Posted on 04/12/2007 7:28:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
You're right. Henry Waxman and Ted Kennedy don't get to tell the Fed where to set interest rates or how fast to grow the money supply. How will our Republic survive?
Whoever owns the federal reserve OWNS America..
Oh please. The "owners" of the Federal Reserve don't get to vote on the Fed Funds Rate. They don't get to vote on the growth of the money supply. They don't get to keep the "profits" of the Fed. How exactly do they "OWN America"?
Huh?
some kinds of stock in those Banks YOU CANNOT BUY..
What kind of stock? Freemason stock? Illuminati stock?
Bank of America earned a nearly 18% return on equity last year. I'll bet they wish they could buy a lot more of that 6% stock so they could drag down their returns. LOL!
LoL... maybe you are as dumb as you look..
It'll probably be as funny as the rest of your posts.
No...
LOL!
some kinds of stock in those Banks YOU CANNOT BUY..
I'll bet this keeps you up at night. We don't know why......and you won't tell us. It must be really scary!!!
I recommend you quit while you’re behind....
I have to get some sleep so don’t expect any more replies from me today, but rest assured, I’ll be back to view your reply early tomorrow morning!
Now what would you call that?
From your very first post to me, you were dissembling by attempting to tear down the wording of every post I made. You made no sense, but I hung in there attempting to explain the obvious. You didn't have the knowledge to counter my comments, so you tried to turn them into a logic lesson, something you have no ability to do. I saw later that you were part of this ridiculous tax and fed protest group, and then understood your motives. I was warned privately by two posters who apparently know your nefarious motives and style, but tried nevertheless to give you the benefit of the doubt. No more. As I said, you might consider quitting while you're behind....so as not to get any "behinder"....
From your very first post to me, you were dissembling by attempting to tear down the wording of every post I made.
That is your opinion. Is that what you consider "attacking" you to be? ROTFLOL! And it wasn't "every" post you made by a long shot. Exaggeration isn't helping you.
You made no sense, but I hung in there attempting to explain the obvious.
Thanks for your opinion. Perhaps it's just you.
And don't forget, you changed your "obvious" (All laws are "do such and such or else".) to maybe I was right after all (Perhaps there are a few exceptions, but not many.) so that "argument" is BS too.
You didn't have the knowledge to counter my comments, so you tried to turn them into a logic lesson, something you have no ability to do.
Another snipe at my intelligence I see. It isn't the first time so it's no big deal. (see "where you attacked me" above if you can't follow that train of logic)
I saw later that you were part of this ridiculous tax and fed protest group, and then understood your motives.
And how is that? Simply by stating that a certain movie was good?
I was warned privately by two posters who apparently know your nefarious motives and style, but tried nevertheless to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, I'm scared now that two whole posters disagree with me. Just what do they claim my "nefarious motives" are?
As I said, you might consider quitting while you're behind....so as not to get any "behinder"....
So in other words you can't find where I "attacked you first" so you go off on this tangential spiel to try to extricate yourself from the hole that you've dug for yourself.
I don't see myself getting "behinder" at all.
Back up your claim...show me where I "attacked" you "first".
"Disagree" is probably not the correct word. It appeared more like ridicule to me. But then you seem to be the one who is interested in word construction rather than substance.
And how is that? Simply by stating that a certain movie was good?
No. Nor is it just your inability to objectively look at it and challenge its points, but more because this thread is nothing new to you.
so you go off on this tangential spiel
That you have the gall to use that term with your pathetic attack on nothing more than word construction having absolutely nothing to do with the thread is nothing short of amazing. Though had I listened to those who knew you better, I would have written you off immediately....as a tangential spielmeister!
The faster you run, the behinder you get....
It appeared more like ridicule to me.
Neither their ridicule, nor yours, bothers me in the least. I notice they don't do so publicly. Have you stopped to consider why that is?
BTW, since they didn't really claim, after all, that I had "nefarious motives" is that 'all your doing'?
Yes, I've noticed, which for your own self image is probably a good thing.
I notice they don't do so publicly. Have you stopped to consider why that is?
Could I suggest embarrassment at even recognizing you?
BTW, since they didn't really claim, after all, that I had "nefarious motives" is that 'all your doing'?
Well, either you are totally oblivious to what we were actually discussing on the thread, or your motive was to somehow tear up the construction of my sentences as your way of arguing back, which would be the nefarious motive. But to answer your assumption, no the others also recognized that tactic of yours.
Shouldn’t you be in school today? Ah, you teach public school! Should have known.
It’s really a simple thing...show me where I “attacked” you “first”, Dissembler. (to put on a false appearance : conceal facts, intentions, or feelings under some pretense)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.