Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Oy Vey...what a coincidence!

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Sardonic Observer Jewboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    9,003
    Thanks
    4,615
    Thanked 6,611 Times in 3,650 Posts

    Oy Vey...what a coincidence!

    Truth is chased from many villages.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Jewboo For This Useful Post:

    Neuro (26th November 2017)

  3. #2
    Great Value Carrots
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,421
    Thanks
    2,756
    Thanked 2,220 Times in 1,146 Posts

    Re: Oy Vey...what a coincidence!

    Kinda points at Nixon must have been a Jew.

  4. #3
    Dangerous Donald Neuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Absurdistan
    Posts
    20,553
    Thanks
    8,263
    Thanked 7,123 Times in 4,649 Posts

    Re: Oy Vey...what a coincidence!

    Quote Originally Posted by hoarder View Post
    Kinda points at Nixon must have been a Jew.
    In real terms I think the gold standard was already abandoned by Rosenfeldt in '33, as he banned private possession of gold, and devalued the dollar from 1/20th of an ounce of gold to 1/35th. But he was certainly a Jew.

    Nixon only did what he had to do, or perhaps what he was told he had to do. The dollar had been further devalued in the 60's and keeping the gold pegged exchange rate mechanism, would only have resulted in US getting into another Great Depression, and at the same time losing all its gold to its trading partners. Sure the option was to have devalued the US dollar again against gold, but Nixon wasn't alone, the whole world abandoned the gold standard at the same time.

    Nixon was forced out disgraced. Perhaps that is an indication he is not a Jew?
    Cultural Marxism: -The idea that good, hard working, white people should pay for those who are not, and thus in the name of equality create the conditions for their own genetic annihilation

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Neuro For This Useful Post:

    Bigjon (26th November 2017)

  6. #4
    Great Value Carrots
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,421
    Thanks
    2,756
    Thanked 2,220 Times in 1,146 Posts

    Re: Oy Vey...what a coincidence!

    Quote Originally Posted by Neuro View Post
    In real terms I think the gold standard was already abandoned by Rosenfeldt in '33, as he banned private possession of gold, and devalued the dollar from 1/20th of an ounce of gold to 1/35th. But he was certainly a Jew.
    Agreed

    Nixon only did what he had to do, or perhaps what he was told he had to do.
    Could be. But remember that the mechanisms Jews used to get Rosenfedlt elected were still in place when Nixon got elected.
    Nixon was forced out disgraced. Perhaps that is an indication he is not a Jew?
    Some anti-Jewish quotes are attributed to Nixon and they may be true, however none of them were revealing nor harmed Jews so it leads me to suspect it was an act which only served to further Jewish victim-status and to out any internal anti-Semitism. In the end, I think "cui bono" points to Nixon being a Jew. Besides he sure had odd features. We will never know for sure.

  7. #5
    Electrum TroyOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 210 Times in 113 Posts

    Re: Oy Vey...what a coincidence!

    The US has been under Central Bank control for most of its history:

    http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/gen...ted-states.php

    Central Banking in the United States
    The history of central banking in the United States does not begin with the Federal Reserve. The Bank of the United States received its charter in 1791 from the U.S. Congress and was signed by President Washington. The Bank's charter was designed by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, modeling it after the Bank of England, the British central bank.

    The Bank met with considerable controversy. Agrarian interests were opposed to the Bank on the grounds that they feared it would favor commercial and industrial interests over their own, and that it would promote the use of paper currency at the expense of gold and silver specie (Kidwell, 54). Ownership of the Bank was also an issue. By the time the Bank's charter was up for renewal in 1811, about 70 percent of its stock was owned by foreigners. Although foreign stock had no voting power to influence the Bank's operations, outstanding shares carried an 8.4 percent dividend. Another twenty year charter, it was argued, would result in about $12 million in already scarce gold and silver being exported to the bank's foreign owners (Hixson, 115).

    Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson believed the Bank was unconstitutional because it was an unauthorized extension of federal power. Congress, Jefferson argued, possessed only delegated powers which were specifically enumerated in the constitution. The only possible source of authority to charter the Bank, Jefferson believed, was in the necessary and proper clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). However, he cautioned that if the clause could be interpreted so broadly in this case, then there was no real limit to what Congress could do. Then, curiously, in the memorandum in which he articulated his thoughts on this matter, Jefferson advised that if the President felt that the pros and cons of constitutionality seemed about equal, then out of respect to the Congress which passed the legislation the President could sign it (Dunne, 17-19). James Madison said the Bank was "condemned by the silence of the constitution" (Symons, 14).

    Hamilton conceeded that the constitution was silent on banking. He asserted, however, that Congress clearly had the power to tax, to borrow money, and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Would it be reasonable for Congress to charter a corporation to assist in carrying out these powers? He argued that the necessary and proper clause gave Congress the power to enact any law which was necessary to execute its powers. A "necessary" law in this context Hamilton did not take to mean one that was absolutely indispensable. Instead, he argued that it meant a law that was "needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to." Then Hamilton offered a proposed rule of discretion: "Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State or of any individual?" (Dunne, 19). Hamilton's arguments carried the day and convinced President Washington.

    The Bank of the United States had both public and private functions. Its most important public function was to control the money supply by regulating the amount of notes state banks could issue, and by transferring reserves to different parts of the country. It was also the depository of the Treasury's funds. This was an important function because, as later experience would prove, without a central bank, the Treasury's deposits were placed in private commercial banks on the basis of political favoritism. The Bank of the U.S. was also a privately owned, profit-seeking institution. It competed with state banks for deposits and loan customers. Because the Bank was both setting the rules and competing in the marketplace especially irritated state banks, and they joined with agrarian interests and Jeffersonians in opposition to the Bank. The Bank was supervised by the Secretary of the Treasury who could inspect all the Bank's transactions and accounts, except those of private individuals, and order audits on demand (Ibid, 11-13). The Bank's ownership was set by $10 million in capital, divided into 25,000 shares of voting stock with a par value of $400 each. About 80 percent of the stock was sold to the public with the remainder capitalized by the federal government. No individual could own more than 30 shares. Shares were also sold to foreigners, although the Bank's charter did not grant them voting rights (Phalle, 43).

  8. #6
    Platinum
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,078
    Thanks
    138
    Thanked 466 Times in 318 Posts

    Re: Oy Vey...what a coincidence!


  9. #7
    Iridium
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    7,848
    Thanks
    5,576
    Thanked 4,649 Times in 2,735 Posts

    Re: Oy Vey...what a coincidence!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jewboo View Post
    similar graph would show the shifting of dc revenue from import tariffs to taxes on US WAGES ala the 'income' tax (bonus that WAGES don't meet the historical definition of income)

    team chump revived the import tariff talk -- which was a third rail. of course team skype killed it off. but still...the conversation began. which is more than we can say for the previous decades -- when 'free trade' was being rammed down our throats from all directions

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •