Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now you are just blindly defending the suppression of information.
Take out a $1 bill and take a look at it. At the top, you'll notice that it says 'Federal Reserve Note'. This is in direct violation to the Constitution; many of the founding fathers and former Presidents were vehemently opposed to it, and so are many modern day economists.
To suppress this information is bad enough; to defend the suppression of this information is even worse.
I've been agreeing with you. This is a bridge too far. To my view Article I Section 8 empowers Congress "(t)To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures." Congress could base the money on autumn leaves that are red but not yellow. It may be unwise but it's not unconstitutional to empower the Federal Reserve to issue money.
For Darwinism, yes. For AGW it's a witches brew of junk science, ideology, religion and superstition.
You need to read more. The IPCC acts on consensus. Every word of their reports is haggled over so as to allow all of a couple of thousand highly qualified members to come to agreement over it. In opposition, you have the paid hack scientists of Exxon-Mobil.
I've been agreeing with you. This is a bridge too far. To my view Article I Section 8 empowers Congress "(t)To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures." Congress could base the money on autumn leaves that are red but not yellow. It may be unwise but it's not unconstitutional to empower the Federal Reserve to issue money.
Please read exactly what you wrote. Do you really think it reconciles with allowing a private bank to issue, control, regulate, charge interest off of, and profit from issuing our currency?
Perhaps we may disagree on this; but regardless of opinion the historical facts related to what happened are being suppressed.
Typical lawyers trick. Trying to turn a discussion of facts into a discussion about code or law.
Woodrow Wilson said that he ruined the country by signing this law. Why isn't this fact taught in schools?
Do you really think that the system in effect before was great? As a result of the 1897 Klondike Gold Rush an inflation took hold that raised farm prices relative to industrial levels to the so-called "parity" levels of 1910-14. All other commodity prices followed suit. Before that however prices rose or fell (generally fell) based upon the ratio of gold supply (including new production) to the overall economy. To me the real breach of faith was the 1971 rupture from Bretton Woods.
If we decide we don't trust fiat money at a minimum we should use a basket of commodities as the currency peg. But if we do anything besdes fiat money, can you tell me how we prevent competitive devaluations and beggar they neighbor policies?
How embarrassing. The evidence for both is simply overwhelming.[/quote]Adams had many great contributions, and not all during his presidency:
He cemented (if maybe not established) the tradition that all are subject to skillful legal representation when he defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trials;
At great sacrifice to his family life (and without the libertine behavior of Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson) he shuttled around Europe getting support and funding for the Revolutionary War;
He was our first Ambassador to Britain, enduring social isolation and hostility as being a virtual traitor to the King;
He stood up to French demands for bribes and tribute, as President;
He departed the capital peacefully, in the first peaceful transfer of power among opponents in America and possibly ever; and
As a private citizen he unsuccessfully promoted Massachusetts legislation to give Jews full civil rights. And no Adams was not Jewish.
I'm responding to both of you to show that I am non-partisan in my disagreements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911
You need to read more. The IPCC acts on consensus. Every word of their reports is haggled over so as to allow all of a couple of thousand highly qualified members to come to agreement over it. In opposition, you have the paid hack scientists of Exxon-Mobil.
I strongly disagree. If AGW implies a global warming event then why haven't the temperatures in continuously inhabited cities for periods when records are available? This chart below shows winter temperatures in Chicago since 1872. A skim of this chart shows, basically, no trend. I suspect the same can be said of most if not all inhabited areas. The global warming or "climate change" alarmists will show us charts of "world" or "global" temperatures.
Can any show a chart like the one below where temperatures have shown a general pattern of increase based on consistently maintained records?
Or New York City, Average Monthly & Annual Temperatures at Central Park.
In that case New York City averaged 55.0F, a common level in recent years, as early as 1910 after nearing that level in 1898 and 1906.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
Please read exactly what you wrote. Do you really think it reconciles with allowing a private bank to issue, control, regulate, charge interest off of, and profit from issuing our currency?
Perhaps we may disagree on this; but regardless of opinion the historical facts related to what happened are being suppressed.
SUppressed by who? And the Federal Reserve is not a private bank. It is at most a hybrid public/private bank.
Please read exactly what you wrote. Do you really think it reconciles with allowing a private bank to issue, control, regulate, charge interest off of, and profit from issuing our currency?
The Fed is a US government agency. It was chartered by and reports to Congress. Everyone who works at the Fed is a US Government employee. While they are organized like corporations and have many private employees, the Fed's 12 agent regional banks are a part of the system and are also subject to the oversight of Congress. The fact that regional bank member banks are required to purchase "stock" in the system means nothing. I had to do the same thing when joining our local swim and tennis club. The "stock" involved in these cases is not at all like the shares traded on the NYSE and other exchanges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Adams was underrated and not just by McCollough
