First ever Fed audit now has majority support in House

[Darius871]

I think what's happening now, due to Fed secrecy, is that a few 'insiders' (ahem, Chase Manhattan) are influencing Fed actions, or at least privy them perhaps before they occur, and are reaping big profits and sowing lots of havoc among the general public.

...and I suppose you have evidence of all this?

[Jon Miller]

He is pretty loony.

But he said I think. And there is no evidence, because no one has ever looked for any.

So be at least as reasonable as he is.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Jon, that's a ridiculous statement. Sometimes it's most reasonable to simply laugh at somebody.

[Jon Miller]

Well, I wouldn't have said anything if Darius has quoted with a afterwards.

JM

[Darius871]

But he said I think.

Since when should one "think" anything absent evidence?

Well, I wouldn't have said anything if Darius has quoted with a afterwards.

Wouldn't a have been more snide and condescending, not less? I'm genuinely curious what led him to "think" such a thing aside from intuition (today's polite euphemism for an obviously paranoid disposition).

[Jon Miller]

Thinking that insiders influencing actions isn't paranoid and is something that one should think or might think and be reasonable.

are reaping big profits and sowing lots of havoc among the general public. is the unreasonable line. But I note that in the past unscrupulous men have made profits/etc whenever possible. It is just the 'big' part which is unreasonable as far as profits go.

Note I Am not arguing as a mod or anything, I am just saying that your 'evidence' where no evidence has been acquired (Which is the whole point of this) is a unreasonable statement. Someone did that to me on another forum which is why I pick.

JM

[HalfLotus]

Call me crazy, but I'm more than a little bit skeptical of people in power, especially considering the economic state of the USA at the moment.

Since the Fed meetings and books are 100% secret, I'd say we're all a little short on 'evidence'. You can trot out statements and intentions given by 'officials', but like I said, those don't hold much water for me.

Chase Manhattan has benefited greatly from TARP, the bailouts, etc, and Mr. Rockefeller had a big hand in creating the Fed; and Chase is the largest member bank of the Fed in terms of 'stock' ownership. I just put 2 and 2 together.

Seems to be an excess of faith in bankers around here, but we'll see how things turn out.

[Kuciwalker]

Call me crazy

You're crazy.

Why does Darius hate himself so much?

[Darius871]

Since the Fed meetings and books are 100% secret, I'd say we're all a little short on 'evidence'.

So the answer, then, is that there is no evidence. Do you understand the problem with your logic? I could extend it to virtually any allegation. Examples:

"Since the content of my opponent's attorney-client communication is 100% secret, I'd say we're all a little short on 'evidence,' so it's not incumbent upon me to prove my bald-faced assertion that the attorney is aiding and abetting tax fraud."

"Since my neighbor's checking account is 100% secret, I'd say we're all a little short on 'evidence,' so it's not incumbent upon me to prove my bald-faced assertion that he's withdrawing funds to buy supplies for his midget rape-murders."

"Since the goings-on at Area 51 and AUTEC are 100% secret, I'd say we're all a little short on 'evidence,' so it's not incumbent upon me to prove my bald-faced assertion that teh aliens are giving politicians anal probes there and they like it."

Etc. etc. etc....

Why does Darius hate himself so much?

I don't know...

[HalfLotus]

It's not true that there is 'no evidence', (I said we are short on evidence) - there is circumstantial evidence, of which I mentioned a little bit.

Until we know what the Fed is up to, we must observe the circumstances and make our best reasoned judgments. And it's also why HR 1207 is a very important piece of legislation.

If you disagree, that's cool bro. But at least look at the entire content and meaning of what I'm writing. Your nitpicking is only a couple steps above Kuci's sad insults - not very becoming of the very good forum community we have here at Apolyton.

Communicating will get us a lot farther than trying to look tough or smart on the interweb.

[Dinner]

Let's be perfectly clear though. You're goal is get rid of the Fed and not to reform it or make it run better or anything else of that nature. You just hate it, have some stupid loopy idea that it is illegal (and yes that is retarded), and are seeking ways to make it fail or failing that to cause as many problems as possible.

In light of that I don't see why anyone should take your suggestions about the Fed seriously.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oerdin, the argument is that it is unconstitutional, not illegal.

Can't you even get the opposing argument straight.

Why does the US need a central bank?

[Dinner]

Unconstitutional is illegal ben. Try to keep up.

In any event the courts have had a century to decide if it was unconstitutional or not and the Fed is still there. Forgive me if I laugh at the people making the loony claims.

[Ben Kenobi]

Unconstitutional is illegal ben.

The legal system intervenes in disputes between one another. The constitution is about the proper role of the government in society.

In any event the courts have had a century to decide if it was unconstitutional or not and the Fed is still there. Forgive me if I laugh at the people making the loony claims.

Kennedy said the same thing as I am, that the federal reserve was unconstitutional. Kennedy was also assassinated. Was Kennedy a loon?

It's been unconstitutional since Andrew Jackson destroyed the bank of the USA.

Wilson put many things in place that were unconstitutional.

[HalfLotus]

Let's be perfectly clear though. You're goal is get rid of the Fed and not to reform it or make it run better or anything else of that nature. You just hate it, have some stupid loopy idea that it is illegal (and yes that is retarded), and are seeking ways to make it fail or failing that to cause as many problems as possible.

In light of that I don't see why anyone should take your suggestions about the Fed seriously.

I understand that it's pretty typical to stereotype people of certain beliefs, so I'll clarify your post since you did manage to write a couple sentences that don't contain pointless insults.

I would like to get rid of the Fed. Until that happens, I definitely want to make it run better and with some transparency. No reason both of those things can't happen.

I don't 'hate' it, per se, because I'm not particularly emotional about the issue. I think I've been reasonable enough to make that clear. By contrast, quite a few of those who disagree with me appear to be very emotional about the issue.

To be fair, I would say that the childish insults probably have more to do with personal problems than with the issues themselves, but that's another story, and not one I'm looking expand. It's pretty clear where the 'hate' is emanating from in this thread, and it's not from me.

And I don't think the Fed is 'illegal', nor have I said so. What I did say was that it goes against the wishes of the men who wrote the Constitution, aka the Founding Fathers. And that they provided ample wisdom and warnings re: central banking and its associated interests. This leads me to believe, very strongly, that the Fed ought to be transparent, and that HR 1207 should be passed into law.