Bernacke Saved By Barney Frank

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Jul 24, 2009.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Well actually his time was expired but I'm sure Frank was squirming in his chair trying to force that clock to expire.


    FANTASTIC JOB by Florida democrat Congressman Alan Grayson as he nailed Benanke and made him look like an idoit IMO. He also got him to spill the beans and folks, this crap is exactly why the Federal Reserve needs to be fully audited and made to be held accountable for it's actions and decisions.



    Support HR 1207 and put the pressure on your Senators and Congressmen/women/persons to support a complete that thorough audit of the Federal Reserve Bank.
  2. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

  3. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Lifted from D.C. Morning..........

    Bawney Fwank: woyal pain in the wectum -- TheDC's Jonathan Strong writes: "Facing a legitimate challenger for the first time in ages, Rep. Barney Frank today defended his actions at a town hall in August 2009 in which he blasted his own constituents for interrupting him, saying unlike his fellow 'submissive' Democrats Frank 'spoke back.' 'Unlike some of my colleagues, who I think were kind of taken aback by that and were almost submissive … I answered civil questions civilly, but I spoke back,' Frank said on Fox News Thursday." That's right: Barney Frank speaks power to truth. How dare the common rabble question their betters? Don't they know who he IS?
  4. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Playing Devil's advocate.....:devil3: "This is a SWAP. They did not give money to anyone, its an investment for interest. Normal global trading"

    Are we finally starting to see who really runs/owns this country. We gave away the powers of the constitution to the almighty Fed. They give it away to foreign interests with no accountability...Dbl U tee eff......

    Funny how Grayson Haters never acknowledge the fact that the (D) Congressman supported the audit the fed bill w/ Ron Paul and shows the strongest plans for budget reduction, yet they would rather elect a Palin backed "Joe the Plumber" just because she has (Grayson) targeted in her crosshairs for calling her a "Wild Alaskan Dingbat" chillbilly

    The left right argument is nothing more than a smoke screen to disguise the truth about how corporate influence is what dictates govt policy on both the left and right. Liberals actually think conduct at the Fed is regulated and conservatives always mistakenly confuse big govt with big business.
    Socialism is not the oncoming problem... corporatism
  5. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Corporatism financed by other nations through U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    If I lived in that district and I voted, (and I don't vote) I would vote for Grayson over the republican just on the Federal Reserve Audit bill alone. Although there are SO many other areas I part company with Grayson on, I undersand that the only reason the other policies are there in the first place is because of the corruptive nature of the Federal Reserve on monetary means and it's control of the fiat money supply. How this system in and of itself redistributes wealth causing imbalances across the marketplace would become obvious and along with the false need of larger gov't policy/programs in order to sustain citizen alligence. The reason problems don't get solved is not always the fault of the citizens in as much as they have us working against ourselves to begin with.

    Otherwise if these imbalances weren't given State lip service, (and the reason they are) more and more citizens would abandon the central gov't and return to local self governance that in turn would de-power the national hegemony that controls the whole thing. Whether Grayson understands all of this, I don't pretend to say but if he's willing to travel the path, I'm willing to help put gas in his tank.
  7. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    "If I lived in that district and I voted, (and I don't vote)....."

    Did I read that right? You have humongous political views, but you don't vote??!!:surprised::surprised::surprised::surprised::surprised:
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    You read that correct.

    Having any type of political POV and voting are not synonymous with one another so that's one illusion you need to ditch!
  9. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    Actually they are--it is one thing to shout your political beliefs from the highest mountain but if you can't be bothered to pull the lever than all of that shouting falls on deaf ears.

    I have to admit that I was quite surprised and lost a measure of respect for you after reading your statement.
  10. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Gee, I'm crushed. Maybe I finally realized that voting was nothing more than an exercise of one group we'll call majority using the force of a 3rd party to make another group we'll call minority to do and conform to a type social and customary lifestyle that if left to choose on a purely voluntary level, they would not choose to do for themselves. Majority want Obamacare, minority doesn't, the State at the business end of a gun will force the minority to the majority's will. At some point, the roles reverse and the otherside gets to point the gun. But not matter what, who from election cycle to election cycle wins in the whole process? Why does it never get better but in fact get worse? Even pure luck would suggest a screw up in favor of the people every once in a while!

    Another way to think of this is the majority is the master, one who makes all political determinations, the minority is the servant, or one who sacrifices his own self determination to conform to that of others and then the taskmaster, the one who forces compliance from any who dare stray from the master plan. Why should I give my approval to such as system by taking part and at some point maybe even being a part of the majority and using force on others to conform to my will? Diesel's point about Slavery which some made fun of was vastly closer to the truth than any of us want to admit.

    50% on average of actual voting age public do not vote election to election. You might get a spike in a single election because of an igniting issue or candidate, like him or not but Obama caused a spike up for example (and what has really changed?), but across the years, the averages tend to hold in that range. Both parties know this and in each cycle they try with all their heart to make the otherside into villians and if they can make into even bigger villians than they really are in the eyes of that non voting 50%, some of them just might jump in the fray and then be the difference taking the minority into majority status.

    But here's an interesting gem especially for those here who love to flap the constitution around and even the organic constitution especially is that prior to the 14th (1868') and 15th (1870') amendments, there was no direct mention of the right to vote or for that matter citizenship. From the POV of the constitution, there was no such thing as a citizen or voter and the closest the organic constitution comes to even mentioning what some might construe as a voter, is Article 1, Sec. 4 which only authorizes to the individual States to hold elections in order to choose members of Congress from those states but the Congress retains the right to modify those state regulations and methods at their will. In otherwords, the state could choose to determine who their members of Congress are by walking into any bar and pull out 5 drunks from which they will choose that State's members of Congress. I contend those drunks would also do a better job of picking Congress than the current method of mass public elections and just the odds of pure luck could easily prove that point. Everyone crows about the brillance of the men who wrote the constitution and yet in their brillance of wisdom, they never considered voting and citizenship all that important to even make it a foundational point in the organic constitution. Wonder why that is?

    Lastly, did you ever once consider that voting and politics is a form of marketplace just as going out and buying a car or a washing machine. If I choose to instead of buying a car to walk everywhere I need to go, would I be attacked for not buying a car? Or buying a washing machine verses rainwater in a rainbarrel? Granted the car and washing machine are more efficent in time and labor and not making that choice might seem weird, but as long as I attempt not to impose my belief on others, it's considered a act of personal liberty and freedom for me to make those choices. Voting is the same thing as you are entering a marketplace and choosing one product over another but what if one thinks no product offered is worthy of their time and labor converted to a monetary unit and in this market the currency is in the form of a vote. If someone in the purely economic market saves their money, they are said to practice the virtue of thriftiness. In electorical politics, I'm just being thrifty!

    Also I love contrarian POV's that challenge people to think outside the box in which they normally live!
  11. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

  12. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    I always vote, but completely understand where mac is coming from. What's the point in voting when none of the candidates stands for anything that you personally believe in? Voting just so that you can say you voted is nothing but masturbation, and I've never bought into the idea that unless you vote you have no right to complain. Everyone who pays taxes has paid for their right to complain, and loudly.
  13. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Thank you! I'd never take anyone else's right to vote away and there is an arguement to vote on local issues and there may be merit in that for sure. However, until we begin to see the 2 politcal parites as nothing more than one is a type of GM and the other a type Ford yet even though we dislike the product, we continue to buy, this only encourages the product to never change. At the same time GM voters are told by GM that if they don't vote then the Fords will take over and visa versa and thus the voter goes to the polls more out of fear of the other brand than out of principle or belief to principle. We vote not "for" something but rather "against" something.

    In that framework, where is the market incentive to really change the product offered to the voting public?

    Like so much in our society today, we operate out of reaction to fear and not principle. No wonder everyone we elect always sucks!

    Mencken has a way of pointing out the obvious while leaving room for the reader to see it from it's humor as well.
  14. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    Sorry, but I disagree. I fully believe that if you do not exercise your right to vote than you have no right to complain about the outcome.

    Care to explain your metaphor?
  15. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    If you vote just to say you voted, you're only doing it for self gratification.
  16. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    So if you once purchased Fords and GMs and had rotten experiences with both and now choose not to purchase either one, you are prohibited from saying that you'll never walk onto a Ford or GM lot again?

    So you don't believe in Free Markets or is it you just don't really understand the full concept of it?
  17. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Since when has any American not had the right to complain?
  18. UpstateNYUPSer

    UpstateNYUPSer Very proud grandfather.

    We all have the right to complain. My point was if you don't vote you don't have a right to complain about the outcome.
  19. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    what better way to avoid accountability for todays problems and to be able to smugly criticize those who do participate in the process. With his example he is criticizing a car brand he has never owned.
  20. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Speaking of former Congressman Alan Grayson, I hope at least he's taking some satisfaction in that last week SCOTUS ruled that the Federal Reserve would in fact have to disclose records on the bank bailouts in 2008'. This would have been part of the audit process Grayson along with Ron Paul were seeking in auditing the Fed.

    I sure hope it has folks like Barney Frank and Mel "Bank of America" Watts chewing on their own pencil!