Discussion:
OT: Trilaterals still in control
(too old to reply)
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-16 17:44:45 UTC
Permalink
"According to official Trilateral Commission membership lists, there are
only 87 members from the United States (the other 337 members are from other
regions). Thus, in less than two weeks since his inauguration, Obama's
appointments encompass more than 12% of Commission's entire U.S.
membership."

http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/trilateral_commission/obama:_trilateral_commission_endgame_20090127110/

a.. Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner
b.. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice
c.. National Security Advisor, Gen. James L. Jones
d.. Deputy National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon
e.. Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker
f.. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair
g.. Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell
h.. Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg
i.. State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass
j.. State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross
k.. State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke
James L. Hankins
2009-02-16 23:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
"According to official Trilateral Commission membership lists, there are
only 87 members from the United States (the other 337 members are from other
regions). Thus, in less than two weeks since his inauguration, Obama's
appointments encompass more than 12% of Commission's entire U.S.
membership."
http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/trilateral_commission/obama:_trilateral_commission_endgame_20090127110/
a.. Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner
b.. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice
c.. National Security Advisor, Gen. James L. Jones
d.. Deputy National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon
e.. Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker
f.. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair
g.. Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell
h.. Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg
i.. State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass
j.. State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross
k.. State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke
Paul, ya still don't get it. A bunch of powerful, influential people from
around the world start an organization so they can interact and meet other
powerful and influential people.

Then, you act shocked when the President chooses several of these powerful
and influential people to fill powerful and influential positions in
government. See? There's nothing really strange or odd about it at all.

Oh, and it's such a sooper-sekrit conspiracy that Joe sixpack can look it up
on the internet. The dog don't hunt, dewd. It just don't hunt.
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-17 00:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
Paul, ya still don't get it. A bunch of powerful, influential people from
around the world start an organization so they can interact and meet other
powerful and influential people.
No, James, apparently it is you, who still don't get it.

"The 'house of world order', will have to be built from the bottom up rather
than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing
confusion,'...., but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it
piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal
assault."
da pickle
2009-02-17 00:20:44 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Popinjay"
Post by Paul Popinjay
No, James, apparently it is you, who still don't get it.
James is doing all the heavy lifting in a couple of threads ... especially
the pork bullet train ... you should consider that.

I am listening to you about the TLC (why those letters, BTW?) ... I am
listening.
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-17 03:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
James is doing all the heavy lifting in a couple of threads ... especially
the pork bullet train ... you should consider that.
James snidely comments on it being "sooper-sekrit", but is he really so
naive to deny that it is "non-news"? An organization so closely tied with
the presidency, that advocates abolishing the sovereignty of the United
States, literally? And it IS "non-news". Does he really not see that? And
can he shrug that off? Maybe just to bust my balls?
James L. Hankins
2009-02-17 04:16:43 UTC
Permalink
news:8cadnUKT6-
Post by da pickle
James is doing all the heavy lifting in a couple of threads ...
especially the pork bullet train ... you should consider that.
James snidely comments on it being "sooper-sekrit", but is he really so
naive to deny that it is "non-news"? An organization so closely tied with
the presidency, that advocates abolishing the sovereignty of the United
States, literally? And it IS "non-news". Does he really not see that?
And can he shrug that off? Maybe just to bust my balls?
How about recommending a good book on the subject that doesn't cost $400,
bub?
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-17 05:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
How about recommending a good book on the subject that doesn't cost $400,
bub?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450&hl=en
Senator Millionaire
2009-02-17 05:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Paul, that is NEWS. Seriously, 12% of the people who belong to the
same organization are appointed. Even it was 12% from the XYZ
organization it would still be news. I don't know too much about this
organization other than what James has pointed out.
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-17 06:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senator Millionaire
Paul, that is NEWS. Seriously, 12% of the people who belong to the
same organization are appointed. Even it was 12% from the XYZ
organization it would still be news. I don't know too much about this
organization other than what James has pointed out.
Senator, look again. James is the one sayin that it don't mean very much.
But this small private group that was founded by David Rockefeller and
Zbigniew Brzezinski for the purpose of making an "end-run around our
nation's sovereignty" and bringing about a "New World Order", has had as its
membership some of the most influencial people in the last several
administrations, and hardly a peep in the media about it. Rarely do you
even meet people on the street who have even heard about it, let alone
understand what their purpose is. Jimmy Carter appointed 19 out of his 24
cabinet members, drawn from the ranks of the TC. Zbigniew Brzezinski
conceptualized the TC in his book Between Two Ages, in 1970, in which he
openly admits that the United States is "obsolete".

Zbigniew Brzezinski was our country's National Security Advisor during the
Carter Administration, at a time BEFORE the Cold War had supposedly ended.
Here is what he wrote about Marxism:

"Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of
man's universal vision . Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the
external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason
over belief . Marxism, disseminated on the popular level in the form of
communism, represents a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his
relationship to the world."

That's right, the guy who was NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, thought Marxism was
pretty peachy. And now, of course, we have just seen old Zbigniew take and
mold a young Barrack Obama and steer him into the White House.

It's a SMALL group! But in 1980 democratic presidential candidates Carter
and Mondale, and republican vp candidate George Bush, and Independent John
Anderson, were ALL MEMBERS OF IT! And then, Bill Clinton, was one of them
too. It doesn't matter who's in the White House. Republican, democrat,
they're ALL IN ON IT! Hello! HELLO!

Where is the discussion about this elitist group? Ever hear Sean Hannity or
Rush Limbaugh talk about it? I don't THINK so! The only time they ever say
something is when they joke about "conspiracy nuts" and then play Twilight
Zone music in the background.

-PP
Senator Millionaire
2009-02-17 07:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that? What web site did you lift that from?
I remember when Bush 1 gave a speech and talked about the new world
order. Some of these web sites like to suggest that there's some
sinister or evil plotting going on to take over the world and I just
don't see it.
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-17 07:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senator Millionaire
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that? What web site did you lift that from?
Before there were websites, there was these things called books.

http://www.amazon.com/Between-Two-Ages-Zbigniew-Brzezinski/dp/0140043144
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-17 07:37:17 UTC
Permalink
"Senator Millionaire" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5aaf7438-8783-4e7a-ae12-
Post by Senator Millionaire
I remember when Bush 1 gave a speech and talked about the new world
order. Some of these web sites like to suggest that there's some
sinister or evil plotting going on to take over the world and I just
don't see it.
Interesting Historical Quotes... In support of "World Government"

"Isn't it interesting how so many people (usually people who were
dumbed-down in socialistic public schools) claim that the concept of world
govt is "all made up", "make believe", "wild tin-foil conspiracy theory"?"

"I suppose all of the people listed below, the books and articles they
wrote, and the newspaper /tv interviews are 'made up and make believe'?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1145562/posts
Senator Millionaire
2009-02-17 08:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Hitler and Stalin were talking about a new world order back in the
30's and that didn't work out too well. So Paul tell me more. What is
this NWO thing supposed to do?
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-17 08:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senator Millionaire
Hitler and Stalin were talking about a new world order back in the
30's and that didn't work out too well.
No, this is the same thing. It is the same plan, the same New World Order.
It is not new. It's been being worked on since at least the days of the
French Revolution, or earlier. And some of the same super-wealthy people
that financed Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution, also financed Hitler.
They back both "sides", creating the illusion of "opposing forces". But
it's the same thing. I don't mean the rank and file. Street-level Nazis
and street-level communists are definitely different types who do oppose
each other. But they are mere pawns. The people at the top, they're the
same.

-PP
Senator Millionaire
2009-02-17 09:27:59 UTC
Permalink
I think our system of capitalism is shifting over to socialism and the
wealthy are going to be taxed much more as the middle class sinks
lower. Middle earners just don't earn on average what they used to.
You think we might see Fascism in America? Wouldn't everyone just move
to Canada and smoke weed?

I don't have too much confidence in the federal government right now
and/or the overall direction this country is going. Did you see the
video where the nations top accountant talks about the government. You
should! Where's the money going to come from to pay for the growing
government and the services they say they will provide?

US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy


Paul Popinjay
2009-02-17 10:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Senator Millionaire
I think our system of capitalism is shifting over to socialism and the
wealthy are going to be taxed much more as the middle class sinks
lower. Middle earners just don't earn on average what they used to.
You think we might see Fascism in America? Wouldn't everyone just move
to Canada and smoke weed?
Not "we might see fascism", we are already seeing fascism. Under fascism,
the private sector retains ownership of the means of production, but the
state controls it through regulation. That, is here.
Post by Senator Millionaire
I don't have too much confidence in the federal government right now
and/or the overall direction this country is going. Did you see the
video where the nations top accountant talks about the government. You
should! Where's the money going to come from to pay for the growing
government and the services they say they will provide?
US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy
http://youtu.be/OS2fI2p9iVs
Preaching to the choir here. I've been doom and gloom for 30 years, and a
fan of Ron Paul, and sound money, for 30 years. We must get some kind of
men of enough integrity into the House of Representatives who will fight to
restore government's obedience to the Consitution, or we're going to lose
the republic. It's that simple. It's our only hope. Getting interested in
any presidential candidate is really a waste of time and energy. The House
of Represntatives can and must save this country.
John_Brian_K
2009-02-19 15:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
Not "we might see fascism", we are already seeing fascism. Under fascism,
the private sector retains ownership of the means of production, but the
state controls it through regulation. That, is here.
I thought the idea of a 'bail out' was good. After really thinking about
it I do not agree with that anymore. We are sooooo royally getting fucked
in the ass and I am a little scared at where we are going (the direction
of the country that is)

==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK

------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
IHeartWuzzy
2009-02-17 13:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
Post by Senator Millionaire
Hitler and Stalin were talking about a new world order back in the
30's and that didn't work out too well.
No, this is the same thing. It is the same plan, the same New World Order.
It is not new. It's been being worked on since at least the days of the
French Revolution, or earlier. And some of the same super-wealthy people...
The people at the top, they're the same.
A long, long, LONG time in the making, huh?

Obviously some remarkable inefficiency over the years in getting this plan
DONE.

But alas... they *finally* have a "Closer" in Obama.

____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
John_Brian_K
2009-02-19 15:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
No, this is the same thing. It is the same plan, the same New World Order.
It is not new. It's been being worked on since at least the days of the
French Revolution, or earlier. And some of the same super-wealthy people
that financed Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution, also financed Hitler.
They back both "sides", creating the illusion of "opposing forces". But
it's the same thing. I don't mean the rank and file. Street-level Nazis
and street-level communists are definitely different types who do oppose
each other. But they are mere pawns. The people at the top, they're the
same.
-PP
Hey PeePee! There are a few thoughts running through my head on all this.
My first thoughts are that the Internet is like a virus and it spreads
insanity. Never before have the 'nut jobs' had a way to voice what they
thought they saw happening in terms of the New World Order.

I also think that if this has been going on since the French Revolution
WTF is taking them so long?

You MAY be right PeePee. The government MAY want to tell us what to do,
who to marry, when to fuck, how many kids we can have, where we work, what
time to go to bed and all that. It's fucked up. What can we do about it
PeePee? I do not want to be told what to do. I do not want my kids being
told what to do. I do not want my great, great, great, great, great,
great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,
great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,
great, great, great, great, great grand kids being told what to do either.

You could also just be crazy.

==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
BillB
2009-02-17 16:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Zbigniew Brzezinski conceptualized the TC in his book Between Two Ages, in
1970, in which he openly admits that the United States is "obsolete".
The vision of the United States you're talking about *is* obsolete, and has
been for longer than you've been alive.

Guess what. It's never coming back, so you may as well get over it.
James L. Hankins
2009-02-18 01:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
Post by James L. Hankins
How about recommending a good book on the subject that doesn't cost $400,
bub?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450&hl=en
Ugh....I got thought about 10 minutes of that kook and couldn't stand it
anymore. That guy has no clue what the federal reserve is about, it's
function, or how it operates.
Pepe Papon
2009-02-17 06:54:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:16:43 -0600, "James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
news:8cadnUKT6-
Post by da pickle
James is doing all the heavy lifting in a couple of threads ...
especially the pork bullet train ... you should consider that.
James snidely comments on it being "sooper-sekrit", but is he really so
naive to deny that it is "non-news"? An organization so closely tied with
the presidency, that advocates abolishing the sovereignty of the United
States, literally? And it IS "non-news". Does he really not see that?
And can he shrug that off? Maybe just to bust my balls?
How about recommending a good book on the subject that doesn't cost $400,
bub?
You get what you pay for!
Robert Ladd
2009-02-17 10:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe Papon
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:16:43 -0600, "James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
news:8cadnUKT6-
Post by da pickle
James is doing all the heavy lifting in a couple of threads ...
especially the pork bullet train ... you should consider that.
James snidely comments on it being "sooper-sekrit", but is he really so
naive to deny that it is "non-news"? An organization so closely tied with
the presidency, that advocates abolishing the sovereignty of the United
States, literally? And it IS "non-news". Does he really not see that?
And can he shrug that off? Maybe just to bust my balls?
How about recommending a good book on the subject that doesn't cost $400,
bub?
You get what you pay for!
Watch the link that Paul supplied. The book is a very good read. Not dry
and stuffy as you'd think a book about the Federal Reserve would be. It's
also written so that it takes a lot of the mystery out of money and how it
is manipulated.

Don't condemn it if you haven't read it. If you've read it and you still
don't agree, let me know. I'll start a thread on some of the ideas Griffin
presents.

Robert Ladd
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-17 10:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Ladd
Watch the link that Paul supplied. The book is a very good read. Not dry
and stuffy as you'd think a book about the Federal Reserve would be. It's
also written so that it takes a lot of the mystery out of money and how it
is manipulated.
Don't condemn it if you haven't read it. If you've read it and you still
don't agree, let me know. I'll start a thread on some of the ideas
Griffin presents.
Robert Ladd
An hour long, if you wanna get some popcorn. I would not be interested in
discussing this in a thread on this cesspool of a newsgroup, plus I would
not expect any of the usuals to have the ambitious attention span. I merely
post this, for you, Robert. No obligation. Perhaps even, maybe you have
seen it already and are way ahead of me. It would not surprise me.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8735850819535310414
da pickle
2009-02-17 14:39:20 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Popinjay"
Post by Paul Popinjay
Post by Robert Ladd
Don't condemn it if you haven't read it. If you've read it and you still
don't agree, let me know. I'll start a thread on some of the ideas
Griffin presents.
An hour long, if you wanna get some popcorn. I would not be interested in
discussing this in a thread on this cesspool of a newsgroup, plus I would
not expect any of the usuals to have the ambitious attention span. I merely
post this, for you, Robert. No obligation. Perhaps even, maybe you have
seen it already and are way ahead of me. It would not surprise me.
All your videos are excellent, Paul. We will hear rants from the ones that
do not listen, do not watch and do not read ... we may hear questions from
those that are trying to understand, but likely we will only hear from those
that have not even attempted to learn.

(I will admit that I am not that sanguine about a return to the "gold
standard" but almost all of this material you are sharing is very
interesting and informative.)
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-18 02:56:17 UTC
Permalink
but likely we will only hear from those that have not even attempted to
learn.
Did you see James H.'s post today regarding the video about the Federal
Reserve? Did you have any idea James was so far out there? I didn't.
Pretty scary, eh? And, like you, I've enjoyed 'talking' to him on this
newsgroup for years now, but today's comment really puts things in a
different perspective, doesn't it? It's often very difficult to get inside
other people's minds, and this is one of those times. In fact, I'm not so
sure I want to understand what's in his mind. This whole thing gives me
chills. God, our country is in so much trouble!

-PP
James L. Hankins
2009-02-18 03:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
but likely we will only hear from those that have not even attempted to
learn.
Did you see James H.'s post today regarding the video about the Federal
Reserve? Did you have any idea James was so far out there? I didn't.
Pretty scary, eh? And, like you, I've enjoyed 'talking' to him on this
newsgroup for years now, but today's comment really puts things in a
different perspective, doesn't it? It's often very difficult to get
inside other people's minds, and this is one of those times. In fact, I'm
not so sure I want to understand what's in his mind. This whole thing
gives me chills. God, our country is in so much trouble!
-PP
C'mon. Those crackpots *always* sound like crackpots trying to convince,
rather than an objective reporter trying to be neutral about the facts.

The first clue was when he used the word "cartel" repeatedly as descriptive
of the members of The Fed. It's a loaded word and is not accurate in the
context of The Fed. Then he overstates The Fed's power as having total
control over the money of the country which is not accurate at all, then it
just goes from there to the kooky sooper-sekrit conspiracy meeting on the
Jekyll Island, as if the location of the meeting makes any difference and it
would have been different if they met in Washington. It's just kookery.

I can recognize when someone is trying hard to convince me of a load of
bullshit under the guise of investigative reporting since, well, that is
what lawyers pretty much do all the time, although we typically are free to
dispense with the pretense of appearing to be neutral.

The video is like a talking version of the 9/11 kook sites. It uses
historical fact but draws conclusions from those facts that cannot fairly be
drawn.
IHeartWuzzy
2009-02-18 05:18:56 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 17 2009 10:56 PM, James L. Hankins wrote:

<snip superb post>
Post by James L. Hankins
The video is like a talking version of the 9/11 kook sites. It uses
historical fact but draws conclusions from those facts that cannot fairly be
drawn.
I watched the vid... your analysis is DEAD SOLID PERFECT.

_____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-18 06:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by IHeartWuzzy
I watched the vid... your analysis is DEAD SOLID PERFECT.
I'm still chuckling at Skillz calling you a "shitbag". That was really
clever of Kevin. You'll think twice before tangling with him again.
IHeartWuzzy
2009-02-18 12:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
Post by IHeartWuzzy
I watched the vid... your analysis is DEAD SOLID PERFECT.
I'm still chuckling at Skillz calling you a "shitbag". That was really
clever of Kevin. You'll think twice before tangling with him again.
The connection between you two is strong and apparent.

Question: When you "fellas" are streaming new Boy Scout footage back &
forth to each other, which one plays the Boy Scout and which one is the
Webelos?

_____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
John_Brian_K
2009-02-19 15:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
I'm still chuckling at Skillz calling you a "shitbag". That was really
clever of Kevin. You'll think twice before tangling with him again.
Who the fuck is Kevin?

==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK

------- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-19 16:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John_Brian_K
Post by Paul Popinjay
I'm still chuckling at Skillz calling you a "shitbag". That was really
clever of Kevin. You'll think twice before tangling with him again.
Who the fuck is Kevin?
Who the fuck is Mick?
da pickle
2009-02-18 12:38:42 UTC
Permalink
"James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by Paul Popinjay
but likely we will only hear from those that have not even attempted to
learn.
Did you see James H.'s post today regarding the video about the Federal
Reserve? Did you have any idea James was so far out there? I didn't.
Pretty scary, eh? And, like you, I've enjoyed 'talking' to him on this
newsgroup for years now, but today's comment really puts things in a
different perspective, doesn't it? It's often very difficult to get
inside other people's minds, and this is one of those times. In fact,
I'm not so sure I want to understand what's in his mind. This whole
thing gives me chills. God, our country is in so much trouble.
C'mon. Those crackpots *always* sound like crackpots trying to convince,
rather than an objective reporter trying to be neutral about the facts.
What makes you think this guy is "neutral" ... he did not seem like he was
trying to be "neutral" to me.
Post by James L. Hankins
The first clue was when he used the word "cartel" repeatedly as
descriptive of the members of The Fed. It's a loaded word and is not
accurate in the context of The Fed.
He used the word and described, many times, why he was using that word and
why it was just a descriptive word ... like a cartel.

He had some missteps with his analogy, but he was trying to simplify a
complex subject for folks that do not know details. It appears that you do
not know anything more than he does ... at least you have not shown any
greater understanding.
Post by James L. Hankins
Then he overstates The Fed's power as having total control over the money
of the country which is not accurate at all, then it just goes from there
to the kooky sooper-sekrit conspiracy meeting on the Jekyll Island, as if
the location of the meeting makes any difference and it would have been
different if they met in Washington. It's just kookery.
So, there was no meeting and it was not a secret meeting ... and you know
that because?

And you know (really really) how the fed controls the money and you can
explain it to us in a simple and understandable way.
Post by James L. Hankins
I can recognize when someone is trying hard to convince me of a load of
bullshit under the guise of investigative reporting since, well, that is
what lawyers pretty much do all the time, although we typically are free
to dispense with the pretense of appearing to be neutral.
So, you are one of those lawyers that actually fits the stereotype. Sad.

It appears that you did not watch the entire video. I did not think you
did. There was a lot more than the part that convinced you that there was
no merit to anything this guy said. You know that his research is false but
you have nothing to dispute it.
Post by James L. Hankins
The video is like a talking version of the 9/11 kook sites. It uses
historical fact but draws conclusions from those facts that cannot fairly
be drawn.
Ah, your conclusions from these unnamed historical facts are different but
as unarticulated as the facts you reference.

The creation of "money from nothing" is not a complete accurate way of
talking about why there is more money to lend than there is money to spend
... and the use of the word "money" in so many different ways (as a synonym
for "demand deposits" or "funds" or many other terms) is often confusing ...
but the truth is, a run on the banks is only prevented by "confidence" ...
paper money has no intrinsic value ... it is a promise ... your "bank
account" is not "money" ... there is no "money" in your account ... it is a
promise. It is a different sort of "paper" promise. A list of "assets"
that includes "cash" is not money ... it is just another "promise" in a
giant collection of promises that make up the "system."

I think the "system" is in a lot of trouble ... and that is not the only
trouble that faces us ... and I think that the government is charging along
with activities that will make it worse in the long run. Former
"governments" have led us to this spike, but that does not mean that the
current one cannot make things worse so that the next spike (if we get that
far) will be worse than the last one.
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-18 19:26:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
It appears that you did not watch the entire video. I did not think you
did.
I guess maybe zee leetle joke has been played on old Popinjay. James is
clearly yanking my chain. I didn't see it coming, because he was one of the
few on this cesspool of a newsgroup that I trusted. I have now completely
lost all capability to trust another human being. I am going to build a
small 10' x 8' shack somewhere in an isolated and distant forest area, and
move there.

regards,
-Paul 'Kaczynski' Popinjay
IHeartWuzzy
2009-02-18 21:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
I guess maybe zee leetle joke has been played on old Popinjay.
Indeed... by God, but you haven't figured that out yet.
Post by Paul Popinjay
I have now completely lost all capability to trust another human being.
I am going to build a small 10' x 8' shack somewhere
in an isolated and distant forest area, and
move there.
regards,
-Paul 'Kaczynski' Popinjay
While I don't know him, I did sit in a few meetings years back with David
Kaczynski, the brother that alerted the FBI about Ted. (true story)

Let me know where this shack o' yours is gonna be, mmmk?

Cuz I'd like nothing better than to possibly get word to David so he could
turn YOU in...

Ah, just think of it, paul... beautiful Florence, Colorado... hopefully
right next to Ted.

I bet those accommodations beat the livin' shit outta your kill-suites.

_______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-18 21:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by IHeartWuzzy
While I don't know him, I did sit in a few meetings years back with David
Kaczynski, the brother that alerted the FBI about Ted. (true story)
Let me know where this shack o' yours is gonna be, mmmk?
Cuz I'd like nothing better than to possibly get word to David so he could
turn YOU in...
Ah, just think of it, paul... beautiful Florence, Colorado... hopefully
right next to Ted.
I bet those accommodations beat the livin' shit outta your kill-suites.
Fucking snitch!
IHeartWuzzy
2009-02-18 21:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
Post by IHeartWuzzy
While I don't know him, I did sit in a few meetings years back with David
Kaczynski, the brother that alerted the FBI about Ted. (true story)
Let me know where this shack o' yours is gonna be, mmmk?
Cuz I'd like nothing better than to possibly get word to David so he could
turn YOU in...
Ah, just think of it, paul... beautiful Florence, Colorado... hopefully
right next to Ted.
I bet those accommodations beat the livin' shit outta your kill-suites.
Fucking snitch!
Similar to David's earlier decision involving his brother, turning you in
would be for the societal good.

I'm just sayin'...

---- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-18 22:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by IHeartWuzzy
Similar to David's earlier decision involving his brother, turning you in
would be for the societal good.
Turned in his own brother. His own flesh and blood. Couldn't hold his mud.
Sung like a canary. Dirty, stinking, rat!
IHeartWuzzy
2009-02-18 23:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
Post by IHeartWuzzy
Similar to David's earlier decision involving his brother, turning you in
would be for the societal good.
Turned in his own brother. His own flesh and blood. Couldn't hold his mud.
Sung like a canary. Dirty, stinking, rat!
Hey, look... If I had my druthers, I'd been able to convince David to
convince Ted to send YOU a package... but you know, like Mick says, ya
don't always get what ya want.

------ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
James L. Hankins
2009-02-19 04:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe Papon
"James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by Paul Popinjay
but likely we will only hear from those that have not even attempted to
learn.
Did you see James H.'s post today regarding the video about the Federal
Reserve? Did you have any idea James was so far out there? I didn't.
Pretty scary, eh? And, like you, I've enjoyed 'talking' to him on this
newsgroup for years now, but today's comment really puts things in a
different perspective, doesn't it? It's often very difficult to get
inside other people's minds, and this is one of those times. In fact,
I'm not so sure I want to understand what's in his mind. This whole
thing gives me chills. God, our country is in so much trouble.
C'mon. Those crackpots *always* sound like crackpots trying to convince,
rather than an objective reporter trying to be neutral about the facts.
What makes you think this guy is "neutral" ... he did not seem like he was
trying to be "neutral" to me.
Because he portrayed himself as a person who had pre-conceived notions of
how the Fed worked but then decided to investigate it further and was
shocked at what he found. His entire presentation was centered around the
result of his "investigation" into the matter and he portrayed it as simply
him trying to inform himself and gain knowledge.
Post by Pepe Papon
Post by James L. Hankins
The first clue was when he used the word "cartel" repeatedly as
descriptive of the members of The Fed. It's a loaded word and is not
accurate in the context of The Fed.
He used the word and described, many times, why he was using that word and
why it was just a descriptive word ... like a cartel.
But what he was describing could be described by many words. He just chose
the loaded word, which is not as accurate as others that are not loaded.
Post by Pepe Papon
He had some missteps with his analogy, but he was trying to simplify a
complex subject for folks that do not know details. It appears that you
do not know anything more than he does ... at least you have not shown any
greater understanding.
I wasn't writing an essay on how the Fed works. I was explaining why this
guy's essay was contrived bullshit.
Post by Pepe Papon
Post by James L. Hankins
Then he overstates The Fed's power as having total control over the money
of the country which is not accurate at all, then it just goes from there
to the kooky sooper-sekrit conspiracy meeting on the Jekyll Island, as if
the location of the meeting makes any difference and it would have been
different if they met in Washington. It's just kookery.
So, there was no meeting and it was not a secret meeting ... and you know
that because?
I know that even if I accept his stated facts as true, none of them support
his fantastic conclusions. It's the same schtick with all these conspiracy
nuts.
Post by Pepe Papon
And you know (really really) how the fed controls the money and you can
explain it to us in a simple and understandable way.
I know that his explanation was not accurate and that he was using facts to
support suppositions that were not supported by said facts.
Post by Pepe Papon
Post by James L. Hankins
I can recognize when someone is trying hard to convince me of a load of
bullshit under the guise of investigative reporting since, well, that is
what lawyers pretty much do all the time, although we typically are free
to dispense with the pretense of appearing to be neutral.
So, you are one of those lawyers that actually fits the stereotype. Sad.
What is that supposed to mean? It's not a stereotype, it's how the system
works (as if you don't know this). If a client hires you to represent his
interests and you take his money and then proceed to represent him as a
neutral party in the matter, then you need to be disbarred.
Post by Pepe Papon
It appears that you did not watch the entire video. I did not think you
did. There was a lot more than the part that convinced you that there was
no merit to anything this guy said. You know that his research is false
but you have nothing to dispute it.
Wrong. And wrong on an important part, too, which indicates that this is
one of your socratic tangents. I was very clear that I did not question his
research; rather, I questioned his characterization of the Fed and his
conclusions he reached based upon his research.
Post by Pepe Papon
Post by James L. Hankins
The video is like a talking version of the 9/11 kook sites. It uses
historical fact but draws conclusions from those facts that cannot fairly
be drawn.
Ah, your conclusions from these unnamed historical facts are different but
as unarticulated as the facts you reference.
Uh, no. I didn't say my conclusions would be different. I am saying that
the facts he presents to do not support his conclusions.
Post by Pepe Papon
The creation of "money from nothing" is not a complete accurate way of
talking about why there is more money to lend than there is money to spend
... and the use of the word "money" in so many different ways (as a
synonym for "demand deposits" or "funds" or many other terms) is often
confusing ... but the truth is, a run on the banks is only prevented by
"confidence" ... paper money has no intrinsic value ... it is a promise
... your "bank account" is not "money" ... there is no "money" in your
account ... it is a promise. It is a different sort of "paper" promise.
A list of "assets" that includes "cash" is not money ... it is just
another "promise" in a giant collection of promises that make up the
"system."
I think the "system" is in a lot of trouble ... and that is not the only
trouble that faces us ... and I think that the government is charging
along with activities that will make it worse in the long run. Former
"governments" have led us to this spike, but that does not mean that the
current one cannot make things worse so that the next spike (if we get
that far) will be worse than the last one.
Uh, OK. What does that have to do with the Fed kook?
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-19 05:22:50 UTC
Permalink
I was explaining why this guy's essay was contrived bullshit.
Says the guy who watched 10 minutes of it. James, you're full of it. This
guy has done his homework, some outstanding work on 1.) the Federal Reserve,
2.) the United Nations, and 3.) on the politics of cancer treatment. You
think you know it all? You don't know diddly mutherfucking squat. What a
phoney!
da pickle
2009-02-19 13:12:29 UTC
Permalink
"James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by Paul Popinjay
but likely we will only hear from those that have not even attempted to
learn.
Did you see James H.'s post today regarding the video about the Federal
Reserve? Did you have any idea James was so far out there? I didn't.
Pretty scary, eh? And, like you, I've enjoyed 'talking' to him on this
newsgroup for years now, but today's comment really puts things in a
different perspective, doesn't it? It's often very difficult to get
inside other people's minds, and this is one of those times. In fact,
I'm not so sure I want to understand what's in his mind. This whole
thing gives me chills. God, our country is in so much trouble.
C'mon. Those crackpots *always* sound like crackpots trying to
convince, rather than an objective reporter trying to be neutral about
the facts.
What makes you think this guy is "neutral" ... he did not seem like he
was trying to be "neutral" to me.
Because he portrayed himself as a person who had pre-conceived notions of
how the Fed worked but then decided to investigate it further and was
shocked at what he found. His entire presentation was centered around the
result of his "investigation" into the matter and he portrayed it as
simply him trying to inform himself and gain knowledge.
I guess I do not know what you mean by the word "neutral" ... he said what
he thinks as a result of his investigation. You apparently have a different
opinion about his conclusions. However, you have given no indication of why
you believe what you believe. I do not think you even listened to his
presentation.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
The first clue was when he used the word "cartel" repeatedly as
descriptive of the members of The Fed. It's a loaded word and is not
accurate in the context of The Fed.
He used the word and described, many times, why he was using that word
and why it was just a descriptive word ... like a cartel.
But what he was describing could be described by many words. He just
chose the loaded word, which is not as accurate as others that are not
loaded.
What simple analogy would you use and why? I think the concept of "cartel"
fits quite well, if qualified in the manner that it was qualified. The
system is very much "like" a cartel ... a cartel in which the government is
a partner.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
He had some missteps with his analogy, but he was trying to simplify a
complex subject for folks that do not know details. It appears that you
do not know anything more than he does ... at least you have not shown
any greater understanding.
I wasn't writing an essay on how the Fed works. I was explaining why this
guy's essay was contrived bullshit.
I do not think that you know how the Fed works. I do not think you know
enough to dispute this guy's conclusions. However, if you have something
more specific to support "your" conclusion, I will listen.

I have already stated that I disagreed with his comments about "the gold
standard" but that was a small part of his presentation. I also question
the reliability of listening to the movie stars that try and sell gold on
TV.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
Then he overstates The Fed's power as having total control over the
money of the country which is not accurate at all, then it just goes
from there to the kooky sooper-sekrit conspiracy meeting on the Jekyll
Island, as if the location of the meeting makes any difference and it
would have been different if they met in Washington. It's just kookery.
So, there was no meeting and it was not a secret meeting ... and you know
that because?
I know that even if I accept his stated facts as true, none of them
support his fantastic conclusions. It's the same schtick with all these
conspiracy nuts.
This sort of generalization does not advance your argument. What are your
conclusions as to the facts and what should be understood about the "money
system?" Do you agree with me that the word "money" is misused? People say
"money" all the time and they often do not mean what they think they mean?
What is "money" to you?
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
And you know (really really) how the fed controls the money and you can
explain it to us in a simple and understandable way.
I know that his explanation was not accurate and that he was using facts
to support suppositions that were not supported by said facts.
Tautological.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
I can recognize when someone is trying hard to convince me of a load of
bullshit under the guise of investigative reporting since, well, that is
what lawyers pretty much do all the time, although we typically are free
to dispense with the pretense of appearing to be neutral.
So, you are one of those lawyers that actually fits the stereotype. Sad.
What is that supposed to mean? It's not a stereotype, it's how the system
works (as if you don't know this). If a client hires you to represent his
interests and you take his money and then proceed to represent him as a
neutral party in the matter, then you need to be disbarred.
Well ... it IS a stereotype. You apparently have bought into the
stereotype.

I do NOT try and convince anyone of a load of "a load of bullshit under the
guise of investigative reporting" or any other notion of intentional
misrepresentation. I am shocked that you think the role of an attorney as a
"zealot" for his client includes intentional misrepresentation. You might
take your position as an officer of the court a little more seriously.

If I remember correctly, you do mostly criminal work. Do you allow someone
to commit perjury to convince a judge or jury of the innocence of your
client? Is any load of bullshit beneath your idea of "representing your
client?"

I represent corporations, manufacturers and insurers ... mostly defending
personal injury claims. Louisiana is a direct action state ... which means
that the insurance company is a party and the jury knows the insurance
company's name and that they have insurance for the driver or corporation.
They know who "State Farm" actually is and that it is a very large insurer
and has lots of reserves.

I always tell the jury "the truth" ... collectively, juries punish lawyers
(and their clients) if they do not tell the truth. I am surprised by the
number of lawyers that represent injured parties that think they can try to
sell "a load of bullshit" and get away with it. If there is no "liability
issue" (and there often is no liability issue), I tell the jury that the
purpose of insurance is to compensate the injured party for his or her
injuries ... not too much, but not too little either. The jury knows that
we pool our insurance premiums so that injuried people can be compensated.
They know how much they pay for insurance. If they give "too much," their
rates go up ... if they give "too little," the plaintiff is cheated our of
what he should get.

Plaintiffs (and/or their lawyers) who try and sell a load of bullshit often
suffer when they are exposed. I am surprised that you seem to think that
lawyers should actually do that.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
It appears that you did not watch the entire video. I did not think you
did. There was a lot more than the part that convinced you that there
was no merit to anything this guy said. You know that his research is
false but you have nothing to dispute it.
Wrong. And wrong on an important part, too, which indicates that this is
one of your socratic tangents. I was very clear that I did not question
his research; rather, I questioned his characterization of the Fed and his
conclusions he reached based upon his research.
But you did not question his conclusions, you just dismissed them. Not
quite the same thing. And you did not comment on anything beyond the very
beginning of the presentation. This is what leads me to your turning it off
at that point. And you still have not provided any support for your
dismissal other than distraction. You may have something you are keeping
for that support, but it would be nice to know what it was. I will listen
to other explanations.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
The video is like a talking version of the 9/11 kook sites. It uses
historical fact but draws conclusions from those facts that cannot
fairly be drawn.
Ah, your conclusions from these unnamed historical facts are different
but as unarticulated as the facts you reference.
Uh, no. I didn't say my conclusions would be different. I am saying that
the facts he presents to do not support his conclusions.
You do indeed dismiss his conclusions ... you do not, however, provide any
(not a scintilla of) support for your dismissal.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
The creation of "money from nothing" is not a complete accurate way of
talking about why there is more money to lend than there is money to
spend ... and the use of the word "money" in so many different ways (as a
synonym for "demand deposits" or "funds" or many other terms) is often
confusing ... but the truth is, a run on the banks is only prevented by
"confidence" ... paper money has no intrinsic value ... it is a promise
... your "bank account" is not "money" ... there is no "money" in your
account ... it is a promise. It is a different sort of "paper" promise.
A list of "assets" that includes "cash" is not money ... it is just
another "promise" in a giant collection of promises that make up the
"system."
I think the "system" is in a lot of trouble ... and that is not the only
trouble that faces us ... and I think that the government is charging
along with activities that will make it worse in the long run. Former
"governments" have led us to this spike, but that does not mean that the
current one cannot make things worse so that the next spike (if we get
that far) will be worse than the last one.
Uh, OK. What does that have to do with the Fed kook?
If you had listened, you might have learned something. Maybe not ... but
you would have been exposed to some ideas that you might not have thought
about. And you might temper your dismissal about that which you do not
currently know much about.

You might still disagree, but you would learn more from other sources and
have a real basis for your disagreement.
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-19 16:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
You do indeed dismiss his conclusions ... you do not, however, provide any
(not a scintilla of) support for your dismissal.
Who cares. He's shown his 'objectivity'. Dude has some serious problems.
Seriously. He's a kook!
James L. Hankins
2009-02-19 23:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
I do not think that you know how the Fed works. I do not think you know
enough to dispute this guy's conclusions. However, if you have something
more specific to support "your" conclusion, I will listen.
I didn't offer a conclusion. Nor do I have the time to sit down and write
an essay dissecting the crackpots findings in the video. I know enough
about he the Fed works to know when someone else is overreaching.
Post by da pickle
I have already stated that I disagreed with his comments about "the gold
standard" but that was a small part of his presentation. I also question
the reliability of listening to the movie stars that try and sell gold on
TV.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
Then he overstates The Fed's power as having total control over the
money of the country which is not accurate at all, then it just goes
from there to the kooky sooper-sekrit conspiracy meeting on the Jekyll
Island, as if the location of the meeting makes any difference and it
would have been different if they met in Washington. It's just kookery.
So, there was no meeting and it was not a secret meeting ... and you
know that because?
I know that even if I accept his stated facts as true, none of them
support his fantastic conclusions. It's the same schtick with all these
conspiracy nuts.
This sort of generalization does not advance your argument. What are your
conclusions as to the facts and what should be understood about the "money
system?" Do you agree with me that the word "money" is misused? People
say "money" all the time and they often do not mean what they think they
mean? What is "money" to you?
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
And you know (really really) how the fed controls the money and you can
explain it to us in a simple and understandable way.
I know that his explanation was not accurate and that he was using facts
to support suppositions that were not supported by said facts.
Tautological.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
I can recognize when someone is trying hard to convince me of a load of
bullshit under the guise of investigative reporting since, well, that
is what lawyers pretty much do all the time, although we typically are
free to dispense with the pretense of appearing to be neutral.
So, you are one of those lawyers that actually fits the stereotype.
Sad.
What is that supposed to mean? It's not a stereotype, it's how the
system works (as if you don't know this). If a client hires you to
represent his interests and you take his money and then proceed to
represent him as a neutral party in the matter, then you need to be
disbarred.
Well ... it IS a stereotype. You apparently have bought into the
stereotype.
I do NOT try and convince anyone of a load of "a load of bullshit under
the guise of investigative reporting" or any other notion of intentional
misrepresentation. I am shocked that you think the role of an attorney as
a "zealot" for his client includes intentional misrepresentation. You
might take your position as an officer of the court a little more
seriously.
If I remember correctly, you do mostly criminal work. Do you allow
someone to commit perjury to convince a judge or jury of the innocence of
your client? Is any load of bullshit beneath your idea of "representing
your client?"
I represent corporations, manufacturers and insurers ... mostly defending
personal injury claims. Louisiana is a direct action state ... which
means that the insurance company is a party and the jury knows the
insurance company's name and that they have insurance for the driver or
corporation. They know who "State Farm" actually is and that it is a very
large insurer and has lots of reserves.
I always tell the jury "the truth" ... collectively, juries punish lawyers
(and their clients) if they do not tell the truth. I am surprised by the
number of lawyers that represent injured parties that think they can try
to sell "a load of bullshit" and get away with it. If there is no
"liability issue" (and there often is no liability issue), I tell the jury
that the purpose of insurance is to compensate the injured party for his
or her injuries ... not too much, but not too little either. The jury
knows that we pool our insurance premiums so that injuried people can be
compensated. They know how much they pay for insurance. If they give "too
much," their rates go up ... if they give "too little," the plaintiff is
cheated our of what he should get.
Plaintiffs (and/or their lawyers) who try and sell a load of bullshit
often suffer when they are exposed. I am surprised that you seem to think
that lawyers should actually do that.
This is perhaps the most dishonest thing you have ever posted here. Go back
and read this again. Seriously.

I said that lawyers should not make a pretense that they are neutral. We
make arguments sometimes that we personally think lack merit, or are just
flat wrong but they best represent the position of the client. I never said
anything about fraud or making things up.
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
It appears that you did not watch the entire video. I did not think you
did. There was a lot more than the part that convinced you that there
was no merit to anything this guy said. You know that his research is
false but you have nothing to dispute it.
Wrong. And wrong on an important part, too, which indicates that this is
one of your socratic tangents. I was very clear that I did not question
his research; rather, I questioned his characterization of the Fed and
his conclusions he reached based upon his research.
But you did not question his conclusions, you just dismissed them. Not
quite the same thing. And you did not comment on anything beyond the very
beginning of the presentation. This is what leads me to your turning it
off at that point. And you still have not provided any support for your
dismissal other than distraction. You may have something you are keeping
for that support, but it would be nice to know what it was. I will listen
to other explanations.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
The video is like a talking version of the 9/11 kook sites. It uses
historical fact but draws conclusions from those facts that cannot
fairly be drawn.
Ah, your conclusions from these unnamed historical facts are different
but as unarticulated as the facts you reference.
Uh, no. I didn't say my conclusions would be different. I am saying
that the facts he presents to do not support his conclusions.
You do indeed dismiss his conclusions ... you do not, however, provide any
(not a scintilla of) support for your dismissal.
Post by James L. Hankins
Post by da pickle
The creation of "money from nothing" is not a complete accurate way of
talking about why there is more money to lend than there is money to
spend ... and the use of the word "money" in so many different ways (as
a synonym for "demand deposits" or "funds" or many other terms) is often
confusing ... but the truth is, a run on the banks is only prevented by
"confidence" ... paper money has no intrinsic value ... it is a promise
... your "bank account" is not "money" ... there is no "money" in your
account ... it is a promise. It is a different sort of "paper" promise.
A list of "assets" that includes "cash" is not money ... it is just
another "promise" in a giant collection of promises that make up the
"system."
I think the "system" is in a lot of trouble ... and that is not the only
trouble that faces us ... and I think that the government is charging
along with activities that will make it worse in the long run. Former
"governments" have led us to this spike, but that does not mean that the
current one cannot make things worse so that the next spike (if we get
that far) will be worse than the last one.
Uh, OK. What does that have to do with the Fed kook?
If you had listened, you might have learned something. Maybe not ... but
you would have been exposed to some ideas that you might not have thought
about. And you might temper your dismissal about that which you do not
currently know much about.
You might still disagree, but you would learn more from other sources and
have a real basis for your disagreement.
da pickle
2009-02-20 00:49:33 UTC
Permalink
"James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
I didn't offer a conclusion. Nor do I have the time to sit down and write
an essay dissecting the crackpots findings in the video. I know enough
about he the Fed works to know when someone else is overreaching.
Apparently, you do not know enough about the fed to show how this specific
person is overreaching.
Post by James L. Hankins
This is perhaps the most dishonest thing you have ever posted here. Go
back and read this again. Seriously.
I said that lawyers should not make a pretense that they are neutral. We
make arguments sometimes that we personally think lack merit, or are just
flat wrong but they best represent the position of the client. I never
said anything about fraud or making things up.
I was in law school a long time ago ... perhaps they no longer teach that
presenting an argument that "lacks merit" was unethical. Presenting
evidence that is "just flat wrong" and you know it was considered even worse
... likely actionable. Best representing your client does NOT include
making arguments that you feel lake merit or you know to be just flat wrong.
(And I cannot find a way to understand what you might mean by "just flat
wrong" to be something different from "untrue" ... or some other word that
is a little worse than that.) Same with a the phrase "a load of bullshit"
... sorry ... I just do NOT think that is what you should do ... nor do I
think that everyone does it. I agree that some do. They are the ones that
give lawyers a bad name.

BTW, I did not dispute that lawyers were or were not "neutral" ... I still
do not know what you might mean by your use of the word.

Being honest has nothing to do with neutrality.
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-20 01:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe Papon
"James L. Hankins"
Post by James L. Hankins
I didn't offer a conclusion. Nor do I have the time to sit down and
write an essay dissecting the crackpots findings in the video. I know
enough about he the Fed works to know when someone else is overreaching.
Apparently, you do not know enough about the fed to show how this specific
person is overreaching.
That's the same thing I just said. He don't know diddly mutherfucking
squat. See? Almost verbatim.
da pickle
2009-02-20 01:20:29 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Popinjay"
Post by Paul Popinjay
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
I didn't offer a conclusion. Nor do I have the time to sit down and
write an essay dissecting the crackpots findings in the video. I know
enough about he the Fed works to know when someone else is overreaching.
Apparently, you do not know enough about the fed to show how this
specific person is overreaching.
That's the same thing I just said. He don't know diddly mutherfucking
squat. See? Almost verbatim.
I think he does not know much about the fed. I think he did not watch the
whole video.

I also think he misspoke when he implied that presenting arguments that he
knows are unsupported or just flat wrong is somehow ethical or what "every
lawyer" does.
Paul Popinjay
2009-02-20 01:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
"Paul Popinjay"
Post by Paul Popinjay
Post by da pickle
Post by James L. Hankins
I didn't offer a conclusion. Nor do I have the time to sit down and
write an essay dissecting the crackpots findings in the video. I know
enough about he the Fed works to know when someone else is
overreaching.
Apparently, you do not know enough about the fed to show how this
specific person is overreaching.
That's the same thing I just said. He don't know diddly mutherfucking
squat. See? Almost verbatim.
I think he does not know much about the fed. I think he did not watch the
whole video.
I also think he misspoke when he implied that presenting arguments that he
knows are unsupported or just flat wrong is somehow ethical or what "every
lawyer" does.
You're right, Pickle. And I've had about enough of his shit. Fuck it,
let's put him in a kill-suite.

R***@aol.com
2009-02-18 23:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Paul

Most of RGP has no idea what/who the Trilateral Commison is. While
Playboy magazine is basically mostly for the girls, they printed one
of the first articles of the Trilateral Commisson more than 30 years
ago. People can state they read Playboy for the articles, but they
have some of the best articles of any magazine.

Talking about the Trilateral Commisssion to RGP is about the same as
making a 'silk purse from a sows ear'.

The same goes for the UFC. Helio Gracie was written about well over 30
years ago in Playboy magazine.
Post by Paul Popinjay
"According to official Trilateral Commission membership lists, there are
only 87 members from the United States (the other 337 members are from other
regions). Thus, in less than two weeks since his inauguration, Obama's
appointments encompass more than 12% of Commission's entire U.S.
membership."
http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/trilateral_commission/oba...
� a.. Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner
� b.. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice
� c.. National Security Advisor, Gen. James L. Jones
� d.. Deputy National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon
� e.. Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker
� f.. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair
� g.. Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, �Kurt M. Campbell
� h.. Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg
� i.. State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass
� j.. State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross
� k.. State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke
James L. Hankins
2009-02-19 03:26:56 UTC
Permalink
<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:d0e7d19f-f025-40d6-9dc5-***@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Paul

Most of RGP has no idea what/who the Trilateral Commison is. While
Playboy magazine is basically mostly for the girls, they printed one
of the first articles of the Trilateral Commisson more than 30 years
ago. People can state they read Playboy for the articles, but they
have some of the best articles of any magazine.

Talking about the Trilateral Commisssion to RGP is about the same as
making a 'silk purse from a sows ear'.

The same goes for the UFC. Helio Gracie was written about well over 30
years ago in Playboy magazine.

_________________________




I started watching the UFC at UFC 2. Me and my buddies couldn't believe it.
No gloves, no time limits, no rounds, no weight limits, and no rules. I've
been following MMA closely ever since.

In fact, when the UFC was held in Tulsa about 11 years ago, my friend still
had his old college journalist credentials. I slung a cameral around my
neck and be stuck those badges on and went to the press conference acting
like reporters. No one asked. I met Jim Brown, Royce, Helio was there,
Keith Hackney, Kimo, and others I can't remember. I think this was the one
where Royce triangle choked Dan Severn in spectacular fashion.

I still follow MMA and the UFC, but I am not a fan of the current rules. No
judges should be allowed in those fights. A fighter should either win or
lose. Any other result should not count either way.

I like the boring, slow grinds where fighters go man-to-man wiht no time
limits or rules. The most epic fight of all time is Royce v. Sakuraba at
Pride in 2000 when Royce challenged Sak to a match during the regular
tournament, but wanted no time limits and no rules. They had 15 minute
rounds, but no rules (in other words, a fighter could not be disqualified)
and no limits on the rounds.

That fight went on for AN HOUR AND A HALF! YouTube has it in 10 segments.
I never get tired of watching it.
R***@aol.com
2009-02-19 03:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Those first UFC fights in the early 90's were amazing. I recently read
an article that prior to the first event, Ken Shamrock was supposed to
be a big favorite. I saw the first UFC and all of Royce Gracies UFC's
and from the first one it was stated he was a huge favorite. The guy
was 6'1" and 190 lbs at best. Some of those guys were 6'9" and close
to 400 lbs, if not more. I was amazed also. I couldn't believe how
little chance the really big guys had.

If I hadn't heard about the Gracie Legacy in Brazil for decades, I'd
have thought this guy couldn't win. He was unstoppable in three of the
first 4 UFCs, being hurt in the third (I believe) and unable to
continue. He didn't fight, but was given a loss.

Chuck Norris brought the Gracies to the US. I remember Chuck Norris
from the Gardena clubs in the late 60's. He wasn't famous then. Know a
little, but not like now. One morning after the clubs closed at 5am, a
bet was made between him and friends and a bunch of guys. He stated he
could lay out 10 guys (any size) before one of them could put him on
the ground. One rule, only one at a time.

I watched as the 10 largest guys came after him one after another. I
doubt the action took 2 minutes, if that. No one was hurt (except
their pride) as he put them all on the ground like they were dominos
falling.
Post by R***@aol.com
Paul
Most of RGP has no idea what/who the Trilateral Commison is. While
Playboy magazine is basically mostly for the girls, they printed one
of the first articles of the Trilateral Commisson more than 30 years
ago. People can state they read Playboy for the articles, but they
have some of the best articles of any magazine.
Talking about the Trilateral Commisssion to RGP is about the same as
making a 'silk purse from a sows ear'.
The same goes for the UFC. Helio Gracie was written about well over 30
years ago in Playboy magazine.
_________________________
I started watching the UFC at UFC 2. �Me and my buddies couldn't believe it.
No gloves, no time limits, no rounds, no weight limits, and no rules. �I've
been following MMA closely ever since.
In fact, when the UFC was held in Tulsa about 11 years ago, my friend still
had his old college journalist credentials. �I slung a cameral around my
neck and be stuck those badges on and went to the press conference acting
like reporters. �No one asked. �I met Jim Brown, Royce, Helio was there,
Keith Hackney, Kimo, and others I can't remember. �I think this was the one
where Royce triangle choked Dan Severn in spectacular fashion.
I still follow MMA and the UFC, but I am not a fan of the current rules. �No
judges should be allowed in those fights. �A fighter should either win or
lose. �Any other result should not count either way.
I like the boring, slow grinds where fighters go man-to-man wiht no time
limits or rules. �The most epic fight of all time is Royce v. Sakuraba at
Pride in 2000 when Royce challenged Sak to a match during the regular
tournament, but wanted no time limits and no rules. �They had 15 minute
rounds, but no rules (in other words, a fighter could not be disqualified)
and no limits on the rounds.
That fight went on for AN HOUR AND A HALF! �YouTube has it in 10 segments.
I never get tired of watching it.
Senator Millionaire
2009-02-19 04:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@aol.com
Those first UFC fights in the early 90's were amazing. I recently read
an article that prior to the first event, Ken Shamrock was supposed to
be a big favorite. I saw the first UFC and all of Royce Gracies UFC's
and from the first one it was stated he was a huge favorite. The guy
was 6'1" and 190 lbs at best. Some of those guys were 6'9" and close
to 400 lbs, if not more. I was amazed also. I couldn't believe how
little chance the really big guys had.
If I hadn't heard about the Gracie Legacy in Brazil for decades, I'd
have thought this guy couldn't win. He was unstoppable in three of the
first 4 UFCs, being hurt in the third (I believe) and unable to
continue. He didn't fight, but was given a loss.
Chuck Norris brought the Gracies to the US. I remember Chuck Norris
from the Gardena clubs in the late 60's. He wasn't famous then. Know a
little, but not like now. One morning after the clubs closed at 5am, a
bet was made between him and friends and a bunch of guys. He stated he
could lay out 10 guys (any size) before one of them could put him on
the ground. One rule, only one at a time.
I watched as the 10 largest guys came after him one after another. I
doubt the action took 2 minutes, if that. No one was hurt (except
their pride) as he put them all on the ground like they were dominos
falling.
Russ, good story! Is that true? I saw the movie "Good Guys Wear Black"
and Chuck Norris canned 20 guys in 2 minutes.
John_Brian_K
2009-02-19 15:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@aol.com
I watched as the 10 largest guys came after him one after another. I
doubt the action took 2 minutes, if that. No one was hurt (except
their pride) as he put them all on the ground like they were dominos
falling.
If this is a true story you may be my new hero. I do not car care if you
are an old cheat or are crazy that is a pretty fucking awesome story.

==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
BK

_______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
John_Brian_K
2009-02-19 15:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by James L. Hankins
I started watching the UFC at UFC 2.
I started with the first and still remember seeing Pat Smith elbow some
dudes face to pieces while on top of him.

==========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
==============================
47.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
JBK

--- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...