Apollo BBS Archive - January 1992
Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
January 1992 -> January 9
Apollo BBS Archive - January 9, 1992
Mail from Pete Fischer
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 02:20:48
[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
As you now know, Petrisko was not involved. At least, not in person!
pete
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:Hey, I know you.
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 8803
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Felix-Shooting
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 09:05:07
> A convicted criminal currently serving a prison term for armed
> robbery won $60,000 in a lawsuit. He contended that police
> used "excessive force" in shooting him when he fled the crime
> scene with shotgun in hand.
Good for the criminal! The police had no business using lethal force unless
they had some reason to believe he posed an immediate danger. A jury
apparently weighed the facts of this case and decided in the "bad guy's"
favor. There's even a U.S. Supreme Court decision (I can't remember the
plaintiff's name, but it's a Tennessee case.) to guide them.
Message: 8804
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Green's @$$
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 10:04:46
You may need to watch your @$$... but I am not in the least bit
worried. I do not play the field.... Do you?
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 8805
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Green's war
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 10:10:31
A gun war...and a knife war and a ice pic war and a rock war and
so on and so on.... Guns don't kill people by themselves... If I wanted to
kill someone... I probably would not even use a gun myself, there are MANY
otherways. If guns were banned... I bet there would be more CRIME and more
knife killings raising that number even higher. Why? Because criminals
would not fear the victems 'MIGHT' be armed and there would be more face to
face crime. The criminal of course would have a gun or a knife. The law
abiding citizen would be dead or mutilated.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 8806
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Bill 4 the criminal
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 10:22:55
What would you do with a criminal that had a shotgun in hand?
A shot gun can shoot anything from SLUGs to rock-salt. The police were
armed with hand guns. Do you know what a 'slug' can do Bill? Do you know
what buck-shot can do Bill? Do you know how quickly a person can get sight
alignment with a shot gun? If it has slugs, do you know the range?
Some jurys have been tricked into bad judgements by slick lawyers.
If you took a 'combat' shotgun class out at the range (USMA) you
might think otherwise. I would take a shotgun over a handgun where I could
'load on demand'. Or do you know what 'load on demand' means... I doubt it
and I doubt the jury did either.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif- bah...humbug!
Message: 8807
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Unbelievable stories
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 17:33:12
The problem with the woman who dropped the cigarettes into her blouse is
that her story just *could* be true. People *have* forgotten things like
that in a moment of distraction. (I've accidentally walked out of a store
with something in the past; though I did notice it and go back to pay for
it.) On the other hand, it's the easiest thing in the world for a thief to
make up a story like that. Was this woman convicted or not?
If somebody's appearance is damaged by negligence, even temporarily (and it
will take at least year and a half for nine inches of hair to grow back), I
think they're entitled to compensation. $10,000 is too high though. And
why didn't the guy see in the mirror what the dumb stylist was doing wrong?
Serious discussions about topics like the criminal who was shot are
fruitless without a lot of ifs and buts and second-guessing and assumptions,
because we haven't heard all the facts in the case. Anybody waving a
shotgun around is potentially dangerous, and I wouldn't blame a cop for
thinking it was better to be safe than sorry. But if the guy was running
away and they shot him in the back, that would be different.
Message: 8808
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Death statistics
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 17:34:54
A 32% increase in AIDS deaths for 1989 does look frightening, but against
this we have to balance the fact that AIDS usually takes several years to
kill. So a 32% increase in death rate for 1989 reflects a similar increase
in the infection rate some years earlier -- which was before a lot of the
campaigns for safe sex and so forth had really hit their stride. With AIDS,
at least it's possible to predict the maximum death rate a few years ahead.
(I say "maximum" because there's always the chance of finding more effective
treatments that would reduce this death rate.) More interesting than the
increase in AIDS deaths is the increase in the number of new people testing
HIV positive. This gives us a more up-to-date picture of what to expect.
I was interested to see that only 2,150,000 people died in 1989. I expected
to see more, out of 250 million. The population must be noticeably weighted
by younger people.
Message: 8809
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Death statistics (II
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 17:36:22
Gun deaths could be reduced all the way to zero if guns were eliminated.
But don't forget, all deaths by homicide could be reduced to zero if killers
were eliminated. Now does anyone have any *useful* suggestions?
Washington DC banned firearms ownership. Wanna guess which city has the
worst murder rate in the nation? I'll give you a clue: it begins with a
"W". New York City bans handguns, and its murder rate runs close behind.
The murder rate (including the firearms murder rate) has climbed steadily in
the UK over the past quarter century, precisely over the period that
firearms ownership has become more and more restricted.
A city in Georgia, on the other hand, experienced a drop in crime when it
passed a law *mandating* firearms ownership. In Florida, a police-sponsored
firearms training program for citizens drew a huge response, and after due
publicity also caused a drastic drop in the crime rate.
>>If we can have a drug war, why not a gun war?
After looking at the drug war, I think that question answers itself.
If anyone has a proposal for restricting gun ownership by citizens, write it
in a letter, along with the reasons why you think it might work. Put it in
an envelope addressed to PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON,
DC. Then just stick a stamp on it and drop it into the nearest wastebasket.
Message: 8810
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Question?
Subject: Cliff
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 17:38:42
I'd be interested myself to know what rock salt out of a shotgun does. I'd
imagine it could be lethal at close range. I'd also imagine it would be
very hard on barrels -- especially if you don't clean them afterwards.
Message: 8811
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: AIDS
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 18:55:32
You guys are getting all upset about the wrong figure. It's that #7
killer, diabetes you should worry about. It already has a big jump on AIDS
in the number of people it kills per year, and it is increasing at MORE THAN
%13 A YEAR. Obviously we will all be dead of diabetes long before AIDS can
kill us. We should hire a small gymnasium and get ZZ TOP to put on a
diabetes benefit concert.
t( See YOu Later,
Dean H.
Message: 8812
Author: $ Gary Jones
Category: Answer!
Subject: rock salt
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 21:31:50
don't know what the results are at close range, but it itches like heck, and
stings on application. leaves a rather interesting tattoo on the back and
behind, too.
Message: 8813
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Bill 4 the criminal
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 08:00:46
It's possible if you heard ALL the evidence in the case you *might* have a
different opinion. Newspaper reports are often not very complete. It's
possible that the guy was running all right and carrying a shotgun but that
doesn't mean he was actually threatening the officer. There may have been
other officers who could have assisted in a less damaging manner. He may
have been running into a know blind alley. If a Jury was willing to pay him
there must have been something more to the story then we have heard,
although perhaps not enough to change our or your mind about the outcome.
Message: 8814
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Guns/Wash/NY
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 08:38:48
You have given more credence to the reason why guns must be banned
nationally. Since it is obvious that guns are easy to get in Washington and
NY city we must make sure that gun ownership is criminalized in the entire
country. This way, we can arrest people who sell guns and put them in jail
for 20 years for each offense, and perhaps institute the death penalty for
big dealers in guns.
If guns are imported from foreign countries, we can work with the
governments of those countries to outlaw gun ownership and manufacture
there. Then, little by little, all guns will be destroyed worldwide.
Message: 8815
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Cliff Shoots Off
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 09:21:31
Cliff, if you, as an expert marksman and normally rational person, are not
allowed to shoot a fleeing felon, why should a police officer? That, you
see, is the key: The bad guy was FLEEING.
Message: 8816
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Guns
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 13:22:40
It's a pipe dream to imagine that "all guns will be destroyed worldwide".
Guns will always be used -- by police, byt the military. And they *will*
get into criminal hands.
Even a nationwide gun ban in the U.S. won't keep guns out of Washington.
There are very tight firearms laws in Great Britain, which is an ISLAND, yet
guns get into criminal hands there anyway.
Besides, why should the REST of the United States have to put up with
restrictions because cesspools of crime like Washington and New York can't
behave themselves? The cities made their own social problems. It's up to
them to solve them, not dump them on the rest of the country. If we have to
have a solution to guns getting into Washington from outside, then let them
put a fence around the place and check people going in and out.
Message: 8817
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Death statistics 1/7
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 13:23:49
Well, the GOOD news is that I think the Arizona Republic made an error in
the figure that Felix quoted for us. Unless they had some other measurement
in mind, the 22,082 deaths from AIDS in 1989 was not a 32% increase from the
previous year, but a 22% increase. It looks like a simple typo in the Az.R.
Green Lantern mentioned that a 32% growth rate doubles the original figure
in a little over two years, and I pointed out that the figure to be
concerned about is the increase in new infections. OK, so the increase in
death rate for 1989 was only 22% instead of 32%. I don't have a figure for
the number of new infections, though I made a guesstimate (figures marked
with a *) based on part year figures, and found the increase in new
infections might be somewhat lower: just under 17%. I've shown the table of
AIDS statistics below. But the BAD news is to follow.
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
No. diagnosed 298 1076 2933 5926 11038 17777 25987 29761 34770*
Growth factor - 2.770 2.726 2.021 1.863 1.611 1.462 1.145 1.168*
Total diagnosed 298 1374 4307 10233 21271 39048 65035 94796 129566*
No. deaths 129 440 1438 3257 6473 11046 14646 18101 22082
Growth factor - 3.411 3.268 2.265 1.987 1.706 1.326 1.236 1.220
Total deaths 129 569 2007 5264 11737 22783 37429 55530 77612
Total living 169 805 2300 4969 9534 16265 27606 39266 51954*
"Infection rate" - 6.367 3.643 2.576 2.221 1.865 1.597 1.078 0.885*
Message: 8818
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Death statistics 2/7
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 13:24:40
The rate of increase in both new infections and deaths from AIDS has been
steadily dropping, but now it seems to be bottoming out and even on the
upturn. Analyzing exactly what's happening is *extremely* complicated, and
it's made even more so by underreporting, time lags between infection and
diagnosis, the fact that AIDS patients with treatment seem to be living
longer than they used to, behavior changes, and so forth. But I think those
17% and 22% figures are misleading with respect to the future trend. I made
a stab at calculating an AIDS "infection rate" based on ratio of new cases
to infected patients left alive the previous year, and while this "infection
rate" is continuing to fall, it's more like 88% than 22%. The rate of
increase in new cases could rise to meet it in the next few years, and the
figures might look something like what's below. I tried to be pessimistic
(no drop in "infection rate"), but my assumptions may be wrong, because the
CDC's estimate of AIDS cases and deaths for 1992 looks even worse than mine.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1992 CDC est.
---- ---- ---- ---- -------------
No. diagnosed 45979 61979 88334 157603 80000
Growth factor 1.322 1.348 1.425 1.784
Total diagnosed 175545 237524 325858 483461 360000
No. deaths 27900 32200 40370 53979
Growth factor 1.263 1.154 1.254 1.337
Total deaths 105512 137712 178082 232061 260000
Total living 70033 99812 147776 251400 [100000]
Message: 8819
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Death statistics 3/7
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 13:25:43
This is all extremely rough, and there are some points I don't understand at
all: in particular, how come the CDC's estimate of total AIDS cases
diagnosed (360,000) is so high when their estimate of new cases for 1992 is
only 80,000. But it gives us some idea of the size of the problem.
What IS the problem? Simply this. It's all very well to say that AIDS
killed "only" 22,082 people in 1989, out of 100 times as many altogether.
But the two leading causes of death -- heart disease and cancer -- kill out
of all proportion to the others. Heart disease killed about 720,000;
cancer, about 490,000. Stroke came a poor third, perhaps 142,000. All
three of these are, in the main, killers of older people. I'm not saying
for one moment that we don't want to prolong people's lives, and I'm
certainly not saying we shouldn't fight cancer. Cancer is generally a far
worse death than the other two. But if you live long enough, the chances
are that one of these three is going to get you anyway!
Why is the cancer death rate up? Is this cause for concern? Not at all!
In all probability, the cancer death rate is up simply because the death
rates from heart disease and stroke are down -- and something else has to
take their place. Considering that heart disease is down 6.3% and stroke is
down 5.7% (these are *big* improvements for a single year), I'd say the fact
that cancer deaths are up only 0.2% proves conclusively that we're also
advancing in the war against cancer.
Message: 8820
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Death statistics 4/7
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 13:26:43
Lower death statistics are trumpeted in the newspaper partly because they
help pander to people's futile fantasy that maybe they're never going to
die. I'm all for eliminating cancer. But what happens if nobody dies from
heart disease or stroke any more, either? What *are* they going to die of?
A whole battery of rare things, some of them perhaps very painful? Are they
going to linger on while their bodies shut down piece by piece and they're
reduced to vegetables? Or perhaps, as the poet Rupert Brooke wrote:
And when they get to feeling old,
They up and shoot themselves, I'm told.
Well, there's a lot of worse things than controlling your own destiny.
The trouble with statistics is that even when they're not deliberately
misleading, people look at them superficially and don't think about what
they really mean.
For example, people talk about "preventing" deaths from some cause or
another. There *is no such thing* as "preventing" death. We can only
*delay* death. We may delay it by a few weeks, or a year. If we prevent
SIDS, on the other hand, we'll probably delay it for about 80 years. It's
the *untimely* deaths of otherwise healthy and happy people that are most
worth delaying. (And that does include cancer, which hits the young also.)
Message: 8821
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Death statistics 5/7
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 13:27:53
At the same time, what are the causes of "untimely" death? Trouble in the
lungs, problems in the pancreas, livers rotting away? But the leading cause
is accidents. They killed 94,000 people in 1989. Now we can chip away at
accidents here and there, but it's a pretty slow process. Between 1900 and
1987, the percentage of people killed by accidents has remained virtually
unchanged, up from 4.4% to 4.5%. That's quite amazing. What makes it more
surprising is that motor vehicle accidents, virtually nonexistent in 1900,
accounted for half of all accidental deaths in recent years -- though they
are now going down. All other types of accidents have halved during the
same time period, so that the total remains for all purposes unchanged.
Is this truly just happenstance? I think we adjust the way we conduct our
lives to some level of risk that makes us feel comfortable. The accident
rate didn't actually remain unchanged over the entire period. It increased
by about half, peaking around the thirties and forties, mainly because road
accidents were added to all the other kinds. Since then, we've worked to
reduce the other kinds. But a large number of accidents happen because we
can't waste all of our lives worrying about every piddling thing that
*might* go wrong. Besides, a life with no risk at all would be impossibly
humdrum. Many accidents happen because of risks that people consciously
choose to take, such as in some sports. When risk levels drop too low,
people actually *create* risk to make their lives more interesting. It's
probably futile to dream of total victory in the battle against accidental
death. If we eliminate road deaths, something else will take their place.
Message: 8822
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Death statistics 6/7
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 13:28:54
Another major cause of death is suicide. Suicide killed over 30,000 people
in 1989. It dropped slightly, which is good news; but it's the eighth
leading cause of death. What bothers me about suicide is that while
accidental deaths have remained the same since 1900, the suicide rate has
more than doubled. Suicide communicates the message that life is not worth
living. Apart from local fluctuations, almost all of that increase took
place between 1920 and 1940. What happened during this time that ruined so
many people's lives? The Depression? Possibly, since suicide had dipped a
little by 1960, and the 50s were a time of prosperity. But what did we lose
some time after 1920 that we've never managed to regain since then? Could
it be the power to control our own lives that government has slowly sapped
away? Whatever it is, the rising suicide rate is a vote of no confidence.
Homicide is even more worrying. It increased 4.4% in 1989, but since 1900
its rate has increased by a factor of ten overall. Yet it was common enough
in the crowded slums of the 1800s. Frontier lawlessness notwithstanding,
homicide has always been a problem of cities. The major change between 1900
and today has been the crowding of people from more rural areas into cities;
and it's still the biggest cities that have the worst crime problems today.
Finally, there's AIDS. A few years ago, it was nowhere. In 1988, it was
the 15th leading cause of death. In 1989, it was 11th. It killed as many
people as homicide did; and homicide is a grave problem that we spend a lot
of effort to combat -- along with the crime problem in general.
Message: 8823
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Death statistics 7/7
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 13:29:51
AIDS was responsible for 1% of deaths in 1989, but it caused a far greater
percentage of *untimely* deaths. And it's growing. Last year, it killed
more people than suicide. By the end of next year, it will kill more people
than road accidents. Consider the ridiculous amount of money and effort
wasted in the U.S. on trying to force people to drive unnaturally slowly.
The only real decrease in road deaths was achieved by safety improvements in
cars, and to a lesser extent, an attack on drunken driving. Tens of
millions of dollars are wasted on speed limit enforcement when other
countries of the world get by with just as good results on far less.
I can say the same ten times over about the hypocritical farce we call a
"drug war". How much money does it cost, and how many innocent people are
victimized by it? How many untimely deaths are actually delayed by it?
Against that, how many untimely deaths are *caused* by it? And why waste
effort fighting "guns"? AIDS now kills three times as many people as guns.
We don't need to shortchange cancer research to fight AIDS. If we can waste
money on "drug wars" and suchlike, we can afford to spend it instead on
research to prevent a disease that in less than five years may be the fourth
leading cause of all deaths, and the *leading* cause of all untimely deaths.
Of course, research isn't an occupation where lots of people get to throw
their weight around and persecute others, or run other people's lives for
them. Instead, it's a productive job. But apparently we'd rather spend
money on gratifying people's lust for power than on anything productive.
Message: 8824
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: War on Guns
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 13:45:52
I would like to suggest that guns are easily available in Britain because we
haven't seriously tried to get rid of drugs. With the new world order, we
should be able to get rid of guns. What should be done is a serious effort
by the US to stamp out gun manufacturing at the source.
Message: 8825
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Fire'arms
Subject: Green/last
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 14:37:50
I can MAKE a gun in a few hours.... I know other people who can make
guns better than I.... Criminals can make guns too, and even sell these.
Too think you could disarm the world and totaly do away with guns is silly!
I suppose our army won't have guns? The police? Well, then what about
knifes? Big criminals now would have an easy time of it over weaker
victims. The 'gun' has been thought of as an 'equalizer', and yet,
sometimes the guy with the knife...still wins.
You have a right to your opinion, but I really think you are in a
dream world if you think guns would vanish. I would never turn in all my
guns... so I would be a criminal... there would be more criminals then
non-criminals. You also invite the world governments to totaly enslave us.
People like you with these 'noble' ideas to disarm citizens have opened the
gates for more to be killed then would have been killed by guns in the first
place.
Guns do not cause crime... People do! There are less violent
deaths now in modern times then in the days before guns when the
Cossacks(sp) with swords and bows ran across Europe. Guns did not invent
murder or violent death. The inability to protect ones self from such
tyranny made plundering so appealing and profitable.
Message: 8826
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: guns
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 21:13:19
Hey, Roger, don't forget the "this is your brain on guns" education
campaign.
(To all of you incensed at Roger's suggestions, go back and substitute the
word 'drugs' for 'guns'. To Cliff: Many drugs are more easy to make than
guns are. Lots of them can even be GROWN and need nothing more to happen
than to have the male and female plants separated, and ...)
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit-Chat
Subject:Guns
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Guns don't kill people, God kills people.
2:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 8827
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board entered *=*
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 5298
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Bill
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 17:42:16
Do you think that opinion of the Fan Belt Installers is justified, or is a
lot of it due to turf battles?
When you switched this discussion to COSmos, I thought you were going to
tell me the "F" in "FBI" stood for something other than "Fan"...
Message: 5299
Author: $ Gary Jones
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 21:34:20
Who is Russ Whitney's dad? I know some of the Glendale Whitneys, but don't
know all their kids names.
Message: 5300
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Russ' father
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 22:44:11
Jack Whitney. His sisters (in the valley) are Sherry (spelling?) and Amy.
There may be other "Glendale Whitneys" -- these people are transplants
(about ten years ago).
Message: 5301
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Shit-Chat!
Subject: Gordon and the Force
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 09:22:10
*I* moved us to the mos? I thought you did! Oh well. I
must have uploaded my reply to the wrong SIG. We can move back
to m if you like, but not just fucking yet...
> Do you think that opinion of the Fan Belt Installers is
> justified, or is a lot of it due to turf battles?
I'm sure a lot of it is because of turf.
I have very mixed feelings about the law enforcement agencies and
officers I've worked with and I've seen enough striking similarities between
all the agencies I've had contact with to believe most of them fit the
pattern I've seen.
The vast, VAST, majority of line officers are there because they
love the work. They believe they are helping people and that's whey they
became cops. Unfortunately, by the time they're halfway through their
careers (usually at about 8 to 12 years experience) they begin to either
burn out, having been beaten down by a system that doesn't really care about
them, or have so sublimated themselves to the desire for advancement that
they will do whatever their superiors want. And what their superiors
usually want is to have their asses covered so they can retire in peace.
I suspect the FBI fits this pattern, too. I know it doesn't answer
your question, specifically, but I hope it does in a general way.
X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*
Public Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 81389
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Cliff-Falling $$
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 09:02:12
> Also, if the government as we know it should fall, gold and
> silver would still have its value. The paper you LOVE would
> have NONE... NONE NONE!!!!
I think we'd agree that the USSR has pretty much fallen and folks there are
still using rubles. Granted, they're suffering from much inflation right
now, but the rubles still represent value.
Message: 81390
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: MLK Vote
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 09:02:36
> We VOTED it down once, and we are going to get to vote on it
> again...
Does anyone know what, specifically, the new MLK initiative (or is it a
referendum?) proposes?
Message: 81391
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon-Platforms
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 09:03:09
> I would propose a party constitution that's as watertight as
> possible in requiring the elected representatives to respond to
> the expressed and recorded wishes of the members.
But then you open our government to abuse by the majority, something our
founding fathers strove mightily to avoid, both through the judiciary and
the Senate. Just because the weenies in Congress are so worried about
reelection they are already ruled by the latest poll doesn't mean we should
institute the practice.
Message: 81392
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Entertainment/Movies
Subject: Rapping Paul
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 09:03:47
> I think that there is a rather small cross section of humanity
> that even understands rap "music", and I doubt that that cross
> section carries too much weight, since they neither vote nor
> come out of their fog long enough to reach out for reality.
I hate to tell you this, Paul, but my kids listen to a fair amount of rap
music and I like some of it. There are several artists espousing good,
solid -- even traditional -- values, including D.J. Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh
Prince, and Hammer. I even likes Salt N Peppa's "Let's Talk About Sex" (I
think that was the official title.), even if it did make me a bit
uncomfortable in the presence of my 10-year-olds.
Message: 81393
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 10:40:53
We still have the protection of the U.S. Constitution itself. Nobody's
suggesting abolishing that!
Message: 81394
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Entertainment/Movies
Subject: Entertainment Tonite
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 10:41:58
No, I did NOT see Public Enemy's rap video, and I'm ticked off about that
because yesterday's newspaper said it would be aired on *Entertainment
Tonight*. When I took the unusual (for me) trouble to switch the TV on at
11:35 and watch the program, sure enough, it wasn't. I hate being lied to.
Public Enemy is quite entitled to express its opinion about Arizona. I am
sure their newly-released work is an important item of political commentary,
to those persons who form their view of world affairs from rap videos. In
the meantime, I'm pleased to hear that MLK is on the ballot once again in
November, thus giving the people of Arizona another chance to restate their
position, whatever that may be. Comment from elsewhere is welcome, but
action from the State Legislature is not.
Incidentally, my impression is that Public Enemy's video was directed
chiefly at Mecham's high-handed action in canceling the MLK holiday. If so,
they're digging up ancient history. Anything Mecham did is now irrelevant.
However, Entertainment Tonight was not a complete waste of time. I was
interested to see on this program that the UK is now revisiting the old
Bentley case with a view to a pardon. Digging up executed criminals of the
past and trying to exonerate them has become quite fashionable -- Evans and
Hanratty in England, Sacco and Vanzetti in Massachusetts, and isn't it about
time the authorities took a good look at Hauptmann? The circumstances of
Bentley's case do seem to justify reconsideration though.
Message: 81395
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Bulletins
Subject: Warning!
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 11:05:02
I don't know how many users of this board live on the west side of Phoenix,
but the following information is important to note anywhere.
I have been advised that four black men are robbing homes in the area
generally between Indian School Road and Camelback, and between 75th Avenue
and 83rd Avenue. Their method of entry is as follows: One man goes to the
rear of the house and one man to the front door, while the other two conceal
themselves near the front door. The man at the front door rings the bell
and when the homeowner answers the bad guy shoves a handgun in the
homeowner's face while all three rush in through the door. One of them goes
to a rear door and lets in the guy from the back yard. While holding the
homeowner at gunpoint they grab as much as they can and then they all
rabbit. My information does not include any vehicle seen or heard, though
there probably is one.
My information is that they have hit three or four homes in the area so far,
though no one has yet been shot. I also remember a similar modus operandi
coming out of Tempe a year or so ago, and I don't think the perpetrators
were ever caught.
The moral of the story is "Don't open your door to strangers!" And don't
hesitate to call 911 if a stranger knocks on your door -- that's how
burglars find out if a home is occupied.
Message: 81396
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Green Lantern
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 11:30:33
There you go again, compairing FRNs to Gold/Silver. What did a car
in the 60's cost you? What about in the 90's? That is INFLATION.
And once again.. I am not talking about BUYING gold or silver as an
investment. I am talking about being paid wages in a currency of real value.
Gordon's posts on 'VALUE' were fantastic! I suggest you read them
if you have not.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 81397
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Apollo/value
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 13:01:24
I read Gordon's posts. I disagree.
Message: 81398
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill/initiative
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 14:43:18
It is an initiative, and, one would hope, that it is simply put that the
state of Arizona shall designate the third Monday in January as a Martin
Luther King Jr. day, yes or no.
HOWEVER, having lived through some 29 years of Arizona politics, everything
hoped for concerning same should be hoped for with tongue firmly planted in
cheek.
Message: 81399
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill rapping me
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 14:46:50
So what's new?
Actually, all the rap "music" I have heard has been mumbled in some
language or other completely foreign and incomprehensible to me. Maybe it's
my ears, but I don't think so. I wouldn't dream of spoiling your enjoyment
of the stuff for a minute, even if it does make some sort of comment about
your tastes. (smile)
Message: 81400
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon/video
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 14:49:22
You watched the wrong thing, Gordon. Had you been watching channel 10 news,
you would have had your fill of Public Enemy quickly, since the whole damm
thing was played, beginning to end at 6 and again at 10, with a synopsis at
5, just to whet some appetites. Yuck!
Message: 81401
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Item's of interest
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 15:12:31
You all must have seen the news of Bushes recent brush with
death. Make no mistake, it was NOT a case of flu, or
anything else that simple. It was nothing less then an
attempt on his life by the BANKSTERS. Think about it..he
has presided over the ruination of a great many banks and
imprisonment of their owners (he can be excused for
protecting his son!!). And recently he has been on a
campaign to lower interest rates to lower and lower levels.
With the lower rates comes lower profits for the banks. The
BANKSTERS find that absolutely unacceptable. They would no
more hesitate to kill him then they did killing Lincoln and
JFK.
Message: 81402
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Item's of INflation
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 15:13:20
Recent news article detailed how Bush is going around the
established MEDIA and taking himself, by satelite, directly
to regional and local audiences. They have built a studio
near the WHite house for him to broadcast out of and they
line up about 10 seperate "appearances" with regional/local
newscasts and newscaster for about 3 minutes each. During
the Prime time local news they can hit all 10 in half an
hour or so. That avoids their concern of the National Media
filtering what he says as the local newscasters are so awed
by the chance to participate in a one on one session with
the pres that they are more then willing to follow any
script.
Whether that is good or bad I'll leave to each to decide
but it does conjure up the image from an old movie where the
"Leader" is drugged and kept alive just enough to prop him
up in his TV studio and have him address the nation while
the "bad guys" (who I think were aliens from outer space)
pull all the strings. Is that where we are heading???
Message: 81403
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: CLiff 1/4
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 15:14:06
From Cliff>>>
I am puzzled why so many of you seem so satisfied in getting paid in
worthless FRNs, and not minding that they will lose value rather quickly or
not minding to place these in a bank and pay taxes on the interest that does
not even keep up with inflation at times. By time you withdraw to spend
them, they won't buy nearly what they would have a few years earlier. I
guess you people don't value your labor given for these FRNs.
From Fred>>>
And I am puzzled that you seem perturbed that you are
paid in FRNs when all you have to do if you don't like them
is to go buy gold with them. I don't use FRN's to "store"
value, I use them as a medium of exchange. If I want to
store value I will take my FRN's and buy something of value
with them. I guess I could conceivably buy gold but thank
goodness I didn't 10 years ago when gold was selling for 800
an ounce!! Talk about a stable commodity......NOT.
Message: 81404
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff 2/4
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 15:14:55
Cliff Wants me to think about>>>>
I don't understand how you think we would pay taxes to buy gold when
the mere minting of gold is value added. A million dollars of gold bullion
turns out more than a million dollars in coin. And that covers the minting
costs. The Government does not buy the bullion to keep it in some safe, but
to pay it right out again as value added coin.
Think about it!
I've thought about it>>>>
So the gvt "pays it right out again"! They still had
to buy it in the first place. Follow this trail. The gvt
has no money. The citizens each have 10 ounces and there
are 10 citizens (total of 100 ounces of gold). The gvt says
"I'd like to mint some money". But the gvt has nothing with
which to pay for the gold. What they want to do is issue a
one ounce gold coin for each citizen to use as money. In
order to "buy" the necessary 10 ounces of gold to turn into
coins, they have to get some "money" somewhere and the only
place they can turn is to the citizens.
continued
Message: 81405
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff 3/4
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 15:15:53
Of course the citizens will not just hand the gold over,
they have to be sweet talked into it by something called a
TAX. The gvt has to TAX each citizen one ounce of gold.
Now since we are dealing directly with gold with no FRNs
involved, once they have TAXed the citizens they no longer
need to "buy" gold, they now have the gold they need. Now
the situation is 10 citizens, each with 9 ounces of gold,
and the gvt with 10 ounces of gold. The gvt now mints the
gold into one ounce coins. Of course, they don't just throw
the new coins out the back of a pickup truck, they use them
to BUY things the gvt needs, like paper to print tax forms
on. The act of buying those things puts the coins into
circulation and all is dandy until they have spent them all
at which point the citizens each have 10 ounces of gold
again and the gvt has none.
Then they have to TAX once again only this time they may be
paid the tax in mass gold or coin, but either way the result
is the same. It is an endless cycle. The 10 ounces just
keeps circulating over and over thru gvt hands. The gvt is
NOT going to run for free and the gold money is NOT going to
mysteriously appear out of thin air.
continued
Message: 81406
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff 4/4
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 15:16:58
If gvt finds it cannot get by on a 10% tax on the money
supply then it will, of course, raise the tax. In any
event, there is ALWAYS 5 ounces on average, under this
scenerio, that is held by the gvt. But there is nothing
stopping the gvt, even on a gold standard, from taking 2 out
of 10 ounces or 8 out of 10 ounces. And, of course, if gold
is being mined FASTER then the economy is growing then the
gold money will be worth less and less as "excess" gold
enters the marketplace of supply and demand. The converse
would also be true, if gold mining doesn't keep up with the
economys growth the the gold will become worth more per
ounce. And as the value of gold drops, gvt will have to
somehow take more of it, either as the natural effect of the
same 10% on a greater supply or by just taking a bigger bite
if 10% isn't enough.
The idea you suggest of them minting MORE in coin then
they collect in gold is simply fractionalization and is
entirely dependent on the good will of gvt to not change the
fractionalization level. But the more they fractionalize,
the more worthless the money becomes so I fail to understand
why you would support it at all. And it changes nothing
anyways. You STILL are taxed in order to provide coins.
Message: 81407
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod 1/2
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 15:17:43
Rod>>>
If the people had equal control over the dollar supply then government would
be forced to take an equal seat. Government, by eliminating something of
value to back our money supply has suckered us in and now has control.
Fred>>>
As long as gvt has the ability to TAX they have control,
period. Matters not a whit what form the money supply takes
since gvt can, thru taxes, stake their claim to whatever
amount they want thereby affecting the value of money.
Feudal lords didn't need money to control the peasents, they
set up their TAX in terms of so many chickens, so many
bushels of wheat, so many whatevers, and the people paid as
directed or they paid with their head. Money, a medium of
exchange, just makes life less complicted with or without
intrinsic value.
And speaking of intrinsic value, I failed to note in an
earlier message about gold and diamond rings, that for all
the twaddle about the "intrinsic" value of gold, people pay
FAR more then golds intrinsic value, simply because it's
shaped into a cirle that fits ones finger.
Message: 81408
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod 2/2
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 15:19:41
Rod, you said.>>>
After having lost all of our precious and semi-precious
metals we are beholden to the government that issues
worthless paper FRNs that have no value unto themselves -
not like gold and silver have. We are controlled.
Fred Asks>>
How so? I see lots of people with lots of semi-precious
metals and gems all over the place. Many have more
"investment" on their hands then I do in the bank. If you
want to own gold what is stopping you?? The gvt would be
collecting taxes with or without FRNs, gold would not
protect you from that.
Note, this and the previous message were posted in reverse order, this
should have been 1/2 and the other 2/2.
Message: 81409
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Fred
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 17:00:40
You just don't get it Fred.... Love your FRNs all you want.
-clif
Message: 81410
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Question?
Subject: Green
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 17:44:45
GL>>I read Gordon's posts. I disagree.
Are you going to tell us why?
Message: 81411
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Paul/apathy
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 17:49:14
I wonder what exactly we mean by apathy. I know the voters are "apathetic"
because they stay away in droves. If they truly are apathetic in the
literal sense of the word -- if they really don't care one way or the other
what politicians do -- then there's nothing to be done. They already are
expressing themselves politically, and very eloquently too. But if it isn't
true apathy, but something more like giving up in frustration -- defeatism,
in other words -- that's different. They *do* care. They just don't
believe they can make a difference. More to the point, they don't see how.
Message: 81412
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 18:35:17
PS>>You watched the wrong thing, Gordon.
Yeah, that's one of my problems. I don't watch enough TV.
PS>>Actually, all the rap "music" I have heard has been mumbled in some
PS>>language or other completely foreign and incomprehensible to me. Maybe
PS>>it's my ears, but I don't think so.
No, it's not a foreign language. Well, most of it isn't. It's not your
ears either. And usually their speaking apparatus is functional in itself.
The problem lies farther afield. The tongue, vocal cords, lips and other
muscles are connected to a set of motor nerves. The nerves run upwards and
backwards into the cranium, where they disappear into a bowl of chemical
soup. In the computer industry we call this "garbage in, garbage out".
It's odd to think that "rap" was supposed to be short for "rapport". Some
of these groups are good, but a lot of them suffer from the classic delusion
of foreign tourists. They think that if other people don't understand what
you're saying, it can't possibly be a communication problem. All you need
to do is say it louder.
Message: 81413
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Jury Null 24/24
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:40:17
RE: your Jury Nullification posts
I appreciate these very much, and have downloaded them for my permanent
reference file. I think they would be an excellent addition to the
ibrary, if the sysops agree. Thank you!
Message: 81414
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Inflation
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:41:20
GL> There is nothing wrong with this as long as wages keep pace with
GL> inflation. If I was making $1.10 and hour as I was when I graduated
GL> from High School, I would be spitting mad. As it is, I am not, and I
GL> don't mind a little inflation.
But wages don't keep pace with inflation. If they did, both members of a
household wouldn't *have* to work these days in order to pay the bills.
What you are calling "inflation" is the apparent devaluation of the
currency. What you should be looking at is the actual devaluation of your
labor, and the fact that you cannot lawfully acquire superior right title
and interest in what you purchase because you haven't paid any substance of
value for it, and the fact that your children and their children are going
to be in an even worse fix than people are today (if this situation
continues), and the fact that in all likelihood the whole thing is going to
come crashing down around our ears very shortly because the worthless frn
cannot be propped up much longer.
I get the feeling you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion
lately.
Message: 81415
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Easily fooled
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:42:48
FS> Who are you trying to fool?? Seingiorage and the whole "bring me a
FS> dollar and I'll give you a dollar" is a TAX pure and simple and if
FS> they aren't bringing enough "mass" to cover the amount of coins
FS> produced then they are using a fractional backing system of money.
I'm not here to "fool" anyone, Fred, but I have to admit you do seem to be
fooled. I never said Seigniorage was not a tax, pure and simple, and I
*did* imply, both in my message and with reference to yours, if I didn't say
so outright, that using a coin with a face value greater than its bullion
value was fractional backing. I also pointed out that the actual bullion
value (in U.S. dollars) was never less than 95% of its face value (in U.S.
dollars).
Now, having said that the above constitutes fractional backing, after
further thought I have to retract that aspect of my statement: Using a coin
with a face value greater than its bullion value is *not* fractional
backing, because using a coin with actual substantive value of its own
doesn't *require* government backing -- it's value in trade exists
independently of gov't so long as the standards of manufacture of the coin
are maintained, whether they are maintained by gov't or by private
individuals or companies.
Message: 81416
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: The Mint 1/2
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:44:01
FS> And even if they are NOT charged Seingiorage, they are STILL being
FS> TAXED at a 100% level anyways since they have to bring IN one "dollar"
FS> for every one "dollar" they leave with.
I hate to say this, Fred, but now you aren't making any sense at all.
People don't *have* to bring in their gold; they do it because the U.S.
dollars in gold coin (or silver coin) has greater purchasing power than the
same amount of U.S. dollars in gold bullion, even though the actual coins
have about 5% less than a U.S. dollar's worth of bullion.
Look, Fred: Let's say you brought in a thousand U.S. Dollars worth of gold
bullion -- by law that would be 25,800 grains of gold .9 fine -- to the
mint. The mint takes that gold and keeps 5% of it -- call that a tax if you
want, call it seigniorage if you want, I don't care (but legally, it is
called seigniorage). That 5%, or 1,290 grains of gold .9 fine, goes to the
U.S. Treasury. The balance of 24,510 grains of gold .9 fine is allowed with
5% copper to replace the gold removed and to improve the durability of the
coins, and then the gold is rolled out flat and 1,000 U.S. dollar coins are
punched and stamped (actually it would be 50 $20 gold pieces (Double Eagle)
or 100 $10 gold pieces (Eagle) or 200 $5 gold pieces (half Eagle), since
they don't mint single dollar coins in gold)
[Continued]
Message: 81417
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: The Mint 2/2
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:45:45
You, the gold bullion supplier, then get 1,000 U.S. dollars in gold coins
back from the mint in exchange for the 1,000 U.S. dollars in gold bullion
you supplied. In that exchange you have *lost* 5% of your gold bullion and
had it replaced with copper -- but that loss is *more* than made up for by
the greater tradeability (purchasing power), in the marketplace, of gold
coins versus gold bullion. So your actual loss is zero, and you may have
gained (usually there was a gain of about 10% over gold bullion, so your net
gain in purchasing power is normally about 5% over what you started with).
Now: the 5% kept by the gov't, that 1,290 grains of gold .9 fine, equals 50
U.S. dollars in gold bullion (1,290 divided by 25.8 = 50). The mint also
mixes that gold with 5% copper, producing a mix totaling 105%, and thus
punches and stamps out 52.50 U.S. dollars in gold coin, which then goes into
the treasury.
Who gets taxed? Only the gold bullion producer, and he makes a 5% profit
off the transaction. No one else need be taxed -- this process very nearly
fully supported the United States government for over a hundred years. How
did the money get into general circulation? By the gold producer paying his
employees and vendors with it, and they buying products and paying *their*
employees with it, and by the U.S. gov't using the gold coin in its Treasury
to pay its employees and vendors.
Message: 81418
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: The Bottom Line
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:47:21
Now, of course the minting procedure in the foregoing two messages would not
provide enough to the U.S. Treasury for the U.S. gov't to engage in all of
its modern day activities -- like welfare, HUD, HEW, foreign aid, aid to
starving pornographers, etc., etc., ad nauseum. But isn't it interesting?
It has been estimated that 74% of the statutes in the 50 U.S. Title Codes
are unConstitutional because the Constitution authorizes no such involvement
by the U.S. gov't in the activities represented by those statutes. If 74%
of the activities of the U.S. gov't were abolished, gov't could get along
just fine on the proceeds of seigniorage as described in the preceding two
messages plus whatever revenue it could obtain from the lawful application
of its taxation power over interstate commerce.
Thus you see how, Fred, the problem is *not* corrupt gov't because gov't is
always going to be as corrupt as its Treasury allows. The problem is giving
gov't an unlimited Treasury with which to further its corrupt designs on the
people. Get an honest and Constitutional monetary system as described in
the previous two messages and you will have an honest and Constitutional
government -- it cannot afford to be otherwise, and when it tries the people
will show government it cannot afford to be otherwise. On the other hand,
try to get an honest and Constitutional gov't *without* correcting the
monetary system, and even if you succeed gov't will restore its full measure
of corruption and more just as quick as the people turn their back.
Message: 81419
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: True Belief 1/2
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:48:33
BB> What you've done is make it clear that you believe what you believe
BB> simply because you believe it.
No, what I've done is make it clear that I believe what I believe
(pertaining exclusively to Mr. Lincoln's assassination) because of very
strong suspicion in favor of it. Perhaps that isn't, in itself, conclusive,
but neither is it "simply because I believe it." That very strong suspicion
against the banksters, coupled with the very strong suspicion of a material
nature in dozens of other situations, coupled with the knowledge -- not
merely the belief, but the knowledge -- of the fraudulent nature of our
current monetary system and who is getting more and more rich and powerful
off of it (the banksters, both foreign and domestic) and who is getting more
and more oppressed by it (the people who produce both the riches and the
power by their labor) -- all of this combines to produce a very compelling
reason to believe the banksters, particularly the foreign owners of the FED,
have been behind many such events in the past and are now very nearly in
full control of *every* political event, and will remain so as long as the
people walk around with their heads in the clouds giving away their labor
and then expecting their children to *pay* *it* *back*.
[Continued]
Message: 81420
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: True Belief 2/2
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:49:52
BB> That sounds like faith, to me, and truly makes you a True Believer.
Okay, whatever. But I've done a lot of research just since starting this
discussion in the last few months, and not only have I not found one single
fact or event to disprove my thesis, I have found considerable reason to
believe the problem is at least ten times worse than *I* thought it was.
So, call me a "True Believer" if you want to, but recognize that I have
presented a great deal of research data in favor of my belief, and factual
historical data (not modern day Keynesian apologists the like of
*Galbraith*, for God's sake!) is available for anyone to look up. I have
that on my side in the debate. The True Disbelievers have presented nothing
but argumentative questions and logical deductive reasoning based upon
faulty premise and sometimes faulty reasoning, yet they remain True
Disbelievers. Which among us are being more "faithful" to our belief?
Message: 81421
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Overwhelming???
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:51:07
FS> I find it difficult to show much patience with people who choose to
FS> interpet the laws in the way that best suits their own personal agenda
FS> regardless of the overwhelming legal opinion and authourity that shows
FS> them to be mostly in error.
*What* "overwhelming legal opinion and authority that shows them to be
mostly in error."? List them. Be specific, Fred. Don't just assume that
because you believe the way you do, that the courts have overwhelmingly
validated your belief, because they haven't. This comment of yours I quote
above is totally without foundation in any of your posts to date, and I
reject it.
The remainder of your post #81360 doesn't make a whole lot of sense: the
first part of the second paragraph is almost verbatim to what I said, like a
five-year-old kindergartener repeating everything that is said to him in
order to manipulate others into anger, and the last part takes off on a
tangent that doesn't make any sense at all.
If you have a viable point to make, Fred, just make it and cite some
references as a foundation for it. We don't need childish games here.
Message: 81422
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Fred/Galbraith 1/4
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:52:27
FS> I read a little bit of Galbraiths "Money" and he starts with a short
FS> history of, oddly enough, gold and bankers.
Gaah! You can read whatever kind of trash you want, Fred, but why don't you
read the works of an *economist*, like Milton Friedman, for example, instead
of a bankster- and Keynesian-apologist like Galbraith? Better yet, why
don't you read the works of Roger Sherman, who wrote the economic provisions
of the U.S. Constitution and very clearly stated his reasons why in "A
Caveat Against Injustice"?
The problem both you and Matlock (as you quoted him) have is the thing
Galbraith preys upon and takes advantage of in his promotion of Keynesian
economics: All three of you talk about the 'price' of gold, or the 'price'
of silver, and the 'price' is always denominated in some other commodity of
some value or no value. Such discussions always make the baseline for
measurement of value *something* other than gold or silver, if only for the
moment of discussion, and yet people like Galbraith *know* the great selling
point of Keynesian (debt-money) economics is the disinformation potential of
rejecting the idea of any baseline at all other than "market-forces."
By pretending that debt-money does not represent debt, and by pretending
that nothing has any intrinsic value, a universe of examples can be
Message: 81423
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Fred/Galbraith 2/4
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:53:43
generated to show how much "better" it is for a monetary system to have a
non-intrinsic so-called "value" which fluctuates with the market. It's like
the old saying, "You can prove anything with statistics." That's true as
long as you have no rules about how "statistics" are collected or massaged
for the purpose of creating a compelling argument for some ulterior motive.
And yet, in every single case, if you take the argument presented by
Galbraith and his ilk, look at *all* of the ramifications, even those
downline in future generations resulting from what we do today, which
Galbraith and his type rarely talk about or talk about only in vague, naive,
glowing terms, you cannot help but begin to get suspicious if you have an
ounce of integrity in your soul. If you then take Galbraiths' argument and
play the devil's advocate and realistically plug substance of intrinsic
value into his equation -- ANY substance of intrinsic, enduring value -- the
more obvious errors of Galbraith's Keynesian approach begin to appear.
Then, if you *really* play the devil's advocate and *reject* his notion that
nothing has any real intrinsic value, and actually apply gold and/or silver
coin *not* as "just another commodity" but as *the* baseline reference for
both the value of labor and the value of other commodities, everything falls
into place and you see just how fraudulent and
Message: 81424
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Fred/Galbraith 3/4
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:54:58
self-destructive Keynesian economics is *and* *is* *intended* *to* *be*.
You find, for example, that SURE! There have been times in various places
that a sudden influx of great quantities of gold caused "inflation" in the
prices of commodities, but that *it* *didn't* *matter* because wages went up
at the same speed AND THERE WAS NO DEBT PASSED OFF ONTO FUTURE GENERATIONS!
In other words, the same thing Green Lantern was talking about when he said
he didn't mind a little inflation as long as his wages kept up. But when it
happens to frns, EVERYONE PAYS MORE LABOR FOR THE SAME PRODUCTS AND THEIR
CHILDREN HAVE TO PAY THE LABOR BACK WITH INTEREST. When it happens to gold
and silver coins, everyone just pays more for products and they earn more in
wages -- they don't find it any harder to earn a living; they don't find it
necessary for the whole family to go to work to make ends meet; they don't
owe anything to the banksters for any privilege they have exercised; and
their children don't have to pay anything back.
Furthermore, areas removed from the center of the inflation under a gold
standard have a descending problem with inflation as the money leaves the
center of population and trickles into the rural areas. If the rate of
increase in the influx of gold or silver stops increasing, the inflation
stops and sooner or later the prices will wander up again as the medium of
Message: 81425
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Fred/Galbraith 4/4
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:56:04
exchange gets trickled throughout the community or country or region.
We had incredible "inflation" in the gold camps during the Gold Rush of
1849. But a hundred miles away, prices remained normal. Averaged out,
nationwide, we had no inflation worthy of the name, and we had NO DEBT to
pass on to future generations.
The huge inflation rate of England during the rape and plunder of the New
World probably did cause them some serious problems, but if so it was not
because of the inflation rate itself -- it was because the class-based
society prevented the lower classes from receiving wages commensurate with
the inflation rate. The nobility was keeping the gold for themselves and
not significantly improving the lot of the lower classes. That didn't
happen to any great extent in this country until the banksters got a
strangle-hold on the economy again.
If you're going to read Galbraith, for God's sake read some authors on the
legitimate side of the fence and acquire a balanced perspective.
Message: 81426
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: *Moral*????
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:56:54
FS> The moral? There's good and bad to everything including gold and
FS> bankers.
I found that comment a little startling. After everything you said, I
thought you were actually going to disparage the bankers, and rightfully so.
Then you come out with that remark! Do you actually think those bankers
did any favors for the people in all the things they did?
(By the way, in case you didn't know it, most of the "bankers" in those days
were little more than goldsmiths.)
Message: 81427
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 'Grats, Gordon
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:57:31
Gordon, I seem to be getting into the habit of congratulating you on your
very well thought out posts. Congratulations again on your discussion of
inflation and monetary policy.
Message: 81428
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Question?
Subject: Deer hunting
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 19:58:09
Anyone have any good ideas on good places to go deer hunting next fall?
Message: 81429
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: MLK
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 21:37:53
PS> It is an initiative, and, one would hope, that it is simply put that
PS> the state of Arizona shall designate the third Monday in January as a
PS> Martin Luther King Jr. day, yes or no.
No.
Message: 81430
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: TV/Rap
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 21:38:26
Boy. The way you guys have been talking, I'm sure glad I don't watch TV.
Message: 81431
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Fred - #81401
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 21:39:09
Fred: Re your message #81401.
Your are beginning to sound more and more like Matlock; that's just the kind
of odious nonsense he would pull. But I'll give you credit (if that's the
word): if you are Matlock, you succeeded in fooling me for quite a while.
Message: 81432
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff #81409
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 21:40:06
Re: Fred's messages 81403 through 81407, to Cliff and Rod,
Cliff> You just don't get it Fred.... Love your FRNs all you want.
What do you want to bet Fred reads my posts explaining how seigniorage works
in the Mint and accuses me of trying to pull one over on people because it
sounds like something for nothing?
What do you further want to bet that when he calls up the U.S. Mint and asks
them, and they tell him the same thing I told him, he's going to accuse
*THEM* of trying to pull the wool over his eyes?
Who do you think will appear the more paranoid then?
Message: 81433
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: The Flipside
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 21:41:25
FS> As long as gvt has the ability to TAX they have control, period.
Ah, but gov't doesn't have the power to tax, remember, Fred? Not a Direct
tax, Fred, not a tax on wages. "No Capitation, or other Direct, tax shall
be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore
directed to be taken." (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4) And the 16th Amendment
provided for a tax on profit, not wages, because wages are not "income,"
remember, Fred? The Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment conveyed
"no new taxing power," remember, Fred? The 16th Amendment was never
intended to apply to wages according to the Congressional Record, remember,
Fred? And the 16th Amendment was never ratified in any event, remember,
Fred? [This is my opinion based upon my research. I do not give legal
advice.]
I know you don't believe any of the above, Fred, but that figures; people
who support a fraudulent monetary system like you do *have* to support a
fraudulent and illegal tax system to go along with it, else the fraud of the
monetary system would very quickly become obvious and the people would burn
the palaces down and throw the self-appointed aristocrats into the moat.
Message: 81434
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Frns/gun control
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 21:50:26
I see great similarities between those who support the fraudulent and
illegal debt money system, like John Kenneth Galbraith (and Fred) and those
who support gun control, or if not similarities between individuals then at
least similarities in methodology.
Gun control proponents get attracted to their cause by their lack of
knowledge about guns and about the real world, and about the carnage they
see occurring around them. They start off extremely naive, and the leaders
of their movement take pains to ensure that they stay naive, and many of
them do -- a great many of them would not recognize the real world if the
gutter came up and slapped them in the face. Yet, if they actually decide
to determine the truth of the matter for themselves, it doesn't take them
very long to see that in the real world, gun control doesn't work -- indeed,
it is counter-productive. Paxton Quigley, author of "ARMED AND FEMALE" is
one of those; she worked on Kennedy's Gun Control Act of 1968 and when it
passed, she and her friends sat back and waited for the improvement in the
carnage that never came. Meanwhile, while she could see with her own eyes
that the incidence of violent crime was not improving as a result, her
leaders, her 'idols,' kept saying "oh, yes, everything is getting better, of
if it isn't, let's take it another step forward." Pretty soon she decided
to develop a little healthy skepticism and start doing her own research,
which led to the aforementioned book -- one of the best, I might add. In
other words she told her propaganda artists to back off while she looked at
the situation herself. She discovered she had been lied to.
Message: 81435
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Frns/gun control
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 21:58:35
The question of a Constitutional versus Keynesian monetary system is the
same way. "Sophomores," by definition, are "wise fools." They give life
and legitimacy to the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
They get suckered in to Keynesian economics, or gun control, and they buy it
hook line and sinker.
But sooner or later, unless there is a part of them that just must be told
what to think and do, they (sometimes, at least) wake up and start looking
at the facts and doing their own research and making their own evaluations.
That's when they learn how dumb and naive they were. That's when they learn
about the real world.
I mention this because it never fails to amaze me that those who support gun
control don't know anything about the realities of their cause, and when
they finally do find out, they stop supporting gun control -- unless they
have a financial axe of their own to grind. Likewise, those who believe in
fraudulent debt-money and Keynesian Economics don't know anything about the
realities of monetary systems or economics. When they learn what really
works, what the framers knew really works, and why, then they stop
supporting fraud -- that is, unless they have a financial and/or political
axe of their own to grind. In which case they continue to perpetrate the
fraud. Galbraith has an axe to grind; it's called wealth and power. Fred
apparently has one too, though I still think there is a possibility he might
become a junior or senior, instead of a sophomore, yet.
Message: 81436
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Question?
Subject: Gordon/81378
Date: 01/09/92 Time: 22:18:46
Shouldn't that be "leader who praught hatred" ???
Message: 81437
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Another SIG?
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 05:07:19
Could I interrupt here for just a moment to make a small suggestion? Thank
you. Maybe I am standing all alone here, out in left field with a hockey
stick in my hand, but, while these major discussions on the state of our
economy and what is being done with it or about it was, at one time,
interesting, it seems now that all has been said, most of it repeated, some
several times. Frankly, it is getting quite tiresome, and the S key on my
new keyboard is already showing signs of wear.
Would it be at all possible to open a FINancial SIG, or some such, so that
Archimedes, Fred and anyone else who is really interested in continuing this
rather wordy, multimessage debate can do so while leaving the main board
open for other things?
Just a thought. Now I'll shut up and go back to my S key.
Message: 81438
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 05:11:22
That's a very good point, Gordon. It could very well be that the general
public, taken one at a time, is more frustrated than anything else. In which
case, what is sorely needed is someone with enough charisma to draw all of
the individuals together into one humungous unit and lead us all into a more
productive era of political, economic and social peace. Any contenders in
mind?
Message: 81439
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Gordon, again
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 05:13:46
"If other people don&t understand what you're saying all you need to do is
say it louder."
Ain't that the truth?!!!
Message: 81441
Author: Hiro Watanabe
Category: Sorry, (Sniff)
Subject: No good English
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 06:40:30
So sorry. My English very bad. My teacher make me read New York Times. I
complain but in Japan nobody can hear you scleam. That was joke. You may
laugh now.
Message: 81442
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff 1/5
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 07:50:05
Cliff suggests the following in a prior post>>>
Gold and silver can also be used as a median of exchange. Gold and silver
can also be put in a bank. Gold and silver can also be invested in property
or anything else... but where it differs from FRNs.. it in itself has REAL
value.... And is not as subject to inflation as the paper stuff is. Also,
if the government as we know it should fall, gold and silver would still
have its value. The paper you LOVE would have NONE... NONE NONE!!!!
To which I respond thusly>>
I have never disagreed that Gold and Silver can be used as a Medium of
exchange. ANYTHING can be used as a medium of exchange. What you have not
presented any convincing argument for is why oh why would anyone want to
use something valuable as a mediuim of exchange when something that is
worthless works just as well?? So can we put the medium of exchange
business aside, it is totally immaterial to much of what we are discussing.
All that is necessary is that *whatever* is used is acceptable to the vast
majority of the people participating in the economic system.
As far as LOVE. I love neither FRNs or Gold. Each has it's use and I
use each appropriately.
Message: 81443
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: CLiff 2/5
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 07:51:12
Clearly paper dollars are acceptable. And I would even go
farther and suggest that when the COST of converting to a
GOLD monetary system were explained to people they would NOT
wish to convert.
As far as the idea of owning gold as some sort of greatly
benefical way of protecting the fruits of your labor, lets
look at what really might happen. And keep in mind that the
idea of "investing" gold, as one invests FRN's, is a moot
point since spending the gold you would earn to buy an
investment is exactly the same as spending FRN's to buy the
investment.
If you have two laborers who are each paid in their desired
commodity, one paid in gold (which will be figured in terms
of FRN's at the current rate, just like now) and the other
paid in FRNs and the both do exactly the same job and get
paid exactly the same, just in different money (remember
this is the real world, one doesn't get paid in 1991 FRN's
while the other gets paid in 1901 gold)...continued
Message: 81444
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff 3/5
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 07:52:10
We would have these two fellows starting out even. Now we can explore
possible different courses that could result. In one instance, they might
both be living so close to the bone that they spend it as fast as they earn
it. In that case there will be no difference at all in what each has now
or in the future.
In another possible scenerio, they might each be able to live on 85% of
their income. That leaves them each with 15% to do something with. Now
under YOUR scheme, the gold guy hangs on to his gold, cherishing it, secure
in the presumed knowledge that if an ounce of it will buy S&W 38 now it
will still buy the same S&W 38 20 years from now. The other guy takes his
15% extra and for a couple of years saves it, possibly makeing or lossing a
little in value but after, say 3 years, he still has about 40% of a years
income socked away. Then he takes those "worthless" FRN's and invests them
in some sort of income producing property/business using leverage of a loan
so that he controls and benefits from the income from the investment. If
he has chosen a good investment he finds that after 20 years has gone by he
has property worth far more then 15% times 20 years of wages (which is all
the gold guy has after 20 years)...continued
Message: 81445
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: CLiff 4/5
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 07:53:18
SO that comes to 3 years salary as an ace in the hole for the gold guy
after 20 years, assuming gold has stayed perfectly stable. In contrast,
the other fellow, who invests half a years salary every 3 years. now owns
most of the equity in his leveraged investment. Historically, I would
expect that he would double his original investment every 7 years over the
long term. So after the first 7 years his 40% of a years salary would
become 80%. After 14 years, 160%, and by 20 years it would be around 300%.
Now add to that the fact that he does the same thing every 3 years just by
saving the 15% of his salary and by the end of 20 years he has not only the
first investment at 300%, but the second one that started at year 6 and the
third one that started at year 9, and part of the fourth. His accumulated
assets now add up to at least 6 years of salary. AND because his
investment follows inflation, it is CURRENT salary, not the salary level
from when he started investing. For all your concerns about inflation,
once he makes the investment, the value of his property and the income frm
it more or less will rise and fall with everything else so inflation is not
really a concern. Remember, he is NOT dealing with FRNs under his
mattress, he gets rid of those worthless things every 3 years!!! Contrast
this investor with the gold guy who after 20 years has the grand sum of 3
years salary. Continued....
Message: 81446
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff 5/5
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 07:54:49
And the gold guys three years salary is ALL he has. It produces no
continuing income. The poor fool FRN guy has his investment almost paid
off and will be able to retire and continue to gather investment income.
And ALL this would be true even if their was NO inflation. The person
"holding" the gold will still be in a much worse position in 20 years then
the person who makes reasonable investments.
My point isn't particularly the specific amount the FRN guy comes out
ahead, it is the fact that the person who INVESTs in something is the one
who has the POTENTIAL to come out way ahead. The person who chooses
instead, to "plan" for the very unlikely event of global thermonuclear
economic meltdown by "investing" in gold, is almost a sure fire loser in
the end as he will never have more saved then whatever he can shave off
what he earns in "wages". And the event he is "planning" for is unlikely
to happen. Certainly far less likely then the chance the Investor has to
advance his net worth and the investor, by contrast, has the sky as the
limit. As the tradeoff, he does take some risk, his investment could go
sour. As I said WAY back at the beginning of this, you don't see people
get rich by accumulating and holding gold. People get rich by investing in
something. The ONLY people getting rich off gold are gold traders, they
understand that gold is nothing but another commodity to be bought low and
sold high or handled in exchange for commission.
Message: 81447
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon little
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 07:56:00
Interersting posts on value and inflation Gordon but I don't agree with
all your assumptions or conclusions. For one thing, you seem to assume
that inflation is ALWAYS the result of some gvt action and that the gvt
wants inflation. I see no basis for that assumption. In many cases, the
citizens want inflation. It all depends on what you own and what it is
specifically that is "inflating" versus what it is that's deflating. But
the idea that inflationis a hidden tax is only true if price inflation is
always more then wage inflation and that has NOT always been the case.
I think you also take too narrow a view of the economy as it seems you
are treating it as if it is a "stable" or "dead" thing. It is not. It is
constantly in a state of change and most of the time it is "expanding" in
the sense that MORE people constantly joining it and MORE goods are
constantly being added to it. At least, we can be sure that there ARE more
people. The goal generally sought is for the economy to be able to absorb
those people, for them to be able to afford goods, and therefore for more
goods to be needed. In other words, the classic expanding economy.
Economist can easily show, whether you believe them or not, that a small
inflation rate is a VERY positive way to maintain a well oiled economy and
ensure it's growth.
Message: 81448
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Cliff/Fred/last
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 08:09:52
It's a waste of time, Cliff. There's no help for the guy; he can't get his
mind unlocked from its dependency on frns. He can't see the enormous
benefit to doing everything he talks about doing, but with a medium of
exchange of intrinsic value instead of frns. He can't see that by investing
as he describes with frns, he winds up at the end owning nothing but debt --
even if the person with gold did nothing with it, he'd be better off than
that and so would the rest of the country.
Oh, well. We might as well let him learn the hard way.
Message: 81449
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Answer!
Subject: Gordon/Green
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 08:26:28
No.
Too tired.
Too lazy.
I write enough at work.
Message: 81450
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Archi/Paying Attenti
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 08:28:22
on. You're right.
Message: 81451
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon-It's My Party
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 09:17:52
> We still have the protection of the U.S. Constitution itself.
> Nobody's suggesting abolishing that!
But if the courts have so badly mangled the Constitution as some claim (and
virtually EVERYONE claims that; they only differ on specific issues), then
what protection, really, is the Constitution?
Nope. The problem with American politics today is that we have people in
Congress who fail to recognize when it is their duty to NOT do what the
voters tell them and do what they judge best for the nation as a whole. To
make them even more beholden to the "people" (whoever they are) would just
compound the problem.
Message: 81452
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Alas, Poor Paul
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 09:18:18
> Maybe it's my ears...
I believe you're suffering from audiosclerosis, hardening of the musical
tastes. Bet you haven't heard anything decent since Glenn Miller went down,
eh? [BIG grin here]
Message: 81453
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Arch is right-Sorta
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 09:19:13
> the problem is *not* corrupt gov't because gov't is always
> going to be as corrupt as its Treasury allows. The problem is
> giving gov't an unlimited Treasury with which to further its
> corrupt designs on the people. Get an honest and
> Constitutional monetary system as described in the previous two
> messages and you will have an honest and Constitutional
> government -- it cannot afford to be otherwise, and when it
> tries the people will show government it cannot afford to be
> otherwise. On the other hand, try to get an honest and
> Constitutional gov't *without* correcting the monetary system,
> and even if you succeed gov't will restore its full measure of
> corruption and more just as quick as the people turn their
> back.
It's amazing how we can agree on so much, yet agree on so little.
You're right on target here, Archimedes!
Message: 81454
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Arch Believes!
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 09:20:16
> So, call me a "True Believer" if you want to, but recognize
> that I have presented a great deal of research data in favor of
> my belief, and factual historical data...
Here we part company. I'm sorry, Archimedes, but you've presented a large
number of bits and pieces that don't add up to the conclusions you ask us to
join you in, at least not for me.
And when you begin to question the motives of those who disagree with you it
makes me doubt even more that you have the evidence needed to back up your
theories.
Message: 81455
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Politics
Subject: Archi/Fred
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 10:30:17
Yes, it is a waste of time, and I have given up on Fred as a lost cause.
He seems inable to grasp the fact that one could have the best of both
worlds with a medium of exchange of intrinsic value. In his way you *MUST*
invest, and hope your investment pays off, and that tax does not eat all the
real profit. I still say there are not enough investment opportunities for
every person in the U.S. If everyone tried to invest...payback would be
minimal at best. There are also *RISKS* in investing that can clean you
out.
The currency needs to be of value so the people of this nation can *CHOOSE*
their own way of life, liberty and freedom! Not only is currency a median
of exchange... it is also a median of stored labor.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 81456
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Politics
Subject: FRNs today
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 10:44:56
If FRNs today are such a GREAT and FANTASTIC form of exchange, then
why are we in such a mess? Why are banks failing right and left? Why are
people who are investing in bonds and other such things lossing their life
savings? After all, the Government has said all along, 'Trust us, nothing
is wrong'. This is the same government that sold (defrauded) us on the FRN
idea to begin with.
Mortgage payments are up this year. My city bill is up, my insurance
is up, the electric bill is up, the phone bills are up.... Why? Because
the damn FRN is not worth anything. My wages are down on the other hand.
Sandy is busting her butt for minimum wage.... sigh, double sigh....
Message: 81457
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Sorry, (Sniff)
Subject: Paul Savage
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 10:47:09
PS> ... while these major discussions on the state of our economy and what
PS> is being done with it or about it was, at one time, interesting, it
PS> seems now that all has been said, most of it repeated, some several
PS> times. Frankly, it is getting quite tiresome, ...
That's what happens when a discussion gets bogged down by one party totally
ignoring any aspect of the argument which disproves his position, and just
incessantly repeating the same nonsense over and over again as though it
hadn't been dissected, examined, and thoroughly disproven.
Sorry you find it so boring. I expect it is going to taper off now since it
has become clear that Fred is incapable of progressing beyond the sophomore
level of economics -- or knows better but desperately needs to defend the
infrastructure of fraud for his own reasons in the face of all evidence to
the contrary.
As I say, it will probably taper off now. But I will not allow false or
fraudulent assertions to go unchallenged, and the discussion belongs right
here -- everyone needs to know these things, or at least be exposed to them,
for their survival.
Message: 81458
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Final Message 1/4
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 10:48:26
FS> What you have not presented any convincing argument for is why oh why
FS> would anyone want to use something valuable as a mediuim of exchange
FS> when something that is worthless works just as well??
Because 1), it does *not* "work just as well." 2) it does not result in
wealth for the producers of wealth; it results in debt for the producers of
wealth. 3) it is not "worthless"; it is "WORTH" "LESS" than zero!
I am as guilty as you are of conveying the impression that frns are
"worthless," i.e., have zero value, and this has undoubtedly led to great
confusion among the observers of our discussion. I don't think it has led
to any confusion on your part because I've come to believe you know what I
am saying is true and are denying it because your perception of your
"wealth" (which is not wealth at all, but is debt) depends upon it. But
frns are *not* worthless. Frns are a *negative* value for the worker and a
positive value for the worthless bankster and debt-monger: for every frn
earned in honest labor, one U.S. dollar's worth of labor is owed to the
Federal Reserve Bank *plus* *interest*.
Read that again: FOR EVERY FRN EARNED IN HONEST LABOR, ONE U.S. DOLLAR'S
WORTH OF LABOR IS OWED TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK *PLUS* *INTEREST*.
[Continued]
Message: 81459
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Final Message 2/4
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 10:49:25
I know that a person in your position just LOVES for a person in my position
to work my tail off trying to provide for my family and get ahead in life
and improve my standard of living, because every frn I earn by my labor
means my children owe the Federal Reserve Bank one U.S. dollar's worth of
their labor plus interest. People like you make your living and improve
your standard of living by trading and investing evidence of that labor debt
and hopefully (from your point of view, not from mine) *increasing* your
holdings of debt labor which the people must eventually repay.
My position is this: my valuable labor is *my* *property*, not yours and
not the banksters' and not the gov'ts'. I *demand* the honest fruits of my
labor which is my property. I *demand* to be secure from being paid for my
labor with evidence of debt which my children -- everyone's children -- will
have to repay with *their* labor and in the process incur even greater debt
for *their* children.
[Continued]
Message: 81460
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Final Message 3/4
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 10:50:35
I think you know damned well that what I say here is true. I think you
refuse to admit it because admitting it would force you to admit that your
statement:
FS> Economist can easily show, whether you believe them or not, that a
FS> small inflation rate is a VERY positive way to maintain a well oiled
FS> economy and ensure it's growth.
and every other statement of this type you have made is an extremely slimy,
cynical, avaricious and unprincipled attempt to perpetuate the fraud of the
most massive con game scam in history from which you personally benefit and
which is destroying our country, our liberty, and is likely to destroy most
of our lives within the next ten years.
The above-quoted statement is a *lie*: A "small inflation rate" is of great
value to the banksters and debt-mongers and their gov't shills like
Galbraith who confiscate our labor and the labor of our children with it; it
does nothing for the producers of our nation but erode their ability to
maintain a living standard. This above-quoted statement is a slimy, false,
Galbraith-style come-on for those who know little or nothing about
economics, but whom Galbraith and his ilk want to keep working for the
benefit of 'the ruling class.'
[Continued]
Message: 81461
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Final Message 4/4
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 10:51:25
Yet, hope springs eternal. You *could* choose to change your mind. You
*could* choose to adopt a principled position. You *could* choose to reject
fraud and work to throw the con artists of tyranny out. The choice will
remain up to you, for now and from now on, or at least until the con game
collapses -- but if you do not, that's when it will be *your* turn to pay
the piper. And I don't think the people are going to be very gentle about
collecting.
That's all I'm going to say on this subject unless you come out with another
one of your Galbraith-style con-game come-on's designed to keep everyone
confused and enslaved, or unless someone asks a question.
Message: 81462
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: target
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 10:53:34
Thank you! Mmmm.
Message: 81463
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Cliff/Fred
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 10:54:52
Right on.
Message: 81464
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: FRNs today
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 10:55:51
Right on again.
Message: 81465
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: FRNs/Gold
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 20:24:38
RE: another sig - FRNs
I couldn't agree more - it's just a constant rehash. I don't plan
on wasting any more time on it in view of the ad hominem attacks and
invective filled messages that certain people fill the board with.
Message: 81466
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Speaking of...
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 20:25:16
Ad hominem - appealing to a person's feelings or prejudices rather then
his intellect.
Invective - Of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse:
Denuncitory. An abusive expression or speech. Insulting or abusive
language: Vituperation
Some examples from a scant 24 hours +- of Archi Medes messages:
I get the feeling you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion
lately.
I hate to say this, Fred, but now you aren't making any sense at all.
If you're going to read Galbraith, for God's sake read some authors on the
legitimate side of the fence and acquire a balanced perspective.
Your are beginning to sound more and more like Matlock; that's just the kind
of odious nonsense he would pull. But I'll give you credit (if that's the
word): if you are Matlock, you succeeded in fooling me for quite a while.
continued...(sorry to say)
Message: 81467
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 2/5
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 20:26:06
continueing.....
What do you want to bet Fred reads my posts explaining how seigniorage works
in the Mint and accuses me of trying to pull one over on people because it
sounds like something for nothing?
What do you further want to bet that when he calls up the U.S. Mint and asks
them, and they tell him the same thing I told him, he's going to accuse
*THEM* of trying to pull the wool over his eyes?
Who do you think will appear the more paranoid then?
I know you don't believe any of the above, Fred, but that figures; people
who support a fraudulent monetary system like you do *have* to support a
fraudulent and illegal tax system to go along with it, else the fraud of the
monetary system would very quickly become obvious and the people would burn
the palaces down and throw the self-appointed aristocrats into the moat.
Continues yet again.............
Message: 81468
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 3/5
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 20:26:42
continuing......
I see great similarities between those who support the fraudulent and
illegal debt money system, like John Kenneth Galbraith (and Fred) and those
who support gun control, or if not similarities between individuals then at
least similarities in methodology.
"Sophomores," by definition, are "wise fools." They give life
and legitimacy to the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Galbraith has an axe to grind; it's called wealth and power. Fred
apparently has one too, though I still think there is a possibility he might
become a junior or senior, instead of a sophomore, yet.
It's a waste of time, Cliff. There's no help for the guy;
That's what happens when a discussion gets bogged down by one party totally
ignoring any aspect of the argument which disproves his position, and just
incessantly repeating the same nonsense over and over again as though it
hadn't been dissected, examined, and thoroughly disproven.
yes, it still continues......
Message: 81469
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 4/5
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 20:27:18
It continues but it's almost over......
I expect it is going to taper off now since it has become clear that
Fred is incapable of progressing beyond the sophomore level of economics --
or knows better but desperately needs to defend the infrastructure of fraud
for his own reasons in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
As I say, it will probably taper off now. But I will not allow false or
fraudulent assertions to go unchallenged, and the discussion belongs right
here -- everyone needs to know these things, or at least be exposed to them,
for their survival.
I think you know damned well that what I say here is true.
and every other statement of this type you have made is an extremely slimy,
cynical, avaricious and unprincipled attempt to perpetuate the fraud of the
most massive con game scam in history from which you personally benefit and
which is destroying our country, our liberty, and is likely to destroy most
of our lives within the next ten years.
Continues ... but there's only one more to go......
Message: 81470
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 5/5
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 20:27:49
It finally ends.....
This above-quoted statement is a slimy, false, Galbraith-style come-on
for those who know little or nothing about economics, but whom Galbraith
and his ilk want to keep working for the benefit of 'the ruling class.'
That's all I'm going to say on this subject unless you come out with another
one of your Galbraith-style con-game come-on's designed to keep everyone
confused and enslaved, or unless someone asks a question.
Gaah! You can read whatever kind of trash you want, .......
Message: 81472
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Answer!
Subject: Fred
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 20:50:28
Fred, before you point fingers.. You might read your post 81363
where you say what we believe is just 'crap'. If you want to talk about
insulting...
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 81473
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: ((SHIELDS))
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 21:00:22
It is amazing how 'Hiro Watanabe' can log in, and answer posts
without reading posts...
This System is closed to the Public till I find out who he is.
((SHIELDS)) are at 100%
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Public Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit Chat
Subject:Hiro Watanabe
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Yes, another President Bush double died in your land. I enjoyed your short
2:but pleasant post. It is posts such as yours that makes life interesting.
3:They give us a break from the norm. Thank you.
4:
5:This reminds me of a true story. During our intense drug debate of a year
6:or two ago here on Apollo I made a rather nice little booklet using the
7:actual messages.
8:
9:But for levity I included a short message from a user such as yourself that
10:had absolutely nothing to do with the ongoing debate. It was the only such
11:message in the entire booklet, all others were were on the main subject.
12:
13:I sent many copies off to various people, council members, prison inmates,
14:citizens, etc.. And I received a reply from a fellow in an Arizona prison
15:who was doing eight years for selling marijuana. His only comment was to
16:ask me if I had any more posts from this same author, somelike much like
17:you, I might add.
18:
19:So again thank you. -Rod
20:
21:P.S. Are you perhaps any relation to the Nakasaki Watanabes?
22:
2 lines left
23:P.P.S. Take good care and I enjoyed your message.
1 line left
24:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 81474
Public Bulletin Board command:$RC
Press to abort
Message: 81473
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: ((SHIELDS))
Date: 01/10/92 Time: 21:00:22
It is amazing how 'Hiro Watanabe' can log in, and answer posts
without reading posts...
This System is closed to the Public till I fi
Message: 81474
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hiro Watanabe
Date: 01/11/92 Time: 01:25:26
Yes, another President Bush double died in your land. I enjoyed your short
but pleasant post. It is posts such as yours that make life interesting.
They give us a break from the norm. Thank you.
This reminds me of a true story. During our intense drug debate of a year
or two ago here on Apollo I made a rather nice little booklet using the
actual messages.
But for levity I included a short message from a user such as yourself that
had absolutely nothing to do with the ongoing debate. It was the only such
message in the entire booklet, all others were were on the main subject.
I sent many copies off to various people, council members, prison inmates,
citizens, etc.. And I received a reply from a fellow in an Arizona prison
who was doing eight years for selling marijuana. His only comment was to
ask me if I had any more posts from this same author, much like
you, I might add.
So again thank you. -Rod
P.S. Are you perhaps any relation to the Nakasaki Watanabes?
P.P.S. Take good care and I enjoyed your message.
Message: 81475
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Economy 101
Date: 01/11/92 Time: 01:36:29
By the way, I have perhaps 300K of messages to read, going back into last
week. On top of that I have been super busy. In fact today I was doing a
job when my pager went off and the female voice said: "Help, I locked my
keys in my car and the engine is running, please call me as soon as possible
at (Tel# )." Okay, so I imediately went to the nearest phone and dialed
the number. A recording came on informing me that if I wished to make a
call that I might try dialing 1 + area code. I re-dialed the number
thinking I may have dialed wrong. Again the same recording. So, I then
dialed 1 + area code and the number. This time a recording informed me that
the number I was dialing was not a long distance call.
So, what happened is this: Many phones located at convenience markets and
the like can be used to dial out but will not process incoming calls.
This girl was most probably at one of these phones.
About twenty minutes later my pager went off again and the same female voice
was pleading that I call as her engine was running. She gave the same
number. For the hell of it I tried again with the same results.
There was nothing I could do. I wonder how it turned out?
If you ever find yourself in this position, at a bank of phones, call from
one to the other to test for ringing capability. Then use that one. -Rod
Message: 81476
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Econ. 102 1/2
Date: 01/11/92 Time: 01:39:44
Let's all take a vacation from economics for a period. In that way we each
can go over what was discussed. I know that I was made aware of useful
knowledge and I know that all hasn't completely 'jelled'. This process
takes a while.
Rod
Content of this site is ©
Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.