they can't pay cash for a house? Is there enough rental property around to house everyone because they can't pay cash for a house? What if their landlord lives out-of-town, should they just drive their monthly rent to their landlord so they don't have to use a bank to send a check, or is a money order acceptable in your scenario of not using banks? And I don't even want to get into all the problems with money orders.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Because you are the one who brought the media up, in an attempt to invalidate observation because it was "reported in the media". I still fail to see how that would invalidate it.

Not true at all. You are the one that brought up the media in your First post to me when you started talking about Reginald Denny. I will put your quote here:


Angry mobs have also happened - it is not speculation or imagination. I've seen them up close and personal, and they are exactly as advertised. As I mentioned earlier, Reginald Denny also saw some angry mobs up close and personal. Although he had nary a thing to do with the Rodney King decision, he paid a hell of a price all the same, just for happening by the angry mob.




Likewise with "accusing" you. I've no need to accuse you of anything at all.

You are accusing me of being part of an angry mob. An imagined mob at that, in this ridiculous thread about a some made-up scenario about bankers supposedly turning up dead and "it had to have been done by all the people they robbed, those people that cheered when they died, even though there is no proof that they were even murdered, and why should they be mad anyway at the bankers because it's my philosophy that blah, blah, blah"...or something like that, I'm sure you will correct me where I'm wrong.



My mentality is not at issue here - I am not a mob.

If your mentality is not an issue here, then neither is mine, unless you are accusing me of something. And I am not a mob, either.



It appears to have been you who introduced the question of qualifications, which I answered. Beezzer, on the other hand, simply asked who gets to determine justice in the scenario presented, and didn't delve into the qualifications. His question was a rhetorical one, with the implication that the biggest pitchfork gets to determine it, regardless of qualification - even in the total absence of qualification.

You're saying there is a difference between me saying "who's qualified" and beezzer saying "who gets to determine"? Ridiculous. And how was my question not equally rhetorical? Also, I asked you the following additional question which you completely dodged because you can't answer it either:


But since you want to answer for him, how are peers with their plural dark side "qualified" exactly?



edit on 20-2-2014 by hellnotes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Yeah, I'm sort of slow like that. Now that you've pointed it out, however, I must tell you it looks good on you - you wear it well. It's as if facetiousness is an extension of your inner self. How, exactly, was I supposed to know what country you're in or from? My crystal ball is on the fritz. It's in the shop, but probably won't be fixed until next Thursday. Without it, I'm simply lost at identifying the life history of individuals just by looking at their avatar.

My location says USA, Inc. on my avatar and I said in my post that I was educated by USA, Inc., so why would you think I was foreign? Besides my comment wasn't directed at you personally, although I see that you took offense at it.



Now that I'm suitable impressed and mortified by your credentials, I'm not sure I've any business at all even speaking to you. Can I get you a cup of coffee or something?

Likewise, I'm equally impressed and mortified by your credentials as well. But you'll have to get your own coffee.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by hellnotes
 


In Neno's defense USA, Inc could be a corporation in Taiwan, as I understand it there really *IS* an USA (pronounced OOO-Sah) Incorporated.... So it doesn't necessarily refer to the Constitutional Representative Republic (not corporation) that we live in.

Sometimes clarity is needed...



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

Ha ha. Yeah, I should have said I was educated by USA, Inc. in the United States of America, not the one in Taiwan.

I wasn't trying to confuse you or your friend.

edit on 20-2-2014 by hellnotes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

hellnotes
reply to post by vkey08
 

Ha ha. Yeah, I should have said I was educated by USA, Inc. in the United States of America, not the one in Taiwan.

I wasn't trying to confuse you or your friend.

edit on 20-2-2014 by hellnotes because: (no reason given)


I guess you are the one who is confused.

A little history lesson. This is where the Sovvies get the idea and have put forth the lie that the United States of America is somehow USA inc. In 1871, in order to create a Federal District that was not part of any state, the congress passed the Organic Act for Washington District of Columbia. This ONLY was for the creation of and governance of the District of Columbia, and in no way sold off the United States or replaced our constitution or whatever wonderful fiction they keep putting forward. The United States of America is and always has been a Representative Constitutional Republic. Now the Republic is teetering on the edge of many precipices and could fall, it is broken, we all agree on that, but it is NOT now nor has it ever been a Corporation nor has it ever been subject to the UCC nor has it ever been subject to Admiralty Law..

Hope that clears up YOUR confusion..



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

hellnotes

First you say people should seize their own power, but when it comes to your discussion of justice, you say turn your power back over to the system. So which is it?



Explaining how the system is supposed to work is not the same thing as advocating turning one's own power over to it. I don't. I only engage in it when others do. Still, for people who can't handle settling their own affairs, I suppose the system IS a preferable alternative to a lynch mob. I don't know of any case in which a lynch mob dispensed justice.




For the record, I'll just say I don't like the banking system, either. But as for the banking system, do you really see that as completely optional for everyone in this country?



Yes. Completely optional. It's a matter of how much convenience one wants in life - the option is always there to forego the convenience in favor of standing on one's own legs.




Do you have a bank account?



No. I've not had one in several years. I do not trust banks with my money. It's the result of having a BoA account years ago.




Do you use a debit card or any other type of electronic bank card?



I have a debit card, but it hasn't seen any use in a long, long time. It's probably not even active any more. When I did use it, I only loaded the amount of money necessary, which was immediately retrieved, within 15 minutes, at the other end. If it wasn't retrieved within a half hour, I took it back off the card.




Do you pay cash for everything you purchase, no checks, no electronic payments?



Yes, cash, for all purchases. it has the added advantage that when my pocket is empty, I don't keep spending and incurring charges. It's easier to keep track of your money and your spending, and stay on budget, when you can take it out of your pocket and count it on the spot. No checks, as I have no bank account - that includes no checking account.




Do you work strictly for cash?



What good is anything else? But seriously, sometimes I barter, either services or stuff, as well. In those cases cash usually doesn't change hands.




Do you ever go to a bank for anything at all? Like to cash a check or anything?



No. Not for anything. I don't accept checks.




How do you pay your taxes? Do you mail a check or money order to the IRS, or do you take it to them in person yourself? Or do you pay them electronically?



What taxes? Sales tax comes out of what I pay at the checkout. You have to make a certain amount of money before you are liable for income taxes. I don't want that amount of money - I might need a bank then!




Do you ever mail a check to anyone for anything? Do you pay for any type of services, insurance, whatever, that you have to send payment to that are out-of-town?



No, and especially not insurance. I don't play that rigged lotto, either. What kind of service would I need from "out-of-town" when I live IN town? When I lived in the boonies, I found I had no need of "in-town" services, either, no reason to send payments to far off places.




What about people who work for companies that mandate direct deposit in a bank account for their paychecks?



What about them? They make their choice. There are other jobs available if they don't like that arrangement. If enough people didn't like that arrangement, the companies would either offer other options to snag employees, or go belly up for lack of them.




What about transportation? Is there enough public transportation if people can't pay cash for a vehicle?



That all depends on where you are, and where you want to go. I made it half way across the US to my current location with no vehicle, using only "public transportation". I've made it all over this town the same way. There is NO ONE who can't pay cash for a vehicle - it all depends on how badly they want a vehicle. I think I mentioned before that I've never paid more than a thousand dollars for a vehicle for myself. That's doable with a little scrimping and saving, and enough want-to. I know that from experience. Back when I had a car, I always had at least two at a time, and paid cash for every one of them.




Should people stop buying homes through banks and just pitch a tent somewhere if they can't pay cash for a house?



If that's what floats their boat. Tents are a little drafty for my taste, but they're livable if that's what they want to do.




Is there enough rental property around to house everyone because they can't pay cash for a house?



Probably. I see buildings and houses sitting idle, unoccupied, everywhere I go, from out on the east coast all the way to here. I've heard there is a glut of unoccupied homes due to people buying more house than they could afford (or more probably more than the house was really worth), and getting foreclosed upon in recent years.




What if their landlord lives out-of-town, should they just drive their monthly rent to their landlord so they don't have to use a bank to send a check, or is a money order acceptable in your scenario of not using banks? And I don't even want to get into all the problems with money orders.


"What if" a frog had wings? It wouldn't go along bumping it's ass on the ground. we can "what if" all day long, but "what if" is not where I live. people have to find their own solutions to their own problems. I'm not their king or their dictator... or their daddy. If they chose convenient solutions, they can live with the consequences of convenience and not bitch to me about it.

Cash is acceptable in my scenario, or barter. Money orders might be - I dunno. I've not examined them all that closely.



edit on 2014/2/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

hellnotes

Not true at all. You are the one that brought up the media in your First post to me when you started talking about Reginald Denny. I will put your quote here:
....................
Angry mobs have also happened - it is not speculation or imagination. I've seen them up close and personal, and they are exactly as advertised. As I mentioned earlier, Reginald Denny also saw some angry mobs up close and personal. Although he had nary a thing to do with the Rodney King decision, he paid a hell of a price all the same, just for happening by the angry mob.
....................



Let me re-read it again... maybe my remedial reading classes are helping... nope, I see no mention by me of "media". Did I spell that right? Maybe I'm getting my synonyms mixed up? Which word there is it that you think means "media"?




You are accusing me of being part of an angry mob. An imagined mob at that, in this ridiculous thread about a some made-up scenario about bankers supposedly turning up dead and "it had to have been done by all the people they robbed, those people that cheered when they died, even though there is no proof that they were even murdered, and why should they be mad anyway at the bankers because it's my philosophy that blah, blah, blah"...or something like that, I'm sure you will correct me where I'm wrong.



Which "angry mob" have I accused you of being a part of, and where did I make any such accusation? I thought you were pretty clear about not even being a part of the cheering section, much less an angry mob. Maybe I got that wrong - ARE you a part of the cheering section?




If your mentality is not an issue here, then neither is mine, unless you are accusing me of something. And I am not a mob, either.



Nor have I mentioned your mentality, whereas you did mention mine, bringing it into the discussion. Glad we got that cleared up.




You're saying there is a difference between me saying "who's qualified" and beezzer saying "who gets to determine"? Ridiculous.



Absolutely. I see people determine things every day without qualification to do so. It usually turns out poorly. The two are not the same. Making a determination does not mean one is actually qualified to do so - it only means they do it anyway, qualified or not.




And how was my question not equally rhetorical?



Maybe it was, and you didn't make the implied answer that a rhetorical question has built into itself clear enough. I didn't see it at any rate. Do you have an answer for it? Is there an answer it naturally leads to?



Also, I asked you the following additional question which you completely dodged because you can't answer it either:

...............

But since you want to answer for him, how are peers with their plural dark side "qualified" exactly?



Yeah. I'm gonna completely dodge it again, too. It's reminiscent of a kid who keeps asking "why" to every answer you can give them, or reminiscent of a politician who asks what the meaning of "is" is. it's a question that should answer itself with a quick trip to a dictionary to find the definition of "peer". Since I'm sure you must already know what a peer is, then the question is merely a repetition of "why?"







edit on 2014/2/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   

hellnotes

My location says USA, Inc. on my avatar and I said in my post that I was educated by USA, Inc., so why would you think I was foreign? Besides my comment wasn't directed at you personally, although I see that you took offense at it.



I didn't read (or maybe couldn't read - I'm old, you know, and I was born with a cheap set of eyes to begin with) the particulars in your mini-profile correctly. My bad. apologies. You didn't mention that you were US-educated until AFTER I answered the question, so that one doesn't count. The point about not properly reading your mini-profile, however, DOES count. Score. Direct hit!




Likewise, I'm equally impressed and mortified by your credentials as well. But you'll have to get your own coffee.



I probably don't have any credentials - at least I don't recall mentioning any here, so whether I have any or not is irrelevant. Merely having lived a rough life at times, or having slept through a couple of courses, can't even begin to compare to being degreed. S'ok about the coffee - I already have someone to fetch my coffee - and my slippers and pipe, too, if I've been a particularly good boy!



edit on 2014/2/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   

vkey08
reply to post by hellnotes
 


In Neno's defense USA, Inc could be a corporation in Taiwan, as I understand it there really *IS* an USA (pronounced OOO-Sah) Incorporated.... So it doesn't necessarily refer to the Constitutional Representative Republic (not corporation) that we live in.

Sometimes clarity is needed...


In all honesty, it was probably the "inc." part that threw me - she appears to be claiming to be either the property of, or an employee of, a corporation thereby, rather than a resident of a country. I am neither of those incorporation options, so I guess I'm unicorporated. We may live on the same patch of ground for all I know, and still be living in entirely different theoretical constructs.






edit on 2014/2/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I sign my check every two weeks. I get a check... kind of. My boss hands it to me, I endorse the back of it, hand it to him, he gives me my cash.

Works nice!



edit on 21-2-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I sign my check every two weeks. I get a check... kind of. My boss hands it to me, I endorse the back of it, hand it to him, he gives me my cash.

Works nice!



edit on 21-2-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


I get my check direct deposited into a prepaid card, *shrug* it's worked well for a while...



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Am I too understand that the OP legitimately believes that our "elected" officials are chosen by the public? I hear Neel Kashkari, the Banker Bailout Architect is running for Governor of California. I can imagine the support he is going to get from his buddies on wall street that own all the major media outlets.

It's called Crony Capitalism.

The sad part is we are the minority. The brainwashed masses will flock to whoever is representing their current "gang", Demo's or Repub's, and ignore the actual character of the person they are voting for.

So yes... the OP has a point, but some of us are trying to break the hypnosis and our numbers keep growing.
edit on 21-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Konduit
Am I too understand that the OP legitimately believes that our "elected" officials are chosen by the public? I hear Neel Kashkari, the Banker Bailout Architect is running for Governor of California. I can imagine the support he is going to get from his buddies on wall street that own all the major media outlets.

It's called Crony Capitalism.

The sad part is we are the minority. The brainwashed masses will flock to whoever is representing their current "gang", Demo's or Repub's, and ignore the actual character of the person they are voting for.

So yes... the OP has a point, but some of us are trying to break the hypnosis and our numbers keep growing.
edit on 21-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)


You are confusing Democracy with a Representative Republic, we are the latter not the former...



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


That can be debated, I think we are starting to lean toward Fascism with the current state of affairs.

But I'm quoting the OP and making a point, I sure as hell know we don't live in a democracy but some people like to pretend we do. It's pretty apparent that the officials we do elect represent special interests, not the public. If your attempting to put words into my mouth and bait an argument from me, it isn't going to work.

edit on 21-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

I don't she's confused at all. The idea of using the term "USA Inc." is sometimes used as a dig on a system that serves the corporations, rather than the people that employ them(that would be us). The "little history lesson" was informative, but doesn't change the fact, our governing body is more beholden to the banks and corporations, than they are to us.
So "USA Inc." isn't really so far off the mark.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Konduit
reply to post by vkey08
 


That can be debated, I think we are starting to lean toward Fascism with the current state of affairs.

But I'm quoting the OP and making a point, I sure as hell know we don't live in a democracy but some people like to pretend we do. It's pretty apparent that the officials we do elect represent special interests, not the public. If your attempting to put words into my mouth and bait an argument from me, it isn't going to work.

edit on 21-2-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)


Wasn't trying to provoke an argument, just stating a fact, I have also many times and even in this very thread said the following:

"The system is broken , and no one disagrees that it needs a fix"

I have also stated on many occasions, also in this thread:

"The republic is falling apart, and teetering on many precipices, and it could fall at any time"

so no argument, just reminding some (especially the ones that believe that the United States itself is a Corporation that was sold off in 1871) that we are technically a Representative Republic, to go even further we are a Federalist Representative Republic, now the state of that Republic is another story, and one probably deserving of much thought and ponder, doesn't change the base system though.. And that would have been my only point.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join