PDA

View Full Version : Alan Grayson Schools P.J. O'Rourke on OWS



Qtec
10-08-2011, 10:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once upon a time PJ O'Rourke was thought in some circles to be a humorist. Not so much anymore. O'Rourke has a hard time getting his head around what this OccupyWallStreet thing is all about, seeing a bunch of goal-less, leaderless protesters, just a bunch of DFH's out playing bongos and smoking dope. Grayson quickly clarifies for O'Rourke why they're there, in beautifully succinct point-by-point form.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Grayson: Let me tell what they're talking about. They're complaining about the fact the Wall Street wrecked the economy three years ago and nobody's held responsible for that. Not a single person has been indicted or convicted for destroying twenty percent of our national net worth accumulated over two centuries. They're upset about the fact that wall street have iron control over economic policies of this country and that one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of wall street and the other party caters to them as well, that's the truth of the matter as you said before. And…
</span>
O'Rourke: Get the man a bongo drum, they've found their spokesman!

Grayson: If I…

O'Rourke: Get your shoes off, get a bongo drum, forget where to go to the bathroom and it's yours.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Grayson: If I am the spokesman for all the people who think we should not have twenty four million people in this country who can't find a full time job. That we should not have fifty million people who can't see a doctor when they're sick. That we shouldn't have forty seven million people of this country who need government help to feed themselves. And we shouldn't have fifteen million families who owe more on their mortgage than the value of home, OK, I'll be that spokesman..</span> </div></div> watch it. (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/econ-101-alan-grayson-schools-pj-orourke)

Q

eg8r
10-08-2011, 11:35 PM
First off let me state that this country and my home state is so much better off with this idiot out of office. Now, back to his statement...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They're upset about the fact that wall street have iron control over economic policies of this country and that one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of wall street and the other party caters to them as well, that's the truth of the matter as you said before. And…
</div></div>This is blatantly false. First he blames Wall Street for single-handedly bringing down our entire economy. That is some serious power don't you think. Then he goes on to state that Wall Street only "owns" one party and the other just "caters" to Wall Street. Follow along now, how is this enormously powerful group able to topple the economy but not get a President elected? This is the same type of BS we hear from the idiot lefties that would tell us W was the dumbest person on the planet but then give him credit for whipping them around and getting everything he wanted for 8 years.

Basically Wall Street owns both parties just like oil and any other industry that donates money.

eg8r

Qtec
10-09-2011, 12:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First off let me state that this country and my home state is so much better off with <span style='font-size: 14pt'>this idiot </span>out of office. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Early life and education

Grayson was born in the Bronx, New York. He graduated from Bronx High School of Science in 1975 and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>worked his way through Harvard College as a janitor and nightwatchman, graduating with an A.B. summa cum laude in economics in 1978.</span>[2][3][4] He was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa and was in the<span style='font-size: 17pt'> top 1% of his class</span>.[4] He returned to Harvard for graduate studies. In 1983, he earned a J.D. magna cum laude[5] from Harvard Law School and Masters of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government.[3] Additionally, he completed the course work and passed the general exams for a Ph.D. in government.[2][6]

Grayson wrote his masters thesis on gerontology and in 1986, he helped found the non-profit Alliance for Aging Research (AAR) in Washington, D.C., and served as an officer of the organization for more than twenty years.[7] </div></div>

You call him an idiot! What does that make you?









<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Now, back to his statement...

They're upset about the fact that wall street have iron control over economic policies of this country and that one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of wall street and the other party caters to them as well, that's the truth of the matter as you said before. And…

This is blatantly false. First he blames Wall Street for single-handedly bringing down our entire economy. That is some serious power don't you think.</div></div>

Why do you think 1,000s have been protesting for almost 3 weeks now?
After the crash, both parties said Wall St had to be reformed. Too big to fail and all that. The Dems came up with the Dodd-Frank Act and the GOP fought against it. Now that it has been passed, they are trying to de-fund it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Then he goes on to state that Wall Street only "owns" one party and the other just "caters" to Wall Street. Follow along now, how is this enormously powerful group able to topple the economy but not get a President elected?</div></div>

This is the point. It doesn't matter who is President, Wall St still runs the show.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This is the same type of BS we hear from the idiot lefties that would tell us W was the dumbest person on the planet <span style="color: #CC0000">he was</span> but then give him credit for whipping them around and getting everything he wanted for 8 years.<span style="color: #990000"> No. That would be the people behind him, controlling him.
</span>
Basically Wall Street owns both parties just like oil and any other industry that donates money.

eg8r </div></div>

If you own one party [ the GOP ], you only have to own a few Dems to get your way.

Q

Gayle in MD
10-09-2011, 06:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First off let me state that this country and my home state is so much better off with <span style='font-size: 14pt'>this idiot </span>out of office. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Early life and education

Grayson was born in the Bronx, New York. He graduated from Bronx High School of Science in 1975 and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>worked his way through Harvard College as a janitor and nightwatchman, graduating with an A.B. summa cum laude in economics in 1978.</span>[2][3][4] He was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa and was in the<span style='font-size: 17pt'> top 1% of his class</span>.[4] He returned to Harvard for graduate studies. In 1983, he earned a J.D. magna cum laude[5] from Harvard Law School and Masters of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government.[3] Additionally, he completed the course work and passed the general exams for a Ph.D. in government.[2][6]

Grayson wrote his masters thesis on gerontology and in 1986, he helped found the non-profit Alliance for Aging Research (AAR) in Washington, D.C., and served as an officer of the organization for more than twenty years.[7] </div></div>

You call him an idiot! What does that make you?









<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Now, back to his statement...

They're upset about the fact that wall street have iron control over economic policies of this country and that one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of wall street and the other party caters to them as well, that's the truth of the matter as you said before. And…

This is blatantly false. First he blames Wall Street for single-handedly bringing down our entire economy. That is some serious power don't you think.</div></div>

Why do you think 1,000s have been protesting for almost 3 weeks now?
After the crash, both parties said Wall St had to be reformed. Too big to fail and all that. The Dems came up with the Dodd-Frank Act and the GOP fought against it. Now that it has been passed, they are trying to de-fund it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Then he goes on to state that Wall Street only "owns" one party and the other just "caters" to Wall Street. Follow along now, how is this enormously powerful group able to topple the economy but not get a President elected?</div></div>

This is the point. It doesn't matter who is President, Wall St still runs the show.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This is the same type of BS we hear from the idiot lefties that would tell us W was the dumbest person on the planet <span style="color: #CC0000">he was</span> but then give him credit for whipping them around and getting everything he wanted for 8 years.<span style="color: #990000"> No. That would be the people behind him, controlling him.
</span>
Basically Wall Street owns both parties just like oil and any other industry that donates money.

eg8r </div></div>

If you own one party [ the GOP ], you only have to own a few Dems to get your way.

Q </div></div>

Grayson will eventualoly be re-elected, IMO.

Repubs just will not be able to deny their obstruction of a stronger recovery, and get away with it.

Elected officials, who bow down to an idiot, Norquest, who has never even held an elected office, while people like Greenspan, probably the foremost Republican of any measurable economic experience in our times, has been out there alol along tellig Republicans and everyone else, to let the Bush tax cuts expire....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alan Greenspan: 'I Stand With Allowing The Bush Tax Cuts To Expire'

Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman and registered Republican, says it's time to let go of large-scale tax cuts for the wealthy.

“If we do not get Simpson Bowles as a fallback,” Greenspan told CNBC, referring to a large-scale deficit reduction program proposed by the co-chairs of President Barack Obama’s fiscal commission, “I stand with allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. You could do it gradually, whatever. But if we think we have this luxury of waiting for a couple of years with a little stimulus now and then later tightening up. I hope the bond markets are listening.”

Greenspan’s comments come as lawmakers are wrangling over the best way to reduce the nation’s budget deficit. President Barack Obama proposed raising taxes on millionaires as part of a plan of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the budget deficit. Republican leaders responded by accusing Obama of promoting class warfare.

In addition to the budget deficit, Greenspan said debt crisis unfolding in Europe is also informing the U.S. economy.

“What’s driving the United States at the moment to a very large extent is Europe,” Greenspan told CNBC. “You can’t understand the United States at all, I think, unless you know what’s going on in Europe.”

French and German leaders were split Friday on how best to shore up European banks and prepare for a potential Greek default, according to Reuters. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are trying to come to an agreement ahead of a summit Sunday, under U.S. and market pressure over concern that failing to resolve the crisis will hinder a global economic recovery.

Still, even if the Euro zone crisis wasn’t exerting pressure on the recovery, the U.S. economy would still be growing at a slow pace, Greenspan said in the interview. The Labor Department’s announcement that the U.S. barely added enough jobs in September to keep up with population growth renewed concerns about the potential for a strong recovery.

“If we could somehow extract the goings on in Europe, I think we could see what we are seeing,” Greenspan told CNBC. “Namely, a sluggish economy but one that is continuously edging higher.”

</div></div>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/greenspan-bush-tax-cuts_n_1000260.html



<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The thoughts of another renowned economist:
</span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Confronting the Malefactors
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 6, 2011
There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.

It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters’ indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate — and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you’ve forgotten, it was a play in three acts.

In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?

Now, it’s true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don’t have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.

A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn’t make too much of the lack of specifics. It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I’ll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I’d suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment — not more tax cuts — to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.

And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today’s Republicans, who instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed “malefactors of great wealth.” Mitt Romney, for example — who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class Americans — was quick to condemn the protests as “class warfare.”

But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama’s party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.



</div></div>
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html?_r=2

Here is what Naomi Klein, no stronger to history, or to economics, had to say about the OWS folks...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Naomi Klein also praised Occupy Wall Street for going to the heart of the country's financial sector to counter the notion that there is no money to spend in America. Planting a flag at "the site of maximal abundance" showed, she said, that "it is not a scarcity problem, it's a distribution problem." She called it a "stroke of organizing genius."</span>
</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">If the Republicans think they are going to pull off this latest reversal of rfeality, and brain wash the American people to think that we weren't all robbed by Wall St. CROOKS, who got away with grand theft across the board, and that these uprisings are class warfare, they are in for a very rude awakening.

Class Warfare is actually Republican economic policies, always has been, and always will be. It's called The Shock doctrine.

Oh, and BTW, Romney's just announced who his main advisors in foreign and domestic affairs will be, and the names read like a Who's Who list from The American Enterprise Institute, nearly all of them appear on The Project For The New American Century Letter!!!!!

OMG! What a colossal disaster THAT would be!


This time their usual lies, are not going to fly...as the President said, it's called MATH!

G. </span>

eg8r
10-09-2011, 02:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You call him an idiot! What does that make you?
</div></div>I call you an idiot also, do you think that means I am equating you to a Harvard graduate? Nope, just that you are an idiot. There are many idiots out there and it doesn't matter which school they went to. Grayson is the perfect example.

eg8r

Qtec
10-10-2011, 02:24 AM
What was idiotic about what he said?

He got a standing ovation from the audience.

Q... the crowd was on their feet. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-grayson-gets-standing-ovation-while-bill-maher-panel-mocks-occupy-wall-street-hippies/)

Gayle in MD
10-10-2011, 08:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What was idiotic about what he said?

He got a standing ovation from the audience.

Q... the crowd was on their feet. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-grayson-gets-standing-ovation-while-bill-maher-panel-mocks-occupy-wall-street-hippies/) </div></div>

Ed will have no response that could qualify as an answer, as usual, because there is no there, there...in anything he writes.

Prepare for a personal attack. That's his usual forte',...as I'm sure you know.

I suppose, he has had to sharpen and increase his insults, since the invading sheep arrived....he has to work harder to stand out in the kiddie crowd.

G.

eg8r
10-10-2011, 09:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What was idiotic about what he said?

He got a standing ovation from the audience.
</div></div>Well if everyone stood and clapped I guess there is no chance he could be an idiot could he? Or everyone there fell for what the idiot said. Now back to your question...I never said that he said anything was idiotic. What I did say was that he is an idiot. I then went on to explain what I disagreed with from the quote you provided.

eg8r

eg8r
10-10-2011, 09:39 AM
LOL, I love having a troll. The funny thing is that she has the perfect voice of a troll and now she is acting like one.

eg8r

Qtec
10-11-2011, 03:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well if everyone stood and clapped I guess there is no chance he could be an idiot could he? </div></div>

Put it this way, according to the audience, you are the nutjob and I am the sane one. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

You are in the tiny minority.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I then went on to explain what I disagreed with from the quote you provided.

eg8r </div></div>

...and I replied to your post, shot it down with facts and you have no response.

Q


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you own one party [ the GOP ], you only have to own a few Dems to get your way.

Q</div></div>

LWW
10-11-2011, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What was idiotic about what he said?

He got a standing ovation from the audience.

Q... </div></div>

So did Hitler ... and your point was?

http://www.mostfreebies.com/WorldWar2/Zoom/HitlerOvation.jpg

Qtec
10-11-2011, 04:29 AM
http://prophecycomingtrue.com/images/Sermon_on_the_Mount.jpg

The link between Jesus and Hitler is that they were both addressing followers, Grayson was not.


Any other stupid arguments?

Q

cushioncrawler
10-11-2011, 06:17 AM
How Hitler defied the bankers
Many people take joy in saying Wall Street and Jewish bankers "financed Hitler." There is plenty of documented evidence that Wall Street and Jewish bankers did indeed help finance Hitler at first, partly because it allowed the bankers to get rich (as I will describe below) and partly in order to control Stalin. However, when Germany broke free from the bankers, the bankers declared a world war against Germany.

When we look at all the facts, the charge that "Jews financed Hitler" becomes irrelevant. Los Angeles Attorney Ellen Brown discusses this topic in her book Web Of Debt…


When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany.


Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private (Jewish controlled) banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.


Nothing like this had ever happened before - the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people's savings and businesses. On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international (mainly Jewish) bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power. At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany.


Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.


The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German government (not the international bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates. In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates.


Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn't backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.


Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work. Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest.


Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Jewish-owned industries. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits. (Venezuela does the same thing today when it trades oil for commodities, plus medical help, and so on. Hence the bankers are trying to squeeze Venezuela.)


Germany's economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive superhighway.


Hjalmar Schacht, a Rothschild agent who was temporarily head of the German central bank, summed it up thus… An American banker had commented, "Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We've lots of money and that's real banking." Schacht replied, "You should come to Berlin. We don't have money. That's real banking."


(Schact, the Rothschild agent, actually supported the private international bankers against Germany, and was rewarded by having all charges against him dropped at the Nuremberg trials.)


This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with the German people. Germany was rescued from English economic theory, which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned by a private and secretive banking cartel -- such as the Federal Reserve, or the Central Bank of Europe -- rather than issued by the government for the benefit of the people.


Canadian researcher Dr. Henry Makow (who is Jewish himself) says the main reason why the bankers arranged for a world war against Germany was that Hitler sidestepped the bankers by creating his own money, thereby freeing the German people. Worse, this freedom and prosperity threatened to spread to other nations. Hitler had to be stopped!

Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of C. G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolsevism and a Trotsky intimate. Rakovsky was tried in show trials in the USSR under Stalin. According to Rakovsky, Hitler was at first funded by the international bankers, through the bankers’ agent Hjalmar Schacht. The bankers financed Hitler in order to control Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Trotsky. Then Hitler became an even bigger threat than Stalin when Hitler started printing his own money.

(Stalin came to power in 1922, which was eleven years before Hitler came to power.)

Rakovsky said:
“Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the people. Can you possibly imagine what would have come if this had infected a number of other states?” (Henry Makow, "Hitler Did Not Want War," http://www.savethemales.com March 21, 2004).

Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany's remarkable transformation:

“The Nazis came to power in 1933 when the German economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” (Henry C. K. Liu, "Nazism and the German Economic Miracle," Asia Times (May 24, 2005).

In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”

These facts do not appear in any textbooks today, since Jews own most publishing companies. What does appear is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic, which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933. Today’s textbooks use this inflation to twist truth into its opposite. They cite the radical devaluation of the German mark as an example of what goes wrong when governments print their own money, rather than borrow it from private cartels.

In reality, the Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Hjalmar Schacht – the Rothschild agent who was currency commissioner for the Republic -- opposed letting the German government print its own money…

“The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany. Germany could not find any way of holding its head above the water, other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes.”

Schact echoes the textbook lie that Weimar inflation was caused when the German government printed its own money. However, in his 1967 book The Magic of Money, Schact let the cat out of the bag by revealing that it was the PRIVATELY-OWNED Reichsbank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Thus, the PRIVATE BANK caused the Weimar hyper-inflation.

Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Reichsbank was overseen by appointed government officials, but was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who sold the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale, speculators borrow something they don't own, sell it, and then "cover" by buying it back at the lower price.

Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the PRIVATELY OWNED Reichsbank (not yet under Nazi control) made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing. This currency, like U.S. currency today, was created with accounting entries on the bank's books. Then the funny-money was lent at compound interest. When the Reichsbank could not keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create marks out of nothing, and to lend them at interest. The result was runaway debt and inflation.

Thus, according to Schacht himself, the German government did not cause the Weimar hyperinflation. On the contrary, the government (under the National Socialists) got hyperinflation under control. The National Socialists put the Reichsbank under strict government regulation, and took prompt corrective measures to eliminate foreign speculation. One of those measures was to eliminate easy access to funny-money loans from private banks. Then Hitler got Germany back on its feet by having the public government issue Treasury Certificates.


Schacht , the Rotchschild agent, disapproved of this government fiat money, and wound up getting fired as head of the Reichsbank when he refused to issue it. Nonetheless, he acknowledged in his later memoirs that allowing the government to issue the money it needed did not produce the price inflation predicted by classical economic theory, which says that currency must be borrowed from private cartels.


What causes hyper-inflation is uncontrolled speculation. When speculation is coupled with debt (owed to private banking cartels) the result is disaster. On the other hand, when a government issues currency in carefully measured ways, it causes supply and demand to increase together, leaving prices unaffected. Hence there is no inflation, no debt, no unemployment, and no need for income taxes.

Naturally this terrifies the bankers, since it eliminates their powers. It also terrifies Jews, since their control of banking allows them to buy the media, the government, and everything else.

Therefore, to those who delight in saying “Jews financed Hitler,” I ask that they please look at all the facts.

cushioncrawler
10-11-2011, 06:23 AM
Cleansing of the Temple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Casting out the money changers by Giotto, 14th century.
The narrative of Jesus and the money changers, commonly referred to as the cleansing of the Temple, occurs in all four canonical gospels of the New Testament.

In this episode Jesus and his disciples travel to Jerusalem for Passover, where he expels the money changers from the Temple, accusing them of turning the Temple to a den of thieves through their commercial activities.[1][2] In the Gospel of John Jesus refers to the Temple as “my Father’s house” thus in some views making a claim to being the Son of God.[3]

This is the only account of Jesus using physical force in any of the Gospels. The narrative occurs near the end of the Synoptic Gospels (at Mark 11:15–19, 11:27–33, Matthew 21:12–17, 21:23–27 and Luke 19:45–48, 20:1–8) and near the start in the Gospel of John (at John 2:13–16). Some scholars believe that these refer to two separate incidents, given that the Gospel of John includes more than one passover.[4]

In this episode, Jesus is stated to have visited the Temple in Jerusalem, Herod's Temple, at which the courtyard is described as being filled with livestock and the tables of the money changers, who changed the standard Greek and Roman money for Jewish and Tyrian money[1] Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.[5][6]

Creating a whip from some cords, “he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. But he said to those who sold doves, ‘Get these out of here! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!’[Jn 2:13-16]”

“ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

— Matthew 21:12-13

In John, this is the first of the three times that Jesus goes to Jerusalem for the Passover, and John says that during the Passover Feast there were (unspecified) miraculous signs performed by Jesus, which caused people to believe in his name, but that he would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men.[4][7]

In Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 Jesus again accuses the Temple authorities of thieving and this time names poor widows as their victims going on to provide evidence of this in Mark 12:42 and Luke 21:2. Dove sellers were selling doves that were sacrificed by the poor who could not afford grander sacrifices and specifically by women. According to Mark 11:16, Jesus then put an embargo on people carrying any merchandise through the temple—a sanction that would have disrupted all commerce.[4][7]

Matthew says the Temple leaders questioned Jesus if he was aware the children were shouting Hosanna to the Son of David, and Jesus responded by accepting the worship of the children as valid by quoting "from the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise" from the Book of Psalms (Psalm 8:2).[4][7]

[edit] Old Testament precedentA similar incident can be found in the time of Nehemiah, when Nehemiah overturned the furniture of Tobiah the Ammonite who had, with the cooperation of Eliashib the High Priest, leased the storerooms of the temple, depriving the Levites of their rations from the offerings, and drove out Eliashib's grandson who had married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh 13).[8]

cushioncrawler
10-11-2011, 06:29 AM
http://i607.photobucket.com/albums/tt157/keithzworld2/HitlerJesus2.jpg

cushioncrawler
10-11-2011, 06:35 AM
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k39/SericeousBurden/king_of_kings_fountain1.jpg

cushioncrawler
10-11-2011, 06:37 AM
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a21/jeffymac1971/Funny%20Stuff/jesuslovesmoney.jpg

cushioncrawler
10-11-2011, 06:39 AM
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n77/Niloc14/Jesus/Jesuson20dollarbill.jpg

eg8r
10-11-2011, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Put it this way, according to the audience, you are the nutjob and I am the sane one.</div></div>Yes the same audience that fell for the lies of an idiot. I am fine with them thinking your are the sane one.

eg8r

Qtec
10-12-2011, 01:11 AM
What lies?

Q

eg8r
10-12-2011, 08:41 AM
Why should I repeat myself because your memory sucks. Go back and read.

eg8r