Advocates of garbage fringe ideologies do a great job compensating for the lacking substance in their claims by blowing hard and answering direct questions with obscure, tangentially related questions of their own. After all, what else can they do? Other than bravely staring down the dissonance involved with recognizing your values and world view as being woefully flawed, of course.

Oh ok discussing economic policies that have a huge impact on poverty outcomes IE social justice are obscure and tangential. Got it . This is more of not being able to refute the arguments so I'll just attack the people making an argument.

Yeah posters discuss policies that have a significant impact on poverty outcomes IE social justice are just obfuscating. Got it.

Oh ok a world view that involves wanting improved poverty outcomes IE better social justice is woefully flawed. Got it.

Blame is split between the Fed and King Obama amirite?

lolwut

You think that paper HELPS Sliver Man's position?

lol adios

lol Sliver Man

adios, be honest. You just grabbed whatever the first google link was that looked like it might support your argument, didn't read it, and assumed nobody else would either, right?

This thread is way better if you imagine adios and silver as that gay dad in South Park who wanted his kid to do musicals and threatened to slap him if he played basketball.

Every "dildo" "libtard" and "idiot" insult is like the dad slapping people and thinking it hurts them.

Like, you know they're mad, but you can't help but laugh at them. Fairly humorous.

Lets all take a moment and recognize Adios unquestioningly accept his position as being the one I unspecifically refer to as 'fringe garbage'. I wonder, is this because he subconsciously believes it, or because he believes a sufficient majority feel his position is garbage that I must be one too?

I have seen people rebut your thoughts about the Fed multiple times. I personally don't because its not something I'm all that knowledgeable about. And unlike some people, I prefer not to argue about something I don't much about. I will say that considering your other posts and logic you've demonstrated so far, even without knowing much about the conspiracy theories and pros and cons about the fed, I would start with the position that you're most certainlyl wrong unless someone smarter made a good case.

No one has put it as black and white as you do. Its hard to take a rebuttal by you seriously when you clearly don't understand what other people are saying. Literally no one is saying what you're claiming they are saying. At least not with how much you're bastardized anything they've said.

I've never posted a pro-Fed statement in my life. My issue, which is admittedly a bias, is most of the people who I see attacking the fed, when you look at the body of their posting, generally seem wrong/illogical and ignorant about so much else, that I don't really give much consideration to their thoughts on the Fed.

Again, I've had no conversations about the Fed. I merely laughed at your congnitive dissonance where you within the same short post note that the cards are stacked in favor of one side and then blame the side where the odds are against them for not making it. When you post stuff like this, the stupidity in the feminism thread, your nonsensical justifications for your various bigotries... and then you post something about the Fed - again, at this point based on your record the best assumption I can make is that whatever you're passionately arguing for is going to be based in misunderstanding, bad logic and a lot of ignorance. You could be right on some subject but If I had to bet the smart money would be to assume you're just not only wrong but laughably so.

This may seem odd to say after that but, no offense intended. I'm just being honest. If the guy on the street corner says "aliens are manipulating us from their base on the moon" day 1, "no planes crashed on 9/11" day 2, "Obama is secretly a lizard" on day 3.... if he starts talking about the Fed on day 4 I have every reason to believe he's crazy until a strong case by a better source proves otherwise. (and note - all of these conspiracies are pretty much really believed by people out there now)

Why is it everyone else's job to disprove every insane thing silverbug says? Why isn't it his job first to prove any one of the things he claims is true?

With these kinds of posters, I honestly think its just kind of fun to see what kind of horrible followup he'll have to any post. Rebutting what he says leads to something else laughably bad. Low hanging fruit.

I genuinely think (if he's for real) its kind of fascinating because I don't know many people other then one member of my family with such out there ideas that seem to indicate they live in an alternate universe of their own creation. And its like watching Jerry Springer or Real houses wives... its a little interaction with a freakshow.

The evil FED has been causing the sky to fall for years in the reality of conservative talk radio and that same scary narrative is played out ITT. Even the fauz astonishment we are all somehow not concerned due to being idiots or sheeple is present. Not impressed by the same old song.

Here is a same song I can get behind:

FYP

Obama is just a stupid whore told what to say and do just like the rest of them. Reading off his prompter like a moran.

And there is a difference between educated and learned men. Obama may be "educated" but he is certainly not a learned men like the learned men who used to hold office a long time that were brilliant.

Lol silverbugs. Keep stacking that silver and getting those MRE's hoarded for that doomsday that's not coming.

Kurto... You can't comprehend that income inequality is made possible because of the Federal Reserve? And the rich white men who control it. How ELSE is income inequality possible?

And Kurto...that is fine that you think I am ignorant and don't want to give much thoughts to what I am saying about the Fed. That is why in the USA thread I posted all this...

I don't think these are wrong/illogical ignorant people, right?!?!

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is, perhaps, the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint and un-mint the modern ledger-entry currency.” Major L L B Angus.

“Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal – that there is no human relation between master and slave.” Leo Tolstoy, Russian writer.

“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694, then a privately owned bank

“Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing. ” Ralph M Hawtry, former Secretary to the Treasury.
“… our whole monetary system is dishonest, as it is debt-based… We did not vote for it. It grew upon us gradually but markedly since 1971 when the commodity-based system was abandoned.” The Earl of Caithness, in a speech to the House of Lords, 1997.

When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln

If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. -Andrew Jackson

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. -James Madison

AND EVEN........Woodrow Wilson said.......

Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote:

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson

Let me guess Kurto...a couple of them had slaves...so no sense in taking them seriously, right?

Depends on how you define doomsday, I guess. Some of us recognized the slow descent many years ago. It gets worse with each passing year, and the denial by people like you gets more and more amusing.

But when/if it does in any tangible "overnight" new paradigm that trolls like you could no longer deny, you'll be among the first to scream and panic. No doubt. Until then, the boiling frog syndrome will be maintained to the end.

There is no political solution to pessimism.

Yeah, we know, you've been telling us THIS IS THE END for like six years now. You are wrong and will continue to be wrong, no shocker there.

Now be gone to your 9/11 fantasies troll

looooooooooooooool at bolded. Income inequality confirmed didnt exist before 1913.

I joined five years ago. But it's your inability to get my message correct that has left you flailing and arguing with yourself throughout that time. The reality is that you suck at this, and require more talented contributors to pick up the baton you can't actually run with.

Yet whenever you're asked to show what I'm wrong about, and how it's wrong, you disappear.

And on top of everything else, you don't understand what a troll actually is. Ah well. People with body odor usually can't smell themselves.

In any event, I'll be in the new 9/11 thread if you'd like to chime in and be a lol-tastic dead weight on general coincidence theory.

They can't? ****, do I have BO?

Jiggs, remember when you got owned about saying the Euro would break up you tried to argue that you were right outside of the technicality of the Euro not breaking up? Yeah, that's why you don't get shown why your wrong. Its a fruitless endeavor, you'd argue 2+2 is 8 before admitting you are wrong.

Degree matters, as always. Do you think the Euro is entirely healthy? Without painful austerity and bailouts, do you believe it would be entirely cohesive today?

Your argument got bailed out, just like the EU.

I was wrong.

But only on the matter of timing. And only due to money printing and fake "growth."

Bet was: will the Euro break up by X date. Your opponent said, the Euro has problems but definitely isnt going to break up by X date in part because the governments have anough ammo to keep the Euro together.

Results: Euro hasn't broken up.

You were wrong. Period. No technicality about timing nuance needed.

Same thing with peak oil. We will run out of usable oil eventually and usable oil will decline eventually. Its not happening now despite your insistance otherwise, and predicting that a finite resource will run out eventually aint exactly breaking news.

where "anough ammo" translates to fiat currency... got it.

your ******ed "no problem" approach to the modern world got bailed out. Deal with it.

As I've written some three dozen times, but idiots lack the capacity to grasp it, or the integrity to be honest, I never said it would "run out." ... What I said was it would become 1) too expensive for the masses to afford, and 2) not enough to meet demand for complex societies. Both are happening, period. End of story. No technicalities involved.

When you can be honest about what I've ever said regarding peak oil, or at least educated on the subject matter, I'll acknowledge you again. Until then, you're a compulsive fraud who can't debate at all.