Biggest Crooks In The World

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ScepticScot

The federal reserve gets its powers from an act of Congress.

The Congress is sworn to uphold the constitution, not violate it.

Go on with your bad self.

Again the Federal Reserve does not violate the constitution.

What Constitution?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you genuinely not following the conversation?

You aren't addressing the issues I or others bring, you are covering up.

Now play dumb again...

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ScepticScot

The federal reserve gets its powers from an act of Congress.

The Congress is sworn to uphold the constitution, not violate it.

Go on with your bad self.

Again the Federal Reserve does not violate the constitution.

What Constitution?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you genuinely not following the conversation?

You aren't addressing the issues I or others bring, you are covering up.

Now play dumb again...

I made a quite clear statement that the Federal Reserve system doesn't violate the constitution.

Not sure how I can make it any simpler?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ScepticScot

The federal reserve gets its powers from an act of Congress.

The Congress is sworn to uphold the constitution, not violate it.

Go on with your bad self.

Again the Federal Reserve does not violate the constitution.

What Constitution?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you genuinely not following the conversation?

You aren't addressing the issues I or others bring, you are covering up.

Now play dumb again...

I made a quite clear statement that the Federal Reserve system doesn't violate the constitution.

Yes, it does.

intrptr out.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ScepticScot

The federal reserve gets its powers from an act of Congress.

The Congress is sworn to uphold the constitution, not violate it.

Go on with your bad self.

Again the Federal Reserve does not violate the constitution.

What Constitution?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you genuinely not following the conversation?

You aren't addressing the issues I or others bring, you are covering up.

Now play dumb again...

I made a quite clear statement that the Federal Reserve system doesn't violate the constitution.

Yes, it does.

intrptr out.

If you say so must be true...

a reply to: ScepticScot

Can you provide examples, like an article I can read where the author clearly shows in detail and from case example how it does not violate the constitution?

IMO it doesn't violate the constitution in that congress has the authority to regulate our money as I said defined in Article 1 Section 8, but congress just turned that authority to the banking system and does not 'manage' it, regulate it, or even pay much attention.

Primarily because they don't want to upset their magic 'money' tree, it allows them to deficit spend ad infinitum with the dubious and dangerous idea they can always inflate the debt away. Again, destroying millions of lives and saving in the process.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
Can you provide examples, like an article I can read where the author clearly shows in detail and from case example how it does not violate the constitution?

That's trying to prove a negative. For a law that Congress has passed, such as the Federal Reserve Act, to be found unconstitutional it needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court. When was the Federal Reserve Act argued in front of the Supreme Court?

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Can you provide examples, like an article I can read where the author clearly shows in detail and from case example how it does not violate the constitution?

IMO it doesn't violate the constitution in that congress has the authority to regulate our money as I said defined in Article 1 Section 8, but congress just turned that authority to the banking system and does not 'manage' it, regulate it, or even pay much attention.

Primarily because they don't want to upset their magic 'money' tree, it allows them to deficit spend ad infinitum with the dubious and dangerous idea they can always inflate the debt away. Again, destroying millions of lives and saving in the process.

The federal act was passed a hundred years ago. As Augusts points out if it was unconstitutional there would be a court decision against it. In the absence of one it clear isn't.

The debt doesn't need to get inflated away. You are starting from a false position.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Can you provide examples, like an article I can read where the author clearly shows in detail and from case example how it does not violate the constitution?

IMO it doesn't violate the constitution in that congress has the authority to regulate our money as I said defined in Article 1 Section 8, but congress just turned that authority to the banking system and does not 'manage' it, regulate it, or even pay much attention.

Primarily because they don't want to upset their magic 'money' tree, it allows them to deficit spend ad infinitum with the dubious and dangerous idea they can always inflate the debt away. Again, destroying millions of lives and saving in the process.

The federal act was passed a hundred years ago. As Augusts points out if it was unconstitutional there would be a court decision against it. In the absence of one it clear isn't.

The debt doesn't need to get inflated away. You are starting from a false position.

How else to you pay for it? Capital formation is dead since artificially keep interest rates low to roll over past debt.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
Can you provide examples, like an article I can read where the author clearly shows in detail and from case example how it does not violate the constitution?

That's trying to prove a negative. For a law that Congress has passed, such as the Federal Reserve Act, to be found unconstitutional it needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court. When was the Federal Reserve Act argued in front of the Supreme Court?

Yes good point and the poster above used your comment to try and strengthen his position. It hasn't been challenged because the only people capable of challenging it profit from it.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
It hasn't been challenged because the only people capable of challenging it profit from it.

You seem to have a very limited knowledge of who the Supreme Court will listen to, any private citizen can get their case heard by the Supreme Court if they choose to accept it on its merits.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Can you provide examples, like an article I can read where the author clearly shows in detail and from case example how it does not violate the constitution?

IMO it doesn't violate the constitution in that congress has the authority to regulate our money as I said defined in Article 1 Section 8, but congress just turned that authority to the banking system and does not 'manage' it, regulate it, or even pay much attention.

Primarily because they don't want to upset their magic 'money' tree, it allows them to deficit spend ad infinitum with the dubious and dangerous idea they can always inflate the debt away. Again, destroying millions of lives and saving in the process.

The federal act was passed a hundred years ago. As Augusts points out if it was unconstitutional there would be a court decision against it. In the absence of one it clear isn't.

The debt doesn't need to get inflated away. You are starting from a false position.

How else to you pay for it? Capital formation is debt since artificially keep interest rates low to roll over past debt.

Soverign debt isn't comparable to personal debt. There is no need or advantage to paying it off.

As you point out it's paid back and rolled over all the time. The biggest holders of this debt are the US government themselves and the US public.

If you think that there is too much debt then you are arguing that people have too much savings.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
Can you provide examples, like an article I can read where the author clearly shows in detail and from case example how it does not violate the constitution?

That's trying to prove a negative. For a law that Congress has passed, such as the Federal Reserve Act, to be found unconstitutional it needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court. When was the Federal Reserve Act argued in front of the Supreme Court?

Yes good point and the poster above used your comment to try and strengthen his position. It hasn't been challenged because the only people capable of challenging it profit from it.

Or it hasn't been challenged because there is no legal merit in it being unconstitutional.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

...but the people with all the real loot in the bank, their money goes up in value every year via "interest".

Interest on the dollars they printed, for pennies on the dollar.

The real criminals and the real loot...

image search

they print the money FOR the US Government, which pays them interest.
This means that if we would reset the nation’s debt today and would begin reprinting money, we would be in debt to the FED from the very first dollar loaned to our Government.
The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned or controlled by the elite are:
1.Cuba
2.North Korea
3.Iran
It is not a coincidence that these country's, are under attack by the media....

originally posted by: madenusa

This means that if we would reset the nation’s debt today and would begin reprinting money, we would be in debt to the FED from the very first dollar loaned to our Government.

We don't owe the Federal Reserve anything, the bulk of the debt is owned by United States citizens since it is purchased by the government. If the Federal Reserve ceased to exist tomorrow we would still be required to pay the maturity on all the Treasury Bills we own.

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

...but the people with all the real loot in the bank, their money goes up in value every year via "interest".

Interest on the dollars they printed, for pennies on the dollar.

The real criminals and the real loot...

image search

they print the money FOR the US Government, which pays them interest.
This means that if we would reset the nation’s debt today and would begin reprinting money, we would be in debt to the FED from the very first dollar loaned to our Government.
The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned or controlled by the elite are:
1.Cuba
2.North Korea
3.Iran
It is not a coincidence that these country's, are under attack by the media....

What makes their central banks any better or worse than any other?

a reply to: ScepticScot


I suppose he never heard of the Central Bank of Cuba, The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran or The Central Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ScepticScot


I suppose he never heard of the Central Bank of Cuba, The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran or The Central Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

I presumed he meant they were the good guy central banks as opposed to our evil Rothschild Satan worshiping ones.

Must be why they have such successful economies.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicusits not owned by the Rothschild's.
I should have said The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned or controlled by the Rothschild's.
The Rothschild family is slowly but surely having their Central banks established in every country of this world.

a reply to: madenusa


Either way, not true. This whole 'Rothschilds run the world' trope is kinda old at this point and no one can ever show me proof of how all these public banks shares are controlled by one family.

a reply to: ScepticScotI presumed we all new who the elite were...