Conspiracy vs Naked Fact

[Poniiboi]

It intrigues me to see how people in general can refuse to see past their own noses when it comes to thinking critically with politics. Facts are simply ignored if they do not fit a certain viewpoint and people will actually persist in an outright lie even to their physical detriment to uphold an ego.

The main criticism levelled at anyone who is willing to face naked facts head on is that of a "conspiracy theorist" as if they are somehow wrong for refusing the veil of wilful stupidity.

I get it; the individual faces overwhelming odds in the face of government clampdowns in the form of discarded rights, taxes, resources. Everyone is feeling the squeeze. The mind prefers to ignore information that does not immediately affect its well being; however, certain theories you may not be considering may actually be affecting your immediate well being.

Your life may truly be best served through the delusion of government as your friend, taxes as an unquestionable necessity, etc. etc. If it is, you are certain to fight tooth and nail against any viewpoint to the contrary. I know that I do best when I face naked facts, use them to my advantage and live a life of luxury, not pain and want. So I guess I'm not speaking to the people who prefer the delusion because I simply don't want to be around those types of people. I'm speaking to the people who haven't decided yet. You will do better in your personal life if you are not deluded.

For instance: I can't wait to see how many people call me a "conspiracy theorist" for simply stating the FACT that the Federal Reserve that we all pay taxes to is a private bank, simply because that is a fact that is most often brought to the public's attention as backing for a conspiracy speculation. Here we go. Social experiment.

Ahem. The Federal Reserve that we all pay taxes to is a private bank.

Go.

[Camarohusky]

Facts are only half of reality. They need to be interpreted and placed in a story in order to be of any real use.

There are many out who claim that the mere use of facts makes their story the wtruth, and that's just plain false. Give me a set of facts and I can paint at least two stories or you, both valid. Heck, look at the 9/11 Truthers. They have some accurate facts (I stress the word some). Yet their story is completely and utterly ridiculous. The mere use of facts hasn't made them tell the truth anymore than when a civil defendant uses facts to lie their way out of liability.

In short, facts while helping to build the truth, do not automatically make a story truth. A small enough or vague enough set of facts can be used to support damn near any story. Even a strong and tight set of facts can tell numerous different stories.

[Poniiboi]

At 5/21/13 08:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Yet their story is completely and utterly ridiculous.

Fine, I'll bite. Let's say I'm a truther. How is it ridiculous to say that this government was involved in the attack when

1. it is well known that this government has falsified facts and participated in similar attacks in the past AKA Gulf of Tolken AND MANY OTHERS, and
2. those same elements of government DO serve to benefit by participating in such an attack?

No speculation, please. You tell me why your government with blood on its hands since the Civil War is all of a sudden blameless in an attack that allows it to have more power at the expense of the proletariat.

Note: I refuse any argument that brings in any speculation or unverifiable details that I did not specifically mention that have been used by any so called Truther. For instance: If you negate my argument based on some "controlled demolition" statement, your statements have no merit because I didn't mention anything about a controlled demolition, because I don't know what that looks like. You are not in a discussion with a general movement here, but an individual who is NOT looking at unverifiable details. I'm looking at the final results.

[BrianEtrius]

At 5/21/13 06:15 AM, Poniiboi wrote: For instance: I can't wait to see how many people call me a "conspiracy theorist" for simply stating the FACT that the Federal Reserve that we all pay taxes to is a private bank, simply because that is a fact that is most often brought to the public's attention as backing for a conspiracy speculation. Here we go. Social experiment.

Ahem. The Federal Reserve that we all pay taxes to is a private bank.

Go.

Well, first off, it's not the FED's not a private bank in the traditional sense, it's private in the idea that its appointees are nonpartisan, because the last thing we all want is the economy to be taken advantage of in the short gain by politicians. Second we don't pay taxes to the FED, and we don't pay much of their payroll either, in fact, they make about 90% back from investing and trading their own goods. Third, as it relates back to the first, do you know why we like having an independent central bank? If not, go bury your head in a ditch and read some basic monetary policy by Fisher and then come back to the grown up table.

So basically once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Example fail. Try again next time!

[leanlifter1]

At 5/21/13 08:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There are many out who claim that the mere use of facts makes their story the wtruth, and that's just plain false. Give me a set of facts and I can paint at least two stories or you, both valid. Heck, look at the 9/11 . They have some accurate facts (I stress the word some).

If you had more working knowledge in the Steel Trades and metallurgy instead of a theoretical academic background then you would know that the Twin Towers are impossible to crumble from an Airplane hit. Aluminum and Jet Fuel are no match for 2" thick structural steel plate box beams x6 I believe. See it takes an oxy/fuel or plasma arc cutting tool to cut or at the very leased weaken the integrity of structural steel and jet fuel in not nearly hot enough or the right tool for the job. The planes that hit the towers were equivalent to little more than a pop can filled with lighter fluid thrown at a parked car.

[Poniiboi]

At 5/21/13 12:24 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 5/21/13 06:15 AM, Poniiboi wrote: For instance: I can't wait to see how many people call me a "conspiracy theorist" for simply stating the FACT that the Federal Reserve that we all pay taxes to is a private bank, simply because that is a fact that is most often brought to the public's attention as backing for a conspiracy speculation. Here we go. Social experiment.

Ahem. The Federal Reserve that we all pay taxes to is a private bank.

Go.

Well, first off, it's not the FED's not a private bank in the traditional sense, it's private in the idea that its appointees are nonpartisan, because the last thing we all want is the economy to be taken advantage of in the short gain by politicians. Second we don't pay taxes to the FED, and we don't pay much of their payroll either, in fact, they make about 90% back from investing and trading their own goods. Third, as it relates back to the first, do you know why we like having an independent central bank? If not, go bury your head in a ditch and read some basic monetary policy by Fisher and then come back to the grown up table.

1. You're right. It's not completely private because only other large corporations who receive money from government when they fail may own stock in it. So it's not private, it's SUPER private.

2. You're right, we don't pay taxes directly to the bank. They're too smart to have that direct a trail. We pay (well, you do, because I employ a helluva accountant) interest on loans that fractional reserve banking can then lend back to us at 20-30 times the original amount, so we pay interest on money that isn't even there. Call it a tax, don't call it a tax. I'm not interested in semantics. I'm interested in keeping money that I earn and I don't get to when fucktards like you give trillions of dollars to banks when they fail and devalue my dollars because you're too stupid to see that your philosophy doesn't work for real business.

Note: I am not against fractional reserve banking in and of itself; however, the system does not work when institutions receive welfare for overreaching on that privilege. They should have been allowed to fail, they weren't, so I don't care what your dumbass has to say about the legal ownership of the bank - the people who should not have money still have it and if that doesn't twirk your opinion, then you're just a bug that needs to be stepped on. Ownership is just another semantic term, just as there is NO private ownership in property in America though you may say you own your house. Eminent domain backed by the force of faggit police make that word "ownership" completely irrelevant when REAL WORLD FUCKING SITUATIONS HAPPEN.

3. It doesn't take a fucking dissertation on Fisher to refute a basic idea. Fisher's ideas work on paper just like communism. If not for human greed and the whole too big to fail fiasco, I might be inclined to agree in a central bank. However, Fisher is just a more astute version of you polishing up shitty ideas with big words.

4. It's hard to read if I have my head in a hole. It's dark in there. Stupid.

So once again, though you may have some idea of the theory behind an idea, you have no idea how to apply those ideals fairly in the real world. Just because a certain philosophy was the one that you happened to study doesn't make it right, you silly, stupid jackass.

Fucks like you get tripped up by words instead of using them to your advantage. Trust, I'm only arguing with you because I'm on a break from work. The real truth lies in who ends up with the better life, and I assure you that will be me.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/21/13 11:36 AM, Poniiboi wrote: 1. it is well known that this government has falsified facts and participated in similar attacks in the past AKA Gulf of Tolken AND MANY OTHERS, and

Has no bearing on the evidence for your claim in this case.

2. those same elements of government DO serve to benefit by participating in such an attack?

Speculative and circumstantial. A potential motive is not evidence and does not stand on its own.

[Poniiboi]

At 5/21/13 03:18 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 5/21/13 11:36 AM, Poniiboi wrote: 1. it is well known that this government has falsified facts and participated in similar attacks in the past AKA Gulf of Tolken AND MANY OTHERS, and

Has no bearing on the evidence for your claim in this case.

2. those same elements of government DO serve to benefit by participating in such an attack?

Speculative and circumstantial. A potential motive is not evidence and does not stand on its own.

Half wit. What are you, a first year law student?
First of all, you're not even right with the LAW. Past events most certainly have bearing on present cases, thus the entire idea of precedent and lawyers being able to bring up past behaviors as establishment of a pattern of behavior in a courtroom. Bitch ass.

Second, you don't even know who the fuck I'm talking about, going "speculative and circumstantial." You didn't even ask which members of government stood to benefit! You're just throwing out words, you moron. Go look some more up.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/21/13 06:10 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Half wit. What are you, a first year law student?
First of all, you're not even right with the LAW. Past events most certainly have bearing on present cases, thus the entire idea of precedent and lawyers being able to bring up past behaviors as establishment of a pattern of behavior in a courtroom. Bitch ass.

Second, you don't even know who the fuck I'm talking about, going "speculative and circumstantial." You didn't even ask which members of government stood to benefit! You're just throwing out words, you moron. Go look some more up.

Oh, pardon me. I was under the impression that you wanted to present your case in an even handed and level headed manner. Apparently I was mistaken.

[Poniiboi]

At 5/21/13 07:41 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 5/21/13 06:10 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Half wit. What are you, a first year law student?
First of all, you're not even right with the LAW. Past events most certainly have bearing on present cases, thus the entire idea of precedent and lawyers being able to bring up past behaviors as establishment of a pattern of behavior in a courtroom. Bitch ass.

Second, you don't even know who the fuck I'm talking about, going "speculative and circumstantial." You didn't even ask which members of government stood to benefit! You're just throwing out words, you moron. Go look some more up.

Oh, pardon me. I was under the impression that you wanted to present your case in an even handed and level headed manner. Apparently I was mistaken.

I could care less about having a civil discussion. More semantics. Just get your point across if you have one, because you said nothing in that last statement except that you're a crybaby.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/21/13 07:56 PM, Poniiboi wrote: I could care less about having a civil discussion. More semantics. Just get your point across if you have one, because you said nothing in that last statement except that you're a crybaby.

What I said was that you presented no evidence.

The fact that conspiracies have been conducted by the US government in the past is not evidence of this supposed conspiracy. If a person is standing trial for theft, the fact that that person has been convicted of theft in the past has no value in determining that person's guilt in the present case. It is not evidence.

You hinted at a motive, that some people in the government might benefit from such a plot. This is also not evidence.

If you would like to present some evidence in support of your claim, you're free to do so. Your childish name-calling only serves to further discredit your argument.

[leanlifter1]

At 5/21/13 06:56 PM, Profanity wrote:

= replaces text with some bullshit ....

[Poniiboi]

At 5/21/13 08:10 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: some bullshit

My childish name calling serves to neither credit nor discredit my argument. It serves as childish name calling, you stupid fucktard.

Fucking idiot, establishing a pattern of behavior can be brought as evidence in a courtroom. You fucking moron, how are you going to catch a "government" red handed like the government is a single person? You act like you can convict a government like its a single entity. Your burden of proof is impossible because government owns all of the resources that are used to collect evidence, you idiot.

Even then there's a smoking gun. I hope you and everyone like you gets killed by a police officer. Then you'll see how innocent government is.

[Angry-Hatter]

Hahahahahahah.

That's hilarious!

[Poniiboi]

At 5/21/13 10:38 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Hahahahahahah.

That's hilarious!

Great response. You lose. Die!

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/22/13 09:56 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Great response. You lose. Die!

Yeah, maybe I'll die... from laughter!

Sir, you are magnificent.

[Poniiboi]

At 5/22/13 12:38 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 5/22/13 09:56 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Great response. You lose. Die!

Yeah, maybe I'll die... from laughter!

Sir, you are magnificent.

I'm sorry I cannot return the compliment. Let me add that I hope your health insurance runs out so that your family bankrupts itself trying to save your redneck ass. You probably don't have any anyway.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/22/13 05:02 PM, Poniiboi wrote: I'm sorry I cannot return the compliment. Let me add that I hope your health insurance runs out so that your family bankrupts itself trying to save your redneck ass. You probably don't have any anyway.

Stop! You're killing me here! Ow, my sides.

[Feoric]

At 5/21/13 06:15 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Ahem. The Federal Reserve that we all pay taxes to is a private bank.

If I had a dollar for every time I've gone over this topic. I'll just copy and paste stuff I've already said:

"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is an independent federal government agency with the same legal status as the CIA, the EPA, or NASA. It is 100 percent a government agency with control over every interstate bank in the united states, which are required to take part in the system and be regulated by it. Implying that the federal reserve system is in any way privately controlled because the member banks it regulates are private is really really stupid because the officials in charge are appointed just like the director of the CIA."

"The Federal Reserve is only quasi-private; it is still responsible to congress, and is not a profit-making corporation. It does not have "shareholders" in the traditional sense, and is heavily encumbered legally. It exists to control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve issues "stock" to a set of 12 smaller reserve banks. These banks are also not operated for profit, and serve as distribution points for the system. These banks in turn issue "stock" to private banks which draw on the Reserve system - however "stock" is a misleading term. The amount of stock is which is held by a member bank is mandated by law, and the stock cannot be sold, traded or borrowed against. It, furthermore, pay a divided of 6% per year, which is also mandated by law. Suffice to say private banks do not have control over the system."

Also, our tax dollars don't go to the Federal Reserve. They go to the government, local state and federal.

[Poniiboi]

At 5/22/13 06:39 PM, Feoric wrote: some shit everybody already knows

Again, all that shit on paper is great, if not for the too big to fail fiasco. When that happened, the entire system basically turned itself from a monetary distribution system into a welfare system for the rich and negated all of your useless theory.

[BrianEtrius]

At 5/23/13 01:55 AM, Poniiboi wrote: the too big to fail

It's called macroeconomics and the aggregate economy yo, and it's integrated into every part of society whether you like it or not. So either,

A) join the rest of society or
B) go leave in a cave somewhere, which I assume you already do.

But you'd end up calling me some rather nasty remarks, so why don't you read up on some more economic theory first?

[Poniiboi]

At 5/23/13 03:36 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: excuses

I can't believe that you are actually backing a policy that takes money out of your pocket based on a random philosophy that was created specifically to give an intellectual reasoning to take money out of your pocket. Wow.

Fine by me; I don't care whether you live or die. I, however, am going to use the information to create more wealth for myself while you sit back and pay unfair taxes just because some economist said that you should. LOL what a loser

[morefngdbs]

At 5/21/13 12:24 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

Third, as it relates back to the first, do you know why we like having an independent central bank? If not, go bury your head in a ditch and read some basic monetary policy by Fisher and then come back to the grown up table.

You've drank way too much kool ade & haven't got a clue to the point you actually believe a fiat currency note has real value !

So basically once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Example fail. Try again next time!

;;; THis sentece should be used by us to refute you ...& you really can only be a Kenysian to actually believe the Fed is a helpful organization ...what bank do you work for ?

[Poniiboi]

At 5/23/13 03:36 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: quote?

Also, I can't believe you have the unmitigated gall to have a quote that says "question everything" and yet you accept the common viewpoint on the most important issue of our day. You IDIOT

[BrianEtrius]

At 5/24/13 03:10 PM, morefngdbs wrote: You've drank way too much kool ade & haven't got a clue to the point you actually believe a fiat currency note has real value !

You don't understand math then if you think a gold standard if good.

Fuck it, let's do some math anyways.

MV=PY. (This is David Humes, who did this in the 1700s, so there is no recent political bias. So shaddup)

this is the quantity theory of money, aka currency where M is the quantity of money, v is the velocity of money (how fast transactions are made) p is a price level, and Y is real GDP. Long story short, this function says the quantity of money times how fast translations are made should be equal to the current price level times current GDP. This makes sense, the left side is talking about the total amount of times money is being used in our economy to buy things should equal how much we pay for our stuff over all in the economy.

So lets take some log derivatives, shall we? You guys remember how to do math, right? .........Right?

Fine.

ln(M)+ln(V)=ln(P)+ln(Y)

If we had two points along this equation (which we do, thanks to data collecting) we can do some quick math to get to this equation (since ln(v) is a constant, remove it. Ln(P) is how we measure inflation denoted typically with pi but here I'll just use ¥,and ln(y) is the growth in GDP, denoted (gy))

So

ln(M) (which we'll denote Gm, or growth of money) Gm=Â¥+gy.

WTF does this mean? Well, let's take your gold standard example.

Since there is a limited amount of gold in the world, M is fixed, denoted m. So the growth rate of the amount of money in the world is 0 because money supply is fixed. What does that look like in our equations? Well, lets take a look......

m(V)=YP

That looks fine, that looks like it could be okay here for a bit.....

0=Â¥+gy. Or, equivalently, -gy=Â¥.

Oh no. This doesn't work. Inflation is equal to the negative growth of our economy? Not good. So if inflation went up we want to slow the growth of our economy? I don't care what math you believe, but that doesn't make any sense.

Long story short: you want a currency that inflates with the economy. It's healthier overall in the long run because it allows for GDP growth.

;;; THis sentece should be used by us to refute you ...& you really can only be a Kenysian to actually believe the Fed is a helpful organization ...what bank do you work for ?

The only people who call economists Keynesian are conservative commentators who have no idea what happens at Fed because they were too stupid to learn the math behind the economics. In the academic economic field (which means the Fed and most leading economic institutions) Keynesian thought is taught and widely accepted because, well, the model fits the data pretty damn good. That's not to say everything Keynes did was right (he has notable goof ups in some models, which were corrected later by.....Milton Friedman. History, as they say, does not exist without irony) but he was pretty damn accurate for someone of his time.

As for specifically how his models work........I'll save that for another time and see if you first understand what's going on here with this math.

[Poniiboi]

At 5/25/13 04:04 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: a bunch of bullshit

I love how you try to bring in some 101 formulas to try to confuse everyone out of the argument. But guess what? When you add in a black hole of endless funds given to banks during the "too big to fail" fiasco, you completely destroy any equality that might make these equations work.

Your shit works on paper, not in the real world. Fact is, moron, when the government aided by the Fed (or the other way around) gives money to only the top fucks in the monetary chain, all your equations go to shit. Yes, they are that easy to refute, because all math is contingent upon equinamity. Here's what the real world equations look like:

y + b+ Paulson = money for banks that should be closed - value of money for hardworking Americans who now have to deal with inflation that is NOT contingent with the natural economy

Your shit works on paper just like Communism. However, the stupidity of human folly fucks your whole shit up. Deal with it, faggit.

[BrianEtrius]

At 5/26/13 12:29 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Your shit works on paper just like Communism. However, the stupidity of human folly fucks your whole shit up. Deal with it, faggit.

Your ability to read (or lack of it) is just as appalling as your argument tatics, let alone your personality and probably your face, which is why you probably don't get many girls, leading to a severe social disorder that results in your need to prove yourself on the Internet to strangers you don't know and you probably have a small penis.

See? I can use ad hominem too, and its gets us nowhere. So please at least have the decency to refrain from insulting us, all right?

If you had read what I had written, in NO WAY AT ALL advocating the fed. It was just simple model explain why fiat currency is mathematically superior to a gold (fixed) standard.

Now, your point about human stupidity (or behavior, if we want to be general) fits perfectly in our model. See that part called inflation? In that contains consumer and investor confidence on a day to day level. So, to take your example, if all of a sudden we became stupid and decided today was a bad day to buy anything, we would see that reflected in inflation.

Again, please read before you open your mouth. You might learn something.

[Entice]

At 5/21/13 11:36 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Fine, I'll bite. Let's say I'm a truther. How is it ridiculous to say that this government was involved in the attack when

1. it is well known that this government has falsified facts and participated in similar attacks in the past AKA Gulf of Tolken AND MANY OTHERS, and
2. those same elements of government DO serve to benefit by participating in such an attack?

Neither of those things are evidence that the government was involved in 9/11. If I caught someone breaking into my car a year ago, it's not evidence that they're the one that stole my watch last week.

No speculation, please.

Almost everything you're saying is speculation.

You tell me why your government with blood on its hands since the Civil War is all of a sudden blameless in an attack that allows it to have more power at the expense of the proletariat.

Probably because there's no evidence that they were involved in this particular attack. The only evidence you have is that they had something to gain, and even if that were true (which is debatable) it's not enough.

I'm looking at the final results.

Speculating, not looking.

[Poniiboi]

At 5/26/13 12:56 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

:dumb shit

Again, stupid fuck, inflation didn't happen because no one bought anything. Inflation happened because trillions of fucking fake dollars entered the economy on a whim and was distributed unevenly, STUPID. That negates any and all of these equations because the variables are no longer EQUAL.

How can you not advocate the Fed and think that these equations work when in real life, THE ACTIONS OF THE FED AFFECT THESE EQUATIONS?

And as to your point of fiat currency being superior to a gold standard, of fucking course, moron, in the same way that unlimited credit is superior to actually having to barter things of equal value. More things can be traded if the value of the money is inflated with no reasoning behind it.

Your stupid equations work in limited situations like gravity is only a force on a planetary scale. When you go out to the galaxial level, gravity changes into something else and THOSE EQUATIONS DON'T WORK ANY MORE. Same with Euclidean geometry, which is fine for calculations on Earth. NASA DOESN'T USE IT BECAUSE IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD HAVE MISSED THE FUCKING MOON.

YOUR FUCKING EQUATIONS AND ENTIRE THOUGHT PROCESS BECAME FUCKING USELESS WHEN THE FED GAVE BANKS TRILLIONS FOR FREE. Shitbag.

[Poniiboi]

At 5/26/13 04:04 AM, Entice wrote: Speculating, not looking.

You believe the government is innocent til proven guilty when history proves otherwise. I hope you get killed by a police officer.