Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Capitalism
63 views
Skip to first unread message
Rudy Canoza
Oct 31, 2013, 4:16:46 PM10/31/13
to
Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy. In
such an economy, firms arise to provide goods and services to consumers
in private exchange transactions. Firms that provide high quality goods
and services at prices consumers are willing to pay prosper. Broadly,
consumer preferences are satisfied. That doesn't mean that every
consumer gets everything he wants; a consumer in some isolated 50 person
hamlet in Newfoundland who decides he wants lunch of Fijian Palusami is
probably going to be disappointed. What is true is that *most* consumer
preferences are satisfied, and at prices they are willing to pay.
The alternative is a command economy, in which rather than the market
responding to price signals from consumer behavior, apparatchiks decide
what consumers "ought" to get, and in what quantities and qualities.
Both the quality and the variety are always inferior to what the private
enterprise market will provide.
Stupid left-wing stooges like Bugster actually like the fact that there
is less choice available in a command economy. The stooges think they
know better than the consumers what they "ought" to have available. Of
course, when those stooges live in a private enterprise market economy,
they don't complain about being able to exercise consumer sovereignty
themselves.
Capitalism is the only economic system that respects human rights. It
is the only ethical economic system.
such an economy, firms arise to provide goods and services to consumers
in private exchange transactions. Firms that provide high quality goods
and services at prices consumers are willing to pay prosper. Broadly,
consumer preferences are satisfied. That doesn't mean that every
consumer gets everything he wants; a consumer in some isolated 50 person
hamlet in Newfoundland who decides he wants lunch of Fijian Palusami is
probably going to be disappointed. What is true is that *most* consumer
preferences are satisfied, and at prices they are willing to pay.
The alternative is a command economy, in which rather than the market
responding to price signals from consumer behavior, apparatchiks decide
what consumers "ought" to get, and in what quantities and qualities.
Both the quality and the variety are always inferior to what the private
enterprise market will provide.
Stupid left-wing stooges like Bugster actually like the fact that there
is less choice available in a command economy. The stooges think they
know better than the consumers what they "ought" to have available. Of
course, when those stooges live in a private enterprise market economy,
they don't complain about being able to exercise consumer sovereignty
themselves.
Capitalism is the only economic system that respects human rights. It
is the only ethical economic system.
F. George McDuffee
Oct 31, 2013, 5:00:39 PM10/31/13
to
had to prune the distro as my isp won't allow spamming
[bicycles?]
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:16:46 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
Hi Art. How's the weather in B.C.?
First thing is to define Capitalism, as there are several
types which can concurrently exist (along with
techno-mercantilism), from Adam Smith's "Classical
Capitalism" through Recardo's "Free Trade Capitalism,"
"Crony Capitalism," "Casino Capitalism," and the currently
ascendent "Capo Capitalism," complete with LIBOR, swap rate
and FX market manipulations and mega "bust out scams."
Second, in general, "Capitalism" in general is antagonistic
to the "private [free] market economy" as there are greater
profits to be made by cartelization and other restrictions
than by honest competition.
Adam Smith observed: "People of the same trade seldom meet
together, even for merriment and diversion, but the
conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in
some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to
prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be
executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.
But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade
from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing
to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them
necessary."
—Adam Smith (5 June 1723 OS (16 June 1723 NS) – 17 July
1790) _ An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth
of Nations_
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Cartels.html
FWIW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission
[bicycles?]
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:16:46 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
First thing is to define Capitalism, as there are several
types which can concurrently exist (along with
techno-mercantilism), from Adam Smith's "Classical
Capitalism" through Recardo's "Free Trade Capitalism,"
"Crony Capitalism," "Casino Capitalism," and the currently
ascendent "Capo Capitalism," complete with LIBOR, swap rate
and FX market manipulations and mega "bust out scams."
Second, in general, "Capitalism" in general is antagonistic
to the "private [free] market economy" as there are greater
profits to be made by cartelization and other restrictions
than by honest competition.
Adam Smith observed: "People of the same trade seldom meet
together, even for merriment and diversion, but the
conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in
some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to
prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be
executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.
But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade
from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing
to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them
necessary."
—Adam Smith (5 June 1723 OS (16 June 1723 NS) – 17 July
1790) _ An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth
of Nations_
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Cartels.html
FWIW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission
Message has been deleted
RightWing
Oct 31, 2013, 10:04:15 PM10/31/13
to
Rudy Canoza wrote :
Republican style free enterprise was running massive federal deficits,
having a $400 billion socialist drug plan, $400 billion in annual farm
subsidies, bloating the civil service by 35% on the taxpayer's tab,
employing thousands more in taxpayer funded defence contract work,
spending 100's of millions on pork barrel projects like building an
bridge in Alaska to an island where only 75 people live, funding a
false
bottom war time economy by going deeper in debt and continually
breaking
trade agreements to protect self interests instead of complying and
trading fairly. Then there's the big socialist taxpayer bailouts of
corporations like Bear Stearns, all due to the fact that can't cut it
in
the real world without corporate welfare, government subsidies and
bailouts.
The Bush tax cuts are working.
Got any stock tips?
> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy. In such
> an economy, firms arise to provide goods and services to consumers in
> private exchange transactions. Firms that provide high quality goods and
> services at prices consumers are willing to pay prosper. Broadly, consumer
> preferences are satisfied. That doesn't mean that every consumer gets
> everything he wants; a consumer in some isolated 50 person hamlet in
> Newfoundland who decides he wants lunch of Fijian Palusami is probably
> going to be disappointed. What is true is that *most* consumer preferences
> are satisfied, and at prices they are willing to pay.
I wish that Bush was in charge. I voted for him, and so did you!
> an economy, firms arise to provide goods and services to consumers in
> private exchange transactions. Firms that provide high quality goods and
> services at prices consumers are willing to pay prosper. Broadly, consumer
> preferences are satisfied. That doesn't mean that every consumer gets
> everything he wants; a consumer in some isolated 50 person hamlet in
> Newfoundland who decides he wants lunch of Fijian Palusami is probably
> going to be disappointed. What is true is that *most* consumer preferences
> are satisfied, and at prices they are willing to pay.
Republican style free enterprise was running massive federal deficits,
having a $400 billion socialist drug plan, $400 billion in annual farm
subsidies, bloating the civil service by 35% on the taxpayer's tab,
employing thousands more in taxpayer funded defence contract work,
spending 100's of millions on pork barrel projects like building an
bridge in Alaska to an island where only 75 people live, funding a
false
bottom war time economy by going deeper in debt and continually
breaking
trade agreements to protect self interests instead of complying and
trading fairly. Then there's the big socialist taxpayer bailouts of
corporations like Bear Stearns, all due to the fact that can't cut it
in
the real world without corporate welfare, government subsidies and
bailouts.
The Bush tax cuts are working.
Got any stock tips?
Message has been deleted
Rudy Canoza
Nov 1, 2013, 12:04:14 AM11/1/13
to
On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
Yes, it is.
> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy. In
>
> No, it's not.
>
>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy. In
>
Yes, it is.
Message has been deleted
Rudy Canoza
Nov 1, 2013, 12:17:40 AM11/1/13
to
On 10/31/2013 9:14 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <434cd$52732655$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
I do know what it is.
> In article <434cd$52732655$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy. In
>>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
> That because you don't know what capitalism is
>
>> On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy. In
>>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
I do know what it is.
jon_banquer
Nov 1, 2013, 12:42:30 AM11/1/13
to
Frnak McKenney
Nov 1, 2013, 8:58:38 AM11/1/13
to
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:00:39 -0500, F George McDuffee <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
[...]
> Adam Smith observed: "People of the same trade seldom meet
> together, even for merriment and diversion, but the
> conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in
> some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to
> prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be
> executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.
> But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade
> from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing
> to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them
> necessary."
>
> Adam Smith (5 June 1723 OS (16 June 1723 NS) 17 July
> 1790) _ An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth
> of Nations_
> http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Cartels.html
Will S. agrees: "A plague on both your houses!"
( Is it Friday yet? )
Frank "Grumpy" McKenney
--
Voting is gregarious government. The only reality behind voting is
that instinct of men to get together and argue; unless they can
fulfill this they are unhappy. In our somewhat morbid age, when
representative government has become only an unwieldy oligarchy. and
when decent pleasures have stagnated into poison, there is said to
be some kind of quarrel between the Parish Council and the Public
House. But in a plain and happy society the Public House is the
Parish Council. The townsmen argue in the tavern about the politics
of the town, invoking abstract principles which cannot be proved,
and rules of debate which do not in the least matter; their wives
teach the children to say their prayers and wish politics at the
bottom of the sea. That is the happiest condition of humanity. But
in any case this is the basis of voting: the elders of the tribe
talking under the tree: the men of the village shouting at each
other at the "Blue Pig"; the great and mysterious mob, singing,
fighting and judging in the market place. This is democracy; all
voting is only a shadow of this; and if you do not like this you
will not like its shadow.
-- G.K. Chesterton: The Modern Surrender of Women (1929)
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney aatt mindspring ddoott com
Johnny Johnson
Nov 1, 2013, 12:17:04 PM11/1/13
to
In article <chine.bleu-826E2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Chine Bleu Fuzzy Mirror Dice <chine...@yahoo.com> says...
>
> In article <434cd$52732655$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>
Well, Bleu Balls, let's see what your butt buddies say it is:
What is Capitalism?
The word capitalism is now quite commonly used to describe the social system
in which we now live. It is also often assumed that it has existed, if not
forever, then for most of human history. In fact, capitalism is a relatively
new social system.¹
But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?
Class division
Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the
world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the
land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small
minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class.
The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage
or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)
The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold
for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can
make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the
labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the
capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from
exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the
further accumulation of wealth.
This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a
claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class
division is the essential feature of capitalism. It may be popular to talk
(usually vaguely) about various other 'classes' existing such as the 'middle
class', but it is the two classes defined here that are the key to
understanding capitalism.
It may not be exactly clear which class some relatively wealthy people are
in. But there is no ambiguity about the status of the vast majority of the
world's population. Members of the capitalist class certainly know who they
are. And most members of the working class know that they need to work for a
wage or salary in order to earn a living (or are dependent upon somebody who
does, or depend on state benefits.)
The profit motive
In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them
for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs. The products of capitalist
production have to find a buyer, of course, but this is only incidental to
the main aim of making a profit, of ending up with more money than was
originally invested. This is not a theory that we have thought up but a fact
you can easily confirm for yourself by reading the financial press.
Production is started not by what consumers are prepared to pay for to
satisfy their needs but by what the capitalists calculate can be sold at a
profit. Those goods may satisfy human needs but those needs will not be met
if people do not have sufficient money.
The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual
capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is
imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and
their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them
to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means
and methods of production up to date.
As you will see, we hold that it is the class division and profit motive of
capitalism that is at the root of most of the world's problems today, from
starvation to war, to alienation and crime. Every aspect of our lives is
subordinated to the worst excesses of the drive to make profit. In capitalist
society, our real needs will only ever come a poor second to the requirements
of profit.
Capitalism = free market?
It is widely assumed that capitalism means a free market economy. But it is
possible to have capitalism without a free market. The systems that existed
in the U.S.S.R and exist in China and Cuba demonstrate this. These class-
divided societies are widely called 'socialist'. A cursory glance at what in
fact existed there reveals that these countries were simply 'state
capitalist'. In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still
existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange,
with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist'
Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital
and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend
its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as
the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting
targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be
produced. We therefore feel justified in asserting that such countries had
nothing to do with socialism as we define it. In fact, socialism as we define
it could not exist in one country alone?like capitalism it must be a global
system of society.
It is also possible (at least in theory) to have a free market economy that
is not capitalist. Such a 'market economy' would involve farmers, artisans
and shopkeepers each producing a particular product that they would exchange
via the medium of money. There would be no profit-making and no class
division?just independent producers exchanging goods for their mutual
benefit. But it is doubtful whether such an economy has ever existed. The
nearest that may have come to it would have been in some of the early
colonial settlements in North America. Some Greens wish to see a return to
this kind of economy. We do not think that it is a viable alternative for
modern society. Such a system would almost inevitability lead to capital
accumulation and profit making?the definitive features of capitalism.
?For a brief historical account of how capitalism came into existence a
couple of hundred years ago, see Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto.²
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_capitalism.php
1. For more detailed accounts of what capitalism is, see Marx's Wage Labour
and Capital <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour>,
Marx's Value, Price and Profit
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit>, or
Fredy Perlman's The Reproduction of Daily Life <http://www.geocities.com/
~johngray/reprod.htm>.
2. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Chine Bleu Fuzzy Mirror Dice <chine...@yahoo.com> says...
>
> In article <434cd$52732655$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>
>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>>>
>
>> On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>
>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
> That because you don't know what capitalism is, idiot.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
>
Well, Bleu Balls, let's see what your butt buddies say it is:
What is Capitalism?
The word capitalism is now quite commonly used to describe the social system
in which we now live. It is also often assumed that it has existed, if not
forever, then for most of human history. In fact, capitalism is a relatively
new social system.¹
But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?
Class division
Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the
world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the
land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small
minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class.
The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage
or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)
The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold
for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can
make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the
labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the
capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from
exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the
further accumulation of wealth.
This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a
claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class
division is the essential feature of capitalism. It may be popular to talk
(usually vaguely) about various other 'classes' existing such as the 'middle
class', but it is the two classes defined here that are the key to
understanding capitalism.
It may not be exactly clear which class some relatively wealthy people are
in. But there is no ambiguity about the status of the vast majority of the
world's population. Members of the capitalist class certainly know who they
are. And most members of the working class know that they need to work for a
wage or salary in order to earn a living (or are dependent upon somebody who
does, or depend on state benefits.)
The profit motive
In capitalism, the motive for producing goods and services is to sell them
for a profit, not to satisfy people's needs. The products of capitalist
production have to find a buyer, of course, but this is only incidental to
the main aim of making a profit, of ending up with more money than was
originally invested. This is not a theory that we have thought up but a fact
you can easily confirm for yourself by reading the financial press.
Production is started not by what consumers are prepared to pay for to
satisfy their needs but by what the capitalists calculate can be sold at a
profit. Those goods may satisfy human needs but those needs will not be met
if people do not have sufficient money.
The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual
capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is
imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and
their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them
to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means
and methods of production up to date.
As you will see, we hold that it is the class division and profit motive of
capitalism that is at the root of most of the world's problems today, from
starvation to war, to alienation and crime. Every aspect of our lives is
subordinated to the worst excesses of the drive to make profit. In capitalist
society, our real needs will only ever come a poor second to the requirements
of profit.
Capitalism = free market?
It is widely assumed that capitalism means a free market economy. But it is
possible to have capitalism without a free market. The systems that existed
in the U.S.S.R and exist in China and Cuba demonstrate this. These class-
divided societies are widely called 'socialist'. A cursory glance at what in
fact existed there reveals that these countries were simply 'state
capitalist'. In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still
existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange,
with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist'
Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital
and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend
its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as
the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting
targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be
produced. We therefore feel justified in asserting that such countries had
nothing to do with socialism as we define it. In fact, socialism as we define
it could not exist in one country alone?like capitalism it must be a global
system of society.
It is also possible (at least in theory) to have a free market economy that
is not capitalist. Such a 'market economy' would involve farmers, artisans
and shopkeepers each producing a particular product that they would exchange
via the medium of money. There would be no profit-making and no class
division?just independent producers exchanging goods for their mutual
benefit. But it is doubtful whether such an economy has ever existed. The
nearest that may have come to it would have been in some of the early
colonial settlements in North America. Some Greens wish to see a return to
this kind of economy. We do not think that it is a viable alternative for
modern society. Such a system would almost inevitability lead to capital
accumulation and profit making?the definitive features of capitalism.
?For a brief historical account of how capitalism came into existence a
couple of hundred years ago, see Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto.²
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_capitalism.php
1. For more detailed accounts of what capitalism is, see Marx's Wage Labour
and Capital <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour>,
Marx's Value, Price and Profit
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit>, or
Fredy Perlman's The Reproduction of Daily Life <http://www.geocities.com/
~johngray/reprod.htm>.
2. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Message has been deleted
Rudy Canoza
Nov 1, 2013, 12:42:04 PM11/1/13
to
On 11/1/2013 9:39 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> It means nongovernmental persons and organisations who have more cash or
> property than they currently need let others use it hope of getting it back and
> something more of value.
No, that's not what it means.
> In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> It means nongovernmental persons and organisations who have more cash or
> property than they currently need let others use it hope of getting it back and
> something more of value.
No, that's not what it means.
Johnny Johnson
Nov 1, 2013, 1:14:51 PM11/1/13
to
In article <2a12d$5273dc55$414e828e$65...@EVERESTKC.NET>, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> says...
Socialists' definition of Capitalism, rather than commenting on what his
peers say it is?
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> says...
>
> On 11/1/2013 9:39 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?
>>
>> It means nongovernmental persons and organisations {SIC} who have more
> On 11/1/2013 9:39 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?
>>
>> cash or property than they currently need let others use it hope of
getting
>> it back and something more of value.
>
> No, that's not what it means.
>
Isn't it interesting they way Siri Bleu Balls "snipped" his fellow
getting
>> it back and something more of value.
>
> No, that's not what it means.
>
Socialists' definition of Capitalism, rather than commenting on what his
peers say it is?
Sancho Panza
Nov 1, 2013, 3:53:08 PM11/1/13
to
On 11/1/2013 12:17 PM, Johnny Johnson wrote:
> In article <chine.bleu-826E2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Chine Bleu Fuzzy Mirror Dice <chine...@yahoo.com> says...
>>
>> In article <434cd$52732655$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> That because you don't know what capitalism is, idiot.
>>
> Well, Bleu Balls, let's see what your butt buddies say it is:
>
> What is Capitalism?
>
> The word capitalism is now quite commonly used to describe the social system
> in which we now live. It is also often assumed that it has existed, if not
> forever, then for most of human history. In fact, capitalism is a relatively
> new social system.¹
Far from new. Maybe in name and explosive success.
> In article <chine.bleu-826E2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Chine Bleu Fuzzy Mirror Dice <chine...@yahoo.com> says...
>>
>> In article <434cd$52732655$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> That because you don't know what capitalism is, idiot.
>>
> Well, Bleu Balls, let's see what your butt buddies say it is:
>
> What is Capitalism?
>
> The word capitalism is now quite commonly used to describe the social system
> in which we now live. It is also often assumed that it has existed, if not
> forever, then for most of human history. In fact, capitalism is a relatively
> new social system.¹
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Sancho Panza
Nov 1, 2013, 3:56:54 PM11/1/13
to
On 11/1/2013 12:39 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?
>
> It means nongovernmental persons and organisations who have more cash or
>
> property than they currently need let others use it hope of getting it back and
> something more of value.
>
> Anything else is cold war religious nonsense.
> something more of value.
>
>
As crass a viewpoint as we are going to see here today.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 12:26:05 AM11/2/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
> government loans.
And that has worked so well throughout history.
BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
--
There is no court for his crimes.
"V"
news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy. In
>
> No, it's not. You could have private enterprise financed solely by
>
> government loans.
And that has worked so well throughout history.
BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
--
There is no court for his crimes.
"V"
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 12:27:34 AM11/2/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
826E22.211...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <434cd$52732655$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> > In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> > Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
In
>> >
>> > No, it's not.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
>
>> On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> > In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> > Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
In
>> >
>> > No, it's not.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
> That because you don't know what capitalism is, idiot.
Personally I prefer the terms "free market" or "free enterprise".
It's a liberty thing, you wouldn't understand.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 12:28:33 AM11/2/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-330EC...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?
>
>
> It means nongovernmental persons and organisations who have more cash or
> property than they currently need let others use it hope of getting it
> back and something more of value.
Need? As defined by whom, Meine Fuhrer?
> property than they currently need let others use it hope of getting it
> back and something more of value.
> Anything else is cold war religious nonsense.
Matt Warner
Nov 2, 2013, 4:26:22 AM11/2/13
to
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:26:05 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
<No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
All gummints print money.
<No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 10:42:31 AM11/2/13
to
Matt Warner <Ma...@gmail.com-spam> wrote in
news:l52cu...@news6.newsguy.com:
Oh I see, a moron. Money is paper. Money in and of itself is meaningless.
It is a convenient measure of wealth.
If we say that an ounce of gold is worth 100 monetary units then each
monetary unit will buy a certain amount of stuff. If the gummint prints
lots of monetary unit without the wealth of the nation increasing then
shortly that ounce of gold will be worth 10,000 units and now that single
credit buys 1/1000 of what it did before.
I give you Weimar Germany as the most egreious example where it took
wheelbarrows of monetary units to buy a loaf of bread.
A government that simply prints money without the base value of it's
economy increasing is simply stealing from it's citizens. And frankly theft
on that scale should be a capital crime.
news:l52cu...@news6.newsguy.com:
It is a convenient measure of wealth.
If we say that an ounce of gold is worth 100 monetary units then each
monetary unit will buy a certain amount of stuff. If the gummint prints
lots of monetary unit without the wealth of the nation increasing then
shortly that ounce of gold will be worth 10,000 units and now that single
credit buys 1/1000 of what it did before.
I give you Weimar Germany as the most egreious example where it took
wheelbarrows of monetary units to buy a loaf of bread.
A government that simply prints money without the base value of it's
economy increasing is simply stealing from it's citizens. And frankly theft
on that scale should be a capital crime.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 10:45:50 AM11/2/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
B88307.031...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA26C4DA01132We...@78.46.70.116>,
> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> 826E22.211...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > In article <434cd$52732655$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> > Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> >> > In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> >> > Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>> In
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it's not.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it is.
>> >
>> > That because you don't know what capitalism is, idiot.
>>
>> Personally I prefer the terms "free market" or "free enterprise".
>
> So any US business that receives government loans is not free enterprise?
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> 826E22.211...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > In article <434cd$52732655$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> > Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 10/31/2013 4:02 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> >> > In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> >> > Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>> In
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it's not.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it is.
>> >
>> > That because you don't know what capitalism is, idiot.
>>
>> Personally I prefer the terms "free market" or "free enterprise".
>
I think that if you are taking money from the gummint it is a form of
bribery. And if you are a busimness and you would fail absent that help,
then maybe you should.
In any case I am extremely opposed to the government handing out money to
any entity for any reason other than to pay it for services rendered.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 10:47:28 AM11/2/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
BB08D9.031...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA26C49A4A724We...@78.46.70.116>,
> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> > Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
In
>> >
>> > No, it's not. You could have private enterprise financed solely by
>> > government loans.
>>
>> And that has worked so well throughout history.
>
> Do you know that some disaster relief is government loans?
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> > Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
In
>> >
>> > No, it's not. You could have private enterprise financed solely by
>> > government loans.
>>
>> And that has worked so well throughout history.
>
So you give a 1/1000 of 1 percent example? What does "disaster relief" have
to do with the billions and trillions spent by this government? You're a
goddamn fool.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 10:51:35 AM11/2/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
D3E922.030...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA26C504FA9ABWe...@78.46.70.116>,
> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:chine.bleu-330EC...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?
>> >
>> > It means nongovernmental persons and organisations who have more cash
or
>> > property than they currently need let others use it hope of getting it
>> > back and something more of value.
>>
>> Need? As defined by whom, Meine Fuhrer?
>
> Defined by the capitalist when they lend/invest their property. You do
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:chine.bleu-330EC...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?
>> >
>> > It means nongovernmental persons and organisations who have more cash
or
>> > property than they currently need let others use it hope of getting it
>> > back and something more of value.
>>
>> Need? As defined by whom, Meine Fuhrer?
>
> understand this is a voluntary decision by the property owner in search
of
> profit?
You are a lunatic. What you are refering to is a voluntary decison between
2 people. You are not telling WHO other than the individual is deciding how
much that individual needs.
Is it possible your philosophy is a bit deranged since you seem incapable
of clearly explaining it and instead lie and obfuscate?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Rudy Canoza
Nov 2, 2013, 11:11:39 AM11/2/13
to
On 11/2/2013 8:09 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <XnsA26C6E7912226We...@78.46.70.116>,
You used "need". That shows you don't know what the fuck you're
blabbering on about.
> In article <XnsA26C6E7912226We...@78.46.70.116>,
> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> D3E922.030...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> In article <XnsA26C504FA9ABWe...@78.46.70.116>,
>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:chine.bleu-330EC...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> It means nongovernmental persons and organisations who have more cash
>> or
>>>>> property than they currently need let others use it hope of getting it
>>>>> back and something more of value.
>>>>
>>>> Need? As defined by whom, Meine Fuhrer?
>>>
>>> Defined by the capitalist when they lend/invest their property. You do
>>> understand this is a voluntary decision by the property owner in search
>> of
>>> profit?
>>
>> You are a lunatic. What you are refering to is a voluntary decison between
>> 2 people. You are not telling WHO other than the individual is deciding how
>> much that individual needs.
>>
>> Is it possible your philosophy is a bit deranged since you seem incapable
>> of clearly explaining it and instead lie and obfuscate?
>
> The paranoia is strong in this one.
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> D3E922.030...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> In article <XnsA26C504FA9ABWe...@78.46.70.116>,
>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:chine.bleu-330EC...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <MPG.2cdd8ff5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> It means nongovernmental persons and organisations who have more cash
>> or
>>>>> property than they currently need let others use it hope of getting it
>>>>> back and something more of value.
>>>>
>>>> Need? As defined by whom, Meine Fuhrer?
>>>
>>> Defined by the capitalist when they lend/invest their property. You do
>>> understand this is a voluntary decision by the property owner in search
>> of
>>> profit?
>>
>> You are a lunatic. What you are refering to is a voluntary decison between
>> 2 people. You are not telling WHO other than the individual is deciding how
>> much that individual needs.
>>
>> Is it possible your philosophy is a bit deranged since you seem incapable
>> of clearly explaining it and instead lie and obfuscate?
>
You used "need". That shows you don't know what the fuck you're
blabbering on about.
Rudy Canoza
Nov 2, 2013, 11:12:47 AM11/2/13
to
On 11/2/2013 8:10 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <XnsA26C6DC725920We...@78.46.70.116>,
The more /non sequitur/ you blabber the more you admit you're full of
shit, bleuballs.
> In article <XnsA26C6DC725920We...@78.46.70.116>,
> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> BB08D9.031...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> In article <XnsA26C49A4A724We...@78.46.70.116>,
>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>> In
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not. You could have private enterprise financed solely by
>>>>> government loans.
>>>>
>>>> And that has worked so well throughout history.
>>>
>>> Do you know that some disaster relief is government loans?
>>
>> So you give a 1/1000 of 1 percent example? What does "disaster relief" have
>> to do with the billions and trillions spent by this government? You're a
>> goddamn fool.
>
> The shriller you rant the
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> BB08D9.031...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> In article <XnsA26C49A4A724We...@78.46.70.116>,
>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>> In
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not. You could have private enterprise financed solely by
>>>>> government loans.
>>>>
>>>> And that has worked so well throughout history.
>>>
>>> Do you know that some disaster relief is government loans?
>>
>> So you give a 1/1000 of 1 percent example? What does "disaster relief" have
>> to do with the billions and trillions spent by this government? You're a
>> goddamn fool.
>
The more /non sequitur/ you blabber the more you admit you're full of
shit, bleuballs.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 11:14:22 AM11/2/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-1AE93...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA26C6DC725920We...@78.46.70.116>,
> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> BB08D9.031...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > In article <XnsA26C49A4A724We...@78.46.70.116>,
>> > Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> >> > Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market
>> >> >> economy.
>> In
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it's not. You could have private enterprise financed solely by
>> >> > government loans.
>> >>
>> >> And that has worked so well throughout history.
>> >
>> > Do you know that some disaster relief is government loans?
>>
>> So you give a 1/1000 of 1 percent example? What does "disaster relief"
>> have to do with the billions and trillions spent by this government?
>> You're a goddamn fool.
>
> The shriller you rant the more you betray your embarassment.
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> BB08D9.031...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > In article <XnsA26C49A4A724We...@78.46.70.116>,
>> > Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> >> > Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market
>> >> >> economy.
>> In
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it's not. You could have private enterprise financed solely by
>> >> > government loans.
>> >>
>> >> And that has worked so well throughout history.
>> >
>> > Do you know that some disaster relief is government loans?
>>
>> So you give a 1/1000 of 1 percent example? What does "disaster relief"
>> have to do with the billions and trillions spent by this government?
>> You're a goddamn fool.
>
You consider that a rant? You truly are delusional.
Message has been deleted
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 11:18:23 AM11/2/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-E16B7...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA26C6E7912226We...@78.46.70.116>,
> The paranoia is strong in this one.
It's not paranoia if it's true.
How come I can't get an answer to my question?
Who decides how much an individual needs?
Is it one person who decides for everyone? A committee? Elected? Appointed?
Who elects or appoints them?
Is it different for different people? On what basis?
Rudy Canoza
Nov 2, 2013, 11:18:28 AM11/2/13
to
On 11/2/2013 8:15 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <95f54$527518f4$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
Yeah, it is actually funny, bleuballs.
Why do you think your fuckwitted nym is clever or cute? Why did you
*ever* think it?
> In article <95f54$527518f4$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2013 8:10 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> In article <XnsA26C6DC725920We...@78.46.70.116>,
>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>> BB08D9.031...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <XnsA26C49A4A724We...@78.46.70.116>,
>>>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>>>> In
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it's not. You could have private enterprise financed solely by
>>>>>>> government loans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that has worked so well throughout history.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know that some disaster relief is government loans?
>>>>
>>>> So you give a 1/1000 of 1 percent example? What does "disaster relief" have
>>>> to do with the billions and trillions spent by this government? You're a
>>>> goddamn fool.
>>>
>>> The shriller you rant the
>>
>> The more /non sequitur/ you blabber the more you admit you're full of
>> shit, bleuballs.
>
> Ha ha ha!
>
>> On 11/2/2013 8:10 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> In article <XnsA26C6DC725920We...@78.46.70.116>,
>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>> BB08D9.031...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <XnsA26C49A4A724We...@78.46.70.116>,
>>>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>>>> In
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it's not. You could have private enterprise financed solely by
>>>>>>> government loans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that has worked so well throughout history.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know that some disaster relief is government loans?
>>>>
>>>> So you give a 1/1000 of 1 percent example? What does "disaster relief" have
>>>> to do with the billions and trillions spent by this government? You're a
>>>> goddamn fool.
>>>
>>> The shriller you rant the
>>
>> The more /non sequitur/ you blabber the more you admit you're full of
>> shit, bleuballs.
>
Yeah, it is actually funny, bleuballs.
Why do you think your fuckwitted nym is clever or cute? Why did you
*ever* think it?
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 11:19:20 AM11/2/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-61180...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <95f54$527518f4$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
Well you do have a habit of not answering tough questions.
Rudy Canoza
Nov 2, 2013, 11:20:21 AM11/2/13
to
There is no such thing as "needs," in the sense that
economics-illiterates use it when they blabber stupidly about "needs vs
wants." There are only wants. There is no such thing as "need."
Rudy Canoza
Nov 2, 2013, 11:22:15 AM11/2/13
to
you're a blindly dogmatic ideologue, you just treat the ideology as the
"received wisdom", and then start bullshitting about things being
"self-evident" and the like.
Sancho Panza
Nov 2, 2013, 12:14:18 PM11/2/13
to
> Is it different for different people? On what basis?
>
>
>
Johnny Johnson
Nov 2, 2013, 1:00:45 PM11/2/13
to
In article <70e24$52751a49$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET>, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> says...
A bailment without reward; consisting of the delivery of an article by the
owner to another person, to be used by the latter gratuitously, and returned
either in specie or in kind. A sum of money confided to another. Ramsey v.
Whitbeck. 81 III. App. 210; Xicliols v. Fearson, 7 Pet. 109, S L. Ed. 023;
Rodman v. Munson, 13 I? ah. (X. Y.) 75; Booth v. Terrell. 10 Ga. 25; Payne v.
Gardiner, 29 N. Y. 107. A loan of money is a contract by which one delivers a
sum of money to another, and the latter agrees to return at a future time a
sum equivalent to that which he borrowed. Civ. Code Cal.
--Black's Law Dictionary
LOAN FOR USE, or COMMODATUM, contracts.
A bailment, or loan of an article for a certain time, to be used by the
borrower, without paying for it. 2 Kent's Com. 446, 447. Sir William Jones
defines it to be a bailment of a thing for a certain time, to be used by the
borrower, without paying for it. Jones' Bailm. 118. According to the
Louisiana Code, art. 2864, it is an agreement by which a person delivers a
thing to another, to use it according to its natural destination, or
according to the agreement, under an obligation on the part of the borrower,
to return it after he shall have done using it. This loan is essentially
gratuitous. The Code Civil, art. 1875, defines it in nearly the same words.
Lord Holt has defined this bailment to be, when goods or chattels, that are
useful, are lent to a friend gratis, to be used by him: and it is called
commodatum, he adds, because the thing is to be restored in specie. 2 Ld.
Ray. 909, 913.
2. The loan for use resembles somewhat a gift, for the lender, as in a
gift, gives something to the borrower; but it differs from the latter,
because there the property of the thing given is transferred to the donee;
instead of which, in the loan for use, the thing given is only the use, and
the property in the thing lent remains in the lender. This contract has also
some analogy to the mutuum, or loan for consumption; but they differ in this,
that in the loan for use the lender retains the property in the thing lent,
and it must be returned in individuo; in the loan for consumption, on the
contrary, the things lent are to be consumed, such as money, corn, oats,
grain, cider, &c., and the property in them is transferred to the borrower,
who becomes a debtor to the lender for the same quantity of like articles.
Poth. Pret a. Usage, n. 9, 10.
3. Several things are essential to constitute this contract; first,
there must be a thing which is lent; and this, according to the civil law,
may be either a thing movable, as a horse, or an immovable, as a house or
land, or goods, or even a thing incorporeal. But in our law, the contract
seems confined entirely to goods and chattels, or personal property, and not
to extend to real estate. It must be a thing lent, in contradistinction to a
thing deposited or sold, or entrusted to another for the purpose of the
owner. Story on Bailm. Sec. 223.
4. Secondly. It must be lent gratuitously, for if any compensation is to
be paid in, any manner whatsoever, it falls under Another denomination, that
of hire. Ayliffe's Pand. B. 4, tit. 16, n. 516; Louis. Code, art. 2865;
Pothier, Pret a Usage, c. 1, art. 1, n. 1, c. 2, art., 3, n. 11.
5. Thirdly. It must be lent for use, and for the use of the borrower. It
is not material whether the use be exactly that which is peculiarly
appropriate to the thing lent, as a loan of a bed to lie on, or a loan of a
horse to ride; it is equally a loan, if the thing is lent to the borrower for
any other purpose; as, to pledge as a security on his own account. Story on
Bailm. Sec. 225. But the rights of the borrower are strictly confined to the
use actually or impliedly agreed to by the lender, and cannot be lawfully
exceeded. Poth. Pret a Usage, c. 1, Sec. 1, art. l, n. 5. The use may be for
a limited time, or for an indefinite time.
6. Fourthly. The property must be lent to be specifically returned to
the lender at the determination of the bailment; and, in this respect it
differs from a mutuum, or loan for consumption, where the thing borrowed,
such as corn, wine, and money, is to be returned in kind and quantity. See
Mutuum. It follows, that a loan for use can never be of a thing which is to
be consumed by use; as, if wine is lent to be drunk at a feast, even if no
return in kind is intended, unless, perhaps, so far as it is not drunk; for,
as to, all the rest, it is strictly a gift.
7. In general, it may be said that the borrower has the right to use the
thing during the time and for the purpose which was intended between the
parties. But this right is strictly confined to the use, expressed or implied
in the particular transaction; and the borrower, by any excess, will make
himself responsible. Jones' Bailm. 68; Cro. Jac. 244; 2 Ld. Raym. 909,916; 1
Const. Rep. So. Car. 121; Louis. Code: art. 2869; Code Civil, art. 1881; 2
Bulst. 306.
8. The obligations of the borrower are to take proper care of the thing
borrowed, to use it according to the intention of the lender, to restore it
in proper time, and to restore it in proper condition. Story on Bailm. Sec.
236; Louis. Code, art. 2869; Code Civ. 1880.
9. By the common law, this bailment may always be terminated at the
pleasure of the lender. (q.v.) Vin. Abr. Bailment, D; Bac. Abr. Bailment, D.
10. The property in the thing lent in a loan for use, remains in the
lender, Story on Bailment, Sec. 283; Code Civil, art. 1877; Louis. Code, art.
2866.
11. It is proper to remark that the loan for use must be lawful; a loan
by Peter to Paul of a ladder to enable him to commit a larceny, or of a gun,
to commit a murder, is not a loan for use, but Peter by this act becomes an
accomplice of Paul. 17 Duv. n. 503; 6 Duv. n. 32.
--http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Loan+for+use
of the name of the 7-year-old daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes: Suri
Cruise.
Offhand, I'd say it started out as a "wide-finger typo" (since the "u" and
"i" are adjacent on the standard QWERTY keyboard), and `Chine Bleu Fuzzy
Dice' just "went with it."
It's just one of *many* phony nyms this VLILLLDM has used:
Siri Cruise
China Blue Clay
Big Trouble in Little China Blue
Acid Washed China Blue Jeans
Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
China Blue Corn Chips
[the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill
Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
Light the China Blue Touch Paper
Chicken Cordon Bleu
China Blue Veins
China Blue Jay Way
China Blue Ribbon
Where did you get those China Blue jeans
Out of the China Blue
Wall of China Blue
among others.
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> says...
>
> On 11/2/2013 8:15 AM, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <95f54$527518f4$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
> On 11/2/2013 8:15 AM, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <95f54$527518f4$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/2/2013 8:10 AM, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <XnsA26C6DC725920We...@78.46.70.116>,
>>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>>> BB08D9.031...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <XnsA26C49A4A724We...@78.46.70.116>,
>>>>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>> In article <XnsA26C6DC725920We...@78.46.70.116>,
>>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>>> BB08D9.031...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <XnsA26C49A4A724We...@78.46.70.116>,
>>>>>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:chine.bleu-2D364...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <99ce4$5272bd1c$414e828e$14...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Capitalism is synonymous with a private enterprise market economy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it's not. You could have private enterprise financed solely by
>>>>>>>> government loans.
>
Loan
>>>>>>>> government loans.
>
A bailment without reward; consisting of the delivery of an article by the
owner to another person, to be used by the latter gratuitously, and returned
either in specie or in kind. A sum of money confided to another. Ramsey v.
Whitbeck. 81 III. App. 210; Xicliols v. Fearson, 7 Pet. 109, S L. Ed. 023;
Rodman v. Munson, 13 I? ah. (X. Y.) 75; Booth v. Terrell. 10 Ga. 25; Payne v.
Gardiner, 29 N. Y. 107. A loan of money is a contract by which one delivers a
sum of money to another, and the latter agrees to return at a future time a
sum equivalent to that which he borrowed. Civ. Code Cal.
--Black's Law Dictionary
LOAN FOR USE, or COMMODATUM, contracts.
A bailment, or loan of an article for a certain time, to be used by the
borrower, without paying for it. 2 Kent's Com. 446, 447. Sir William Jones
defines it to be a bailment of a thing for a certain time, to be used by the
borrower, without paying for it. Jones' Bailm. 118. According to the
Louisiana Code, art. 2864, it is an agreement by which a person delivers a
thing to another, to use it according to its natural destination, or
according to the agreement, under an obligation on the part of the borrower,
to return it after he shall have done using it. This loan is essentially
gratuitous. The Code Civil, art. 1875, defines it in nearly the same words.
Lord Holt has defined this bailment to be, when goods or chattels, that are
useful, are lent to a friend gratis, to be used by him: and it is called
commodatum, he adds, because the thing is to be restored in specie. 2 Ld.
Ray. 909, 913.
2. The loan for use resembles somewhat a gift, for the lender, as in a
gift, gives something to the borrower; but it differs from the latter,
because there the property of the thing given is transferred to the donee;
instead of which, in the loan for use, the thing given is only the use, and
the property in the thing lent remains in the lender. This contract has also
some analogy to the mutuum, or loan for consumption; but they differ in this,
that in the loan for use the lender retains the property in the thing lent,
and it must be returned in individuo; in the loan for consumption, on the
contrary, the things lent are to be consumed, such as money, corn, oats,
grain, cider, &c., and the property in them is transferred to the borrower,
who becomes a debtor to the lender for the same quantity of like articles.
Poth. Pret a. Usage, n. 9, 10.
3. Several things are essential to constitute this contract; first,
there must be a thing which is lent; and this, according to the civil law,
may be either a thing movable, as a horse, or an immovable, as a house or
land, or goods, or even a thing incorporeal. But in our law, the contract
seems confined entirely to goods and chattels, or personal property, and not
to extend to real estate. It must be a thing lent, in contradistinction to a
thing deposited or sold, or entrusted to another for the purpose of the
owner. Story on Bailm. Sec. 223.
4. Secondly. It must be lent gratuitously, for if any compensation is to
be paid in, any manner whatsoever, it falls under Another denomination, that
of hire. Ayliffe's Pand. B. 4, tit. 16, n. 516; Louis. Code, art. 2865;
Pothier, Pret a Usage, c. 1, art. 1, n. 1, c. 2, art., 3, n. 11.
5. Thirdly. It must be lent for use, and for the use of the borrower. It
is not material whether the use be exactly that which is peculiarly
appropriate to the thing lent, as a loan of a bed to lie on, or a loan of a
horse to ride; it is equally a loan, if the thing is lent to the borrower for
any other purpose; as, to pledge as a security on his own account. Story on
Bailm. Sec. 225. But the rights of the borrower are strictly confined to the
use actually or impliedly agreed to by the lender, and cannot be lawfully
exceeded. Poth. Pret a Usage, c. 1, Sec. 1, art. l, n. 5. The use may be for
a limited time, or for an indefinite time.
6. Fourthly. The property must be lent to be specifically returned to
the lender at the determination of the bailment; and, in this respect it
differs from a mutuum, or loan for consumption, where the thing borrowed,
such as corn, wine, and money, is to be returned in kind and quantity. See
Mutuum. It follows, that a loan for use can never be of a thing which is to
be consumed by use; as, if wine is lent to be drunk at a feast, even if no
return in kind is intended, unless, perhaps, so far as it is not drunk; for,
as to, all the rest, it is strictly a gift.
7. In general, it may be said that the borrower has the right to use the
thing during the time and for the purpose which was intended between the
parties. But this right is strictly confined to the use, expressed or implied
in the particular transaction; and the borrower, by any excess, will make
himself responsible. Jones' Bailm. 68; Cro. Jac. 244; 2 Ld. Raym. 909,916; 1
Const. Rep. So. Car. 121; Louis. Code: art. 2869; Code Civil, art. 1881; 2
Bulst. 306.
8. The obligations of the borrower are to take proper care of the thing
borrowed, to use it according to the intention of the lender, to restore it
in proper time, and to restore it in proper condition. Story on Bailm. Sec.
236; Louis. Code, art. 2869; Code Civ. 1880.
9. By the common law, this bailment may always be terminated at the
pleasure of the lender. (q.v.) Vin. Abr. Bailment, D; Bac. Abr. Bailment, D.
10. The property in the thing lent in a loan for use, remains in the
lender, Story on Bailment, Sec. 283; Code Civil, art. 1877; Louis. Code, art.
2866.
11. It is proper to remark that the loan for use must be lawful; a loan
by Peter to Paul of a ladder to enable him to commit a larceny, or of a gun,
to commit a murder, is not a loan for use, but Peter by this act becomes an
accomplice of Paul. 17 Duv. n. 503; 6 Duv. n. 32.
--http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Loan+for+use
>
>>>>>>> And that has worked so well throughout history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know that some disaster relief is government loans?
>>>>>
>>>>> So you give a 1/1000 of 1 percent example?
>>>>> What does "disaster relief" have to do with the billions and trillions
>>>>> spent by this government? You're a goddamn fool.
>>>>
>>>> The shriller you rant the
>>>
>>> The more /non sequitur/ you blabber the more you admit you're full
>>> of shit, bleuballs.
>>
>> Ha ha ha!
>
> Yeah, it is actually funny, bleuballs.
>
> Why do you think your fuckwitted nym is clever or cute?
> Why did you *ever* think it?
>
This particular phony nym, "Siri Cruise", is actually an obvious corruption
>>>>>>> And that has worked so well throughout history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know that some disaster relief is government loans?
>>>>>
>>>>> So you give a 1/1000 of 1 percent example?
>>>>> What does "disaster relief" have to do with the billions and trillions
>>>>> spent by this government? You're a goddamn fool.
>>>>
>>>> The shriller you rant the
>>>
>>> The more /non sequitur/ you blabber the more you admit you're full
>>> of shit, bleuballs.
>>
>> Ha ha ha!
>
> Yeah, it is actually funny, bleuballs.
>
> Why do you think your fuckwitted nym is clever or cute?
> Why did you *ever* think it?
>
of the name of the 7-year-old daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes: Suri
Cruise.
Offhand, I'd say it started out as a "wide-finger typo" (since the "u" and
"i" are adjacent on the standard QWERTY keyboard), and `Chine Bleu Fuzzy
Dice' just "went with it."
It's just one of *many* phony nyms this VLILLLDM has used:
Siri Cruise
China Blue Clay
Big Trouble in Little China Blue
Acid Washed China Blue Jeans
Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
China Blue Corn Chips
[the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill
Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
Light the China Blue Touch Paper
Chicken Cordon Bleu
China Blue Veins
China Blue Jay Way
China Blue Ribbon
Where did you get those China Blue jeans
Out of the China Blue
Wall of China Blue
among others.
Message has been deleted
Guy Fawkes
Nov 2, 2013, 7:51:03 PM11/2/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
55483F.100...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <97360$52751b2c$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
You are clearly a victim of liberal education.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Checkmate
Nov 3, 2013, 10:12:36 AM11/3/13
to
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 22:03:52 -0700, Siri Cruz put forth the notion that:
>
> In article <1lbqt6i.1i3amg51iac3p3N%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>,
> sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote:
>
> > Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <MPG.2cdeebb9e...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >
> > YSTHM 'envious' and yes I am.
>
> Maybe you can find a newsgroup full of BNP losers who are as aggressively stupid
> as our wingnuts.
>
> > BTW, what does 'VLILLLDM' mean?
>
> I have no idea. And I'm okay with that.
I was okay with that when I read it too... just in case you were
wondering.
--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright ￜ 2013
all rights reserved
My poor people skills??? You sir, are fucked in the head."
-Emmett Gulley
Checkmate!
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 22:03:52 -0700, Siri Cruz put forth the notion that:
>
> In article <1lbqt6i.1i3amg51iac3p3N%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>,
> sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote:
>
> > Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <MPG.2cdeebb9e...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's just one of *many* phony nyms this VLILLLDM has used:
> > > >
> > > > Siri Cruise
> > > > China Blue Clay
> > > > Big Trouble in Little China Blue
> > > > Acid Washed China Blue Jeans
> > > > Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
> > > > China Blue Corn Chips
> > > > [the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill
> > > > Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
> > > > In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
> > > > Light the China Blue Touch Paper
> > > > Chicken Cordon Bleu
> > > > China Blue Veins
> > > > China Blue Jay Way
> > > > China Blue Ribbon
> > > > Where did you get those China Blue jeans
> > > > Out of the China Blue
> > > > Wall of China Blue
> > > >
> > > > among others.
> > >
> > > A lsit of my very own. The rest of you should be jealous.
> > >
> > > > It's just one of *many* phony nyms this VLILLLDM has used:
> > > >
> > > > Siri Cruise
> > > > China Blue Clay
> > > > Big Trouble in Little China Blue
> > > > Acid Washed China Blue Jeans
> > > > Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
> > > > China Blue Corn Chips
> > > > [the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill
> > > > Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
> > > > In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
> > > > Light the China Blue Touch Paper
> > > > Chicken Cordon Bleu
> > > > China Blue Veins
> > > > China Blue Jay Way
> > > > China Blue Ribbon
> > > > Where did you get those China Blue jeans
> > > > Out of the China Blue
> > > > Wall of China Blue
> > > >
> > > > among others.
> > >
> >
> > YSTHM 'envious' and yes I am.
>
> Maybe you can find a newsgroup full of BNP losers who are as aggressively stupid
> as our wingnuts.
>
> > BTW, what does 'VLILLLDM' mean?
>
> I have no idea. And I'm okay with that.
I was okay with that when I read it too... just in case you were
wondering.
--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright ￜ 2013
all rights reserved
My poor people skills??? You sir, are fucked in the head."
-Emmett Gulley
Guy Fawkes
Nov 3, 2013, 11:51:22 AM11/3/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
149091.183...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <MPG.2cdeebb9e...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's just one of *many* phony nyms this VLILLLDM has used:
>>
>> Siri Cruise
>> China Blue Clay
>> Big Trouble in Little China Blue
>> Acid Washed China Blue Jeans
>> Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>> China Blue Corn Chips
>> [the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill
>> Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
>> In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>> Light the China Blue Touch Paper
>> Chicken Cordon Bleu
>> China Blue Veins
>> China Blue Jay Way
>> China Blue Ribbon
>> Where did you get those China Blue jeans
>> Out of the China Blue
>> Wall of China Blue
>>
>> among others.
>
>>
>> Siri Cruise
>> China Blue Clay
>> Big Trouble in Little China Blue
>> Acid Washed China Blue Jeans
>> Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>> China Blue Corn Chips
>> [the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill
>> Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
>> In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>> Light the China Blue Touch Paper
>> Chicken Cordon Bleu
>> China Blue Veins
>> China Blue Jay Way
>> China Blue Ribbon
>> Where did you get those China Blue jeans
>> Out of the China Blue
>> Wall of China Blue
>>
>> among others.
>
> A lsit of my very own. The rest of you should be jealous.
So basically you are a sockpuppet. Your philosphy is so corrupt, so gutter,
so debased it can only be sold by the lies of liars.
If I were you I would kill myself out of embarassment.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 3, 2013, 11:52:06 AM11/3/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
929087.220...@news.eternal-september.org:
> I have no idea. And I'm okay with that.
Aratzio
Nov 3, 2013, 11:53:01 AM11/3/13
to
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:30:05 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> Pleasantly Postulated::
>In article <MPG.2cdeebb9e...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
USENET leave USENET in shame, never to return.
Or something.
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> Pleasantly Postulated::
>In article <MPG.2cdeebb9e...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's just one of *many* phony nyms this VLILLLDM has used:
>>
>> Siri Cruise
>> China Blue Clay
>> Big Trouble in Little China Blue
>> Acid Washed China Blue Jeans
>> Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>> China Blue Corn Chips
>> [the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill
>> Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
>> In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>> Light the China Blue Touch Paper
>> Chicken Cordon Bleu
>> China Blue Veins
>> China Blue Jay Way
>> China Blue Ribbon
>> Where did you get those China Blue jeans
>> Out of the China Blue
>> Wall of China Blue
>>
>> among others.
>
>>
>> Siri Cruise
>> China Blue Clay
>> Big Trouble in Little China Blue
>> Acid Washed China Blue Jeans
>> Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>> China Blue Corn Chips
>> [the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill
>> Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
>> In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>> Light the China Blue Touch Paper
>> Chicken Cordon Bleu
>> China Blue Veins
>> China Blue Jay Way
>> China Blue Ribbon
>> Where did you get those China Blue jeans
>> Out of the China Blue
>> Wall of China Blue
>>
>> among others.
>
>A lsit of my very own. The rest of you should be jealous.
You are obviously busted and must by force pf the evidence laid before
USENET leave USENET in shame, never to return.
Or something.
ASt...@elgereth.com
Nov 3, 2013, 12:21:00 PM11/3/13
to
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com>
wrote:
>Matt Warner <Ma...@gmail.com-spam> wrote in
>news:l52cu...@news6.newsguy.com:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:26:05 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>><No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
>>
>> All gummints print money.
>>
>
>Oh I see, a moron. Money is paper. Money in and of itself is meaningless.
>It is a convenient measure of wealth.
That wasn't always so, Guy. There was a time when monetary notes stated 'Will
Pay To Bearer On Demand.' There was gold to back up the money. You can thank the
Nixon admin for eliminating the gold standard. During Gerald Ford's term, the
gold mysteriously disappeared from Ft. Knox:
http://www.silverdoctors.com/1981-article-7000-tons-of-gold-bullion-removed-from-fort-knox-from-1973-74/
Since it was no longer being used to back the money, it was removed (read
pocketed). One could probably make a very educated guess as to who(plural) got
rich off this.Since 1971, our money has not been backed by anything of value. It
is simply script.
>
>If we say that an ounce of gold is worth 100 monetary units then each
>monetary unit will buy a certain amount of stuff. If the gummint prints
>lots of monetary unit without the wealth of the nation increasing then
>shortly that ounce of gold will be worth 10,000 units and now that single
>credit buys 1/1000 of what it did before.
>
>I give you Weimar Germany as the most egreious example where it took
>wheelbarrows of monetary units to buy a loaf of bread.
>
>A government that simply prints money without the base value of it's
>economy increasing is simply stealing from it's citizens. And frankly theft
>on that scale should be a capital crime.
wrote:
>Matt Warner <Ma...@gmail.com-spam> wrote in
>news:l52cu...@news6.newsguy.com:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:26:05 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>><No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
>>
>> All gummints print money.
>>
>
>Oh I see, a moron. Money is paper. Money in and of itself is meaningless.
>It is a convenient measure of wealth.
That wasn't always so, Guy. There was a time when monetary notes stated 'Will
Pay To Bearer On Demand.' There was gold to back up the money. You can thank the
Nixon admin for eliminating the gold standard. During Gerald Ford's term, the
gold mysteriously disappeared from Ft. Knox:
http://www.silverdoctors.com/1981-article-7000-tons-of-gold-bullion-removed-from-fort-knox-from-1973-74/
Since it was no longer being used to back the money, it was removed (read
pocketed). One could probably make a very educated guess as to who(plural) got
rich off this.Since 1971, our money has not been backed by anything of value. It
is simply script.
>
>If we say that an ounce of gold is worth 100 monetary units then each
>monetary unit will buy a certain amount of stuff. If the gummint prints
>lots of monetary unit without the wealth of the nation increasing then
>shortly that ounce of gold will be worth 10,000 units and now that single
>credit buys 1/1000 of what it did before.
>
>I give you Weimar Germany as the most egreious example where it took
>wheelbarrows of monetary units to buy a loaf of bread.
>
>A government that simply prints money without the base value of it's
>economy increasing is simply stealing from it's citizens. And frankly theft
>on that scale should be a capital crime.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 3, 2013, 12:27:21 PM11/3/13
to
ASt...@elgereth.com wrote in
news:ht0d795be3ur6gqfp...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
> <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Matt Warner <Ma...@gmail.com-spam> wrote in
>>news:l52cu...@news6.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:26:05 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>>><No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
>>>
>>> All gummints print money.
>>>
>>
>>Oh I see, a moron. Money is paper. Money in and of itself is
>>meaningless. It is a convenient measure of wealth.
>
> That wasn't always so, Guy. There was a time when monetary notes stated
> 'Will Pay To Bearer On Demand.' There was gold to back up the money. You
> can thank the Nixon admin for eliminating the gold standard. During
> Gerald Ford's term, the gold mysteriously disappeared from Ft. Knox:
> http://www.silverdoctors.com/1981-article-7000-tons-of-gold-bullion-remov
> ed-from-fort-knox-from-1973-74/ Since it was no longer being used to
> back the money, it was removed (read pocketed). One could probably make
> a very educated guess as to who(plural) got rich off this.Since 1971,
> our money has not been backed by anything of value. It is simply script.
And obviously all Republican's fault.
news:ht0d795be3ur6gqfp...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
> <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Matt Warner <Ma...@gmail.com-spam> wrote in
>>news:l52cu...@news6.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:26:05 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>>><No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
>>>
>>> All gummints print money.
>>>
>>
>>Oh I see, a moron. Money is paper. Money in and of itself is
>>meaningless. It is a convenient measure of wealth.
>
> That wasn't always so, Guy. There was a time when monetary notes stated
> 'Will Pay To Bearer On Demand.' There was gold to back up the money. You
> can thank the Nixon admin for eliminating the gold standard. During
> Gerald Ford's term, the gold mysteriously disappeared from Ft. Knox:
> http://www.silverdoctors.com/1981-article-7000-tons-of-gold-bullion-remov
> ed-from-fort-knox-from-1973-74/ Since it was no longer being used to
> back the money, it was removed (read pocketed). One could probably make
> a very educated guess as to who(plural) got rich off this.Since 1971,
> our money has not been backed by anything of value. It is simply script.
ASt...@elgereth.com
Nov 3, 2013, 12:34:32 PM11/3/13
to
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 17:27:21 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com>
VP in '73 because dear old Spiro got caught evading taxes and money laundering.
The gold was removed during 73-74. Ford was president from 74-77. But your point
stands.
wrote:
>ASt...@elgereth.com wrote in
>news:ht0d795be3ur6gqfp...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>> <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Warner <Ma...@gmail.com-spam> wrote in
>>>news:l52cu...@news6.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:26:05 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>>>><No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
>>>>
>>>> All gummints print money.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh I see, a moron. Money is paper. Money in and of itself is
>>>meaningless. It is a convenient measure of wealth.
>>
>> That wasn't always so, Guy. There was a time when monetary notes stated
>> 'Will Pay To Bearer On Demand.' There was gold to back up the money. You
>> can thank the Nixon admin for eliminating the gold standard. During
>> Gerald Ford's term, the gold mysteriously disappeared from Ft. Knox:
>> http://www.silverdoctors.com/1981-article-7000-tons-of-gold-bullion-remov
>> ed-from-fort-knox-from-1973-74/ Since it was no longer being used to
>> back the money, it was removed (read pocketed). One could probably make
>> a very educated guess as to who(plural) got rich off this.Since 1971,
>> our money has not been backed by anything of value. It is simply script.
>
>And obviously all Republican's fault.
I stand corrected. Nixon was still president during the gold heist. Ford became
>ASt...@elgereth.com wrote in
>news:ht0d795be3ur6gqfp...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>> <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Warner <Ma...@gmail.com-spam> wrote in
>>>news:l52cu...@news6.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:26:05 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>>>><No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
>>>>
>>>> All gummints print money.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh I see, a moron. Money is paper. Money in and of itself is
>>>meaningless. It is a convenient measure of wealth.
>>
>> That wasn't always so, Guy. There was a time when monetary notes stated
>> 'Will Pay To Bearer On Demand.' There was gold to back up the money. You
>> can thank the Nixon admin for eliminating the gold standard. During
>> Gerald Ford's term, the gold mysteriously disappeared from Ft. Knox:
>> http://www.silverdoctors.com/1981-article-7000-tons-of-gold-bullion-remov
>> ed-from-fort-knox-from-1973-74/ Since it was no longer being used to
>> back the money, it was removed (read pocketed). One could probably make
>> a very educated guess as to who(plural) got rich off this.Since 1971,
>> our money has not been backed by anything of value. It is simply script.
>
>And obviously all Republican's fault.
VP in '73 because dear old Spiro got caught evading taxes and money laundering.
The gold was removed during 73-74. Ford was president from 74-77. But your point
stands.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 3, 2013, 12:38:56 PM11/3/13
to
ASt...@elgereth.com wrote in
news:742d7996uu22ujh7o...@4ax.com:
Um, you still have not proved that the gold was removed from Fort Knox.
Your simply saying so does not constitute proof. Not saying that I don't
think it's possible, I am just one of those people who likes to see
evidence.
news:742d7996uu22ujh7o...@4ax.com:
Your simply saying so does not constitute proof. Not saying that I don't
think it's possible, I am just one of those people who likes to see
evidence.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
ASt...@elgereth.com
Nov 3, 2013, 1:00:08 PM11/3/13
to
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 17:38:56 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com>
Sorry, I thought you had read the cite I included. Here it is again:
http://www.silverdoctors.com/1981-article-7000-tons-of-gold-bullion-removed-from-fort-knox-from-1973-74/
Here is another:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/08/chris-weber/the-great-american-disaster-how-much-gold-remains-in-fortknox/
As for proof that Ft. Knox is empty, that is laughable. No one is allowed to
visit, no exceptions. Pretty much like all government lies, they can tell us
what they want, make it top secret to find out the truth and bury it forever to
keep it from surfacing. As to whether R's or D's were responsible, I'd probably
hedge my bet and say both. Suffice it to say, that we eliminated the gold
standard entirely in 1971. The question is....why?
http://www.silverdoctors.com/1981-article-7000-tons-of-gold-bullion-removed-from-fort-knox-from-1973-74/
Here is another:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/08/chris-weber/the-great-american-disaster-how-much-gold-remains-in-fortknox/
As for proof that Ft. Knox is empty, that is laughable. No one is allowed to
visit, no exceptions. Pretty much like all government lies, they can tell us
what they want, make it top secret to find out the truth and bury it forever to
keep it from surfacing. As to whether R's or D's were responsible, I'd probably
hedge my bet and say both. Suffice it to say, that we eliminated the gold
standard entirely in 1971. The question is....why?
Message has been deleted
Johnny Johnson
Nov 3, 2013, 1:22:02 PM11/3/13
to
In article <ht0d795be3ur6gqfp...@4ax.com>, ASt...@elgereth.com
says...
The Constitution requires US currency be minted in gold and silver.
Article 10: ''No state shall emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold
and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, coin money.'' The Founding
Fathers knew that irresponsible govts print paper money, backed by nothing,
overspend and devalue the currency, causing "inflation", and destroying the
economy. That has been happening for decades and is accelerating at a
tremendous rate NOW.
When the govt began issuing paper money it was backed by real gold and
silver.
In 1913, the Federal Reserve System was created by Congress; a private
company, owned by member banks, and controlled by the bankers. The bank notes
were redeemable for gold/silver.
In 1933, FDR stopped the minting of gold coins and paper money was no longer
backed by and redeemable for - gold. You couldn't even own gold, that was
illegal. You had to return it to the Treasury for paper money. But
"collectors" could keep their gold coins. But they were no longer usable
currency...just like you can't go in a store today and buy bread with a gold
coin! Federal Reserve Notes are not backed by, or redeemable for gold/silver.
The mint made silver coins through '64, then reduced the silver content to
50%, and then finally in 1970 silver coins ceased. This was due to inflation
(we were warned it could happen by Thomas Jefferson, see first paragraph). In
1971, the govt ceased allowing foreign banks to redeem US dollars for gold.
This was when the gold standard ceased.
http://askville.amazon.com/USA-gold-standard/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=
61730078
From the FAQs page of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond:
When did the United States go off the gold standard?
H.J. Res. 192, approved by President Roosevelt on June 5, 1933, provided that
obligations payable in gold or specific coin or currency are contrary to
public policy, and that those obligations could be discharged dollar for
dollar in legal tender. After that resolution was adopted, currency of the
United States could not be converted into gold by United States citizens, but
the Treasury would convert dollars into gold for foreign governments as a
means of maintaining stability and confidence in the dollar. Because the
dollar was no longer freely convertible, one could consider that the United
States was no longer on the gold standard at that time.
http://www.richmondfed.org/faqs/gold_silver/
As of 2013 no country used a gold standard as the basis of its monetary
system, although some hold substantial gold reserves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
See `Fort Knox: Secrets Revealed' on the History Channel
http://hft.history.com/videos/fort-knox-secrets--revealed
Also; from The Numismatic News:
Gold all there when Ft. Knox opened doors
Posted on September 15, 2009 by NMN
America's gold bullion depository at Ft. Knox, Ky., was built in the 1930s to
be impregnable to enemy invasion, but 35 years ago on Sept. 23, 1974, it was
invaded by 120 members of a press contingent that I was part of, and a dozen
members of Congress and representatives of the Mint and Treasury Department.
It remains a gold-letter day for those who made it to the "A" list and
attended, and a bitter day for those who were not allowed into Ft. Knox, but
even more so for the journalists who had relentlessly argued, publicly, that
the visit would never be allowed in the first place because the government
had secretly trucked the gold out.
Even for the jaded, the experience was nothing short of amazing.
Visiting Ft. Knox, then as today, is virtually unheard of. The Treasury and
the Federal Reserve, both of whom serve as co-administrators of the facility,
have a strong policy against it. Dozens of requests are turned down annually.
Even former Presidents are denied entry.
Visit turn-downs were efficient and specific: "The Depository is a classified
facility. No visitors are permitted, and no exceptions are made."
No one from the public other than President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who made
an inspection trip in 1943, has been inside before or since, the 1974
occasion.
Reversal of this policy on a one time only basis came as a result of a series
of peculiar events that resulted in a congressional demand for an audit of
the bullion depository, and a first-hand viewing of the gold deposited there.
Prior to Ft. Knox, centralization of the nation's gold supply in New York was
policy until it was recalled that the British seized it during the
Revolutionary War and Nazi forces might try to do likewise.
It was determined that a military reservation was needed to act as protector,
and that the nation's gold and silver reserves would be separated. West
Point, with the nearby U.S. Military Academy was chosen for silver; for gold
it turned out to be the Ft. Knox military reservation outdid Lexington, Ky.
About a year and a half was taken in a project that included 16,000 cubic
feet of granite, 4,200 cubic yards of concrete, 750 tons of reinforcing
steel, and 670 tons of structural steel.
Gold was transported by caravan across eastern America, reported afterwards
in the daily newspapers who marveled at the ingenuity of the building, its
interior vaults and symbolic meaning of the original secure location.
The cost of construction was $560,000 and the building was completed in
December 1936.
By the end of the Truman Administration in 1952, some $2 billion in gold had
been repatriated abroad to our allies. Suspecting that this was not the whole
story, the incoming Eisenhower Administration was faced with demands for an
investigation and promptly conducted one.
An advisory committee was organized under the directorship of Treasury
Secretary George Humphrey, and with the consultation of former Treasury chief
John Snyder. Rules were formulated and an audit conducted.
Reporting to the President, the committee said it "was impressed with the
evidence of the adequacy and effectiveness of the audit and controls methods
that are being followed ... Your committee has no reason to doubt the
accuracy of the Treasury's accounts." For two decades, the result of this
audit was accepted.
Vaults were sealed after that audit in 1953.
Vault doors containing this gold really are little more than compartments
within the giant vault. They have been sealed with a special tape designed to
show breakage and tampering. Hot sealing wax covers both ends, holding them
to a card that was signed at the time of the dealing by three representatives
of the government.
One persistent rumor that there was no gold left in Ft. Knox resulted in the
first opening of the depository to the public in 1974. The cause: Dr. Peter
David Beter, a Washington attorney, whose book "Conspiracy Against the
Dollar," makes an attack on international monetary reform and the Rockefeller
interests.
Beter charged that "powerful Americans have secretly permitted $20 billion
worth of gold to be removed from Ft. Knox." The weekly publication National
Tattler picked up the story, blazed it into headlines, and members of
Congress soon began to receive inquiries from constituents.
Ed Busch, of WFAA Radio, Dallas, Texas, gave Beter a forum to continue with
his charges. The Treasury initially refused comment, not wishing to dignify
the charges by way of rebuttal. Soon, however, congressional pressure for an
answer mandated a statement, made informally, that Beter's view was
"ridiculous."
Heightening suspicion on the part of Beter, and others, was the continued
refusal by the Treasury to open the facility for inspection by anyone --
including members of Congress.
Reason for this was well-explained by Mint Director Mary T. Brooks, whose
Mint bureau had full charge over the depository facility. "The policy against
visitors is longstanding," she commented in an interview with me in 1973.
Security, to be sure, was a dominant factor, but in the minds of some, there
could be only one reason: something to hide.
For me, the trip to Kentucky was a long one. Signs up for Ft. Knox press
contingent were all over the Louisville airport. Ft. Knox personnel handling
the press were present (not terribly large). An army bus awaited to take us
to the depository located on the military reservation.
Among those on the bus besides me: Clifford Mishler [then a senior editor at
Numismatic News, now ANA president], Robert Simon of the Chicago Sun Times
and Bill Barnhill of The Tattler (which started the whole Ft. Knox expose).
Joining later: Margo Russell, editor of Coin World, and Jim Miller, publisher
of COINage. My position was unique -- a freelance writer then taking a day
off from law school to have a story of a lifetime.
My notes from that day reflect the times: gas at 50.9 cents a gallon. (It was
priced 9 cents higher in New York).
Soon, a sign was visible on the road: Ft. Knox: Home of the 194th Armored
Brigade. Traveling along Brandenburg Road turnoff, which leads into the
military reservation, there are some railroad spur lines, rusted and weed
infested, indicating lack of use. I remember thinking, the gold didn't get
out that way.
As we moved still closer to the fort, however, the spur lines criss-cross the
entire area and these aren't rusted, or weeded, and seem to be well used. I
started to wonder.
Helicopters and small aircraft seemed to be in the air all the time.
The bus turned on to Bullion Blvd. The bus continues until it runs into the
perpendicular "Gold Vault Road." One hundred yards, or so, up is Ft. Knox
Bullion Depository.
At the entrance to Gold Vault Road was a sign and a large speaker. The sign
states in bold, large capital letters:
HALT. STATE YOUR BUSINESS IN LOUD SPEAKER. DO NOT ENTER WITHOUT PERMISSION.
Inside, I met up with Charles Stahl, president of the Economic News Agency
and publisher of Green's Commodity Market Comments. I asked him what would
happen if no gold was to be found. Stahl said that the price of gold on the
free market would rise.
"But there's no way it's not here," he said, noting in addition that it was
not even the world's greatest hoard.
"There's $60 billion in the Fed in New York," he noted, "the largest hoard
there contains 402 million ounces." Ft. Knox, he reminded me "has only 147
million ounces."
Recognizing Rep. Philip M Crane, R-Ill., I asked him why he had suggested a
tour of Knox.
"I suggested it because of rampant rumors that significant portions of our
gold reserves were gone," he replied.
"I suggested it to William Simon [Secretary of the Treasury] because, if
coupled with an audit, would serve to help gain confidence in the monetary
system.
"I'll be satisfied with the audit," he said, noting that there was a previous
one in 1953, just after President Eisenhower took office.
Crane noted he had held one of the 400-ounce brick (approximately 27 pounds)
and noted its worth of $65,000 on the free market.
"Exciting" was the way he put it. "It was impressive how much value can be
found in such a small package," he remarked.
Today, the value of the same bullion cube is worth over $360,000.
Ed Busch, of WFAA Radio questioned Crane closely.
Another member of Congress, Clair W. Burgener, R-Calif., on the House Banking
and Currency Committee, was among those present at Ft. Knox. In an interview
with me, he said it was both "interesting and educational and reassuring" to
have been there.
"Concern by some of my constituents," was the reason he cited for his
presence. "The audit is timely," he said, noting that it was "over 20 years"
since the last one.
"Personally," he said, "I'm convinced that only a conspiracy or a military
invasion could get the gold out of here."
Other members of Congress arrived for the tour.
Reporters drew sticks to see who went in first. The space is so crowded and
limited inside that only small groups could go in. Jim Miller and I were
chosen to go in with the congressional delegation.
The guards frisked everyone, including congressmen, with a sensitive metal
detector.
Maneuvering around the narrow corridors, the group entered a large staging
area and carefully examined the 20-ton steel vault door -- proclaimed
"impenetrable" by the guards.
There is a 104-hour time lock on the vault, and, usually, it is kept closed.
Since we went off the gold exchange standard in 1971, there was little call
for gold from the depository.
(Until Aug. 15, 1971, foreign governments could ask for physical gold in
exchange for U.S. Federal Reserve Notes at the rate of $35 a troy ounce,
necessitating physical removal.)
Entering the vault, which is the size of a comfortable four room apartment,
we saw a dozen compartments spread over two floors. Each was sealed with a
special tape designed to show if any forced entry had been made.
Mint Director Brooks took a scissors and prepared to cut the tape, breaking
the seal. She did so, and an officer opened the vault.
"I'm very happy to show the country that the gold is here," she declared.
"I knew it was here, of course." So did nearly everyone else who came, most
believing that the government would never show off an empty vault to the
press or public.
Seeing that much gold for the first time is overwhelming. Initially, the
glare from the light and flashbulbs on the shimmering metal is blinding
Rep. John Rousselot, R-Calif., was next to me and asked a guard about an
unsubstantiated rumor that Beter popularized: that there was an escape tunnel
from the building that was used to take out gold bullion.
Indeed, Rousselot was told, there is a tunnel in the lower level. He asks to
see it and was rebuffed. An argument ensued going up the food chain to Mint
Director Brooks, who approves the visit. I stick by Rousselot's elbow and
take out my camera to start taking pictures.
"No pictures here," a Treasury official said.
"Why not?" Rousselot demands. "He's an American!" Pictures allowed.
We found the tunnel sealed and dated as the vaults are. Explained an official
from the depository, "All vaults have this type of escape device." It can
only be opened from inside the vault and has an intended use only when the
door is shut, the time-lock set and someone mistakenly trapped in the vault.
The escape tunnel is about the size of a sewer pipe, and as Rousselot and
other members of Congress noted at the time, it moves horizontally and can
only he crawled through with some degree of difficulty.
The seal was broken at the delegation's request, and the door opened.
Conclusion was that the tunnel -- which opens inside the depository building,
but outside the vault proper -- was not a viable means for anyone to try to
remove substantial quantities of gold. The escape could only be made outside
the vault, not the building itself.
For a coin collector visiting the facility, there was one terribly ironic
note. More than a quarter of the gold that was viewed appeared to be coinage
gold -- .900 fine, obtained from the melting of United States gold coinage.
It was difficult not to be struck by the irony of seeing the end result of
the destruction of so many formerly collectible coins.
http://www.numismaticnews.net/article/gold_all_there_when_ft_knox_opened_door
s
The above tour was documented in the above-linked History Channel episode.
> It is simply script.
>
Yada Yada Yada
says...
>
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Matt Warner <Ma...@gmail.com-spam> wrote in
>> news:l52cu...@news6.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:26:05 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>>> <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
>>>
>>> All gummints print money.
>>
>> Oh I see, a moron.
>> Money is paper.
>> Money in and of itself is meaningless.
>> It is a convenient measure of wealth.
>
> That wasn't always so, Guy.
> There was a time when monetary notes stated 'Will Pay To Bearer On Demand.'
> There was gold to back up the money. You can thank the Nixon admin for
> eliminating the gold standard.
>
You're off by several decades *and* several presidencies:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:42:31 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Matt Warner <Ma...@gmail.com-spam> wrote in
>> news:l52cu...@news6.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:26:05 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>>> <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW, where the fuck do you think gummint gets it's money from anyway?
>>>
>>> All gummints print money.
>>
>> Oh I see, a moron.
>> Money is paper.
>> Money in and of itself is meaningless.
>> It is a convenient measure of wealth.
>
> That wasn't always so, Guy.
> There was a time when monetary notes stated 'Will Pay To Bearer On Demand.'
> There was gold to back up the money. You can thank the Nixon admin for
> eliminating the gold standard.
>
The Constitution requires US currency be minted in gold and silver.
Article 10: ''No state shall emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold
and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, coin money.'' The Founding
Fathers knew that irresponsible govts print paper money, backed by nothing,
overspend and devalue the currency, causing "inflation", and destroying the
economy. That has been happening for decades and is accelerating at a
tremendous rate NOW.
When the govt began issuing paper money it was backed by real gold and
silver.
In 1913, the Federal Reserve System was created by Congress; a private
company, owned by member banks, and controlled by the bankers. The bank notes
were redeemable for gold/silver.
In 1933, FDR stopped the minting of gold coins and paper money was no longer
backed by and redeemable for - gold. You couldn't even own gold, that was
illegal. You had to return it to the Treasury for paper money. But
"collectors" could keep their gold coins. But they were no longer usable
currency...just like you can't go in a store today and buy bread with a gold
coin! Federal Reserve Notes are not backed by, or redeemable for gold/silver.
The mint made silver coins through '64, then reduced the silver content to
50%, and then finally in 1970 silver coins ceased. This was due to inflation
(we were warned it could happen by Thomas Jefferson, see first paragraph). In
1971, the govt ceased allowing foreign banks to redeem US dollars for gold.
This was when the gold standard ceased.
http://askville.amazon.com/USA-gold-standard/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=
61730078
From the FAQs page of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond:
When did the United States go off the gold standard?
H.J. Res. 192, approved by President Roosevelt on June 5, 1933, provided that
obligations payable in gold or specific coin or currency are contrary to
public policy, and that those obligations could be discharged dollar for
dollar in legal tender. After that resolution was adopted, currency of the
United States could not be converted into gold by United States citizens, but
the Treasury would convert dollars into gold for foreign governments as a
means of maintaining stability and confidence in the dollar. Because the
dollar was no longer freely convertible, one could consider that the United
States was no longer on the gold standard at that time.
http://www.richmondfed.org/faqs/gold_silver/
As of 2013 no country used a gold standard as the basis of its monetary
system, although some hold substantial gold reserves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
>
> During Gerald Ford's term, the gold mysteriously disappeared from Ft. Knox:
> >http://www.silverdoctors.com/1981-article-7000-tons-of-gold-bullion-removed-from-fort-knox-from-1973-74/
Ooh: yet another "Conspiracy Theory." <chuckle> ;)
> During Gerald Ford's term, the gold mysteriously disappeared from Ft. Knox:
> >http://www.silverdoctors.com/1981-article-7000-tons-of-gold-bullion-removed-from-fort-knox-from-1973-74/
See `Fort Knox: Secrets Revealed' on the History Channel
http://hft.history.com/videos/fort-knox-secrets--revealed
Also; from The Numismatic News:
Gold all there when Ft. Knox opened doors
Posted on September 15, 2009 by NMN
America's gold bullion depository at Ft. Knox, Ky., was built in the 1930s to
be impregnable to enemy invasion, but 35 years ago on Sept. 23, 1974, it was
invaded by 120 members of a press contingent that I was part of, and a dozen
members of Congress and representatives of the Mint and Treasury Department.
It remains a gold-letter day for those who made it to the "A" list and
attended, and a bitter day for those who were not allowed into Ft. Knox, but
even more so for the journalists who had relentlessly argued, publicly, that
the visit would never be allowed in the first place because the government
had secretly trucked the gold out.
Even for the jaded, the experience was nothing short of amazing.
Visiting Ft. Knox, then as today, is virtually unheard of. The Treasury and
the Federal Reserve, both of whom serve as co-administrators of the facility,
have a strong policy against it. Dozens of requests are turned down annually.
Even former Presidents are denied entry.
Visit turn-downs were efficient and specific: "The Depository is a classified
facility. No visitors are permitted, and no exceptions are made."
No one from the public other than President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who made
an inspection trip in 1943, has been inside before or since, the 1974
occasion.
Reversal of this policy on a one time only basis came as a result of a series
of peculiar events that resulted in a congressional demand for an audit of
the bullion depository, and a first-hand viewing of the gold deposited there.
Prior to Ft. Knox, centralization of the nation's gold supply in New York was
policy until it was recalled that the British seized it during the
Revolutionary War and Nazi forces might try to do likewise.
It was determined that a military reservation was needed to act as protector,
and that the nation's gold and silver reserves would be separated. West
Point, with the nearby U.S. Military Academy was chosen for silver; for gold
it turned out to be the Ft. Knox military reservation outdid Lexington, Ky.
About a year and a half was taken in a project that included 16,000 cubic
feet of granite, 4,200 cubic yards of concrete, 750 tons of reinforcing
steel, and 670 tons of structural steel.
Gold was transported by caravan across eastern America, reported afterwards
in the daily newspapers who marveled at the ingenuity of the building, its
interior vaults and symbolic meaning of the original secure location.
The cost of construction was $560,000 and the building was completed in
December 1936.
By the end of the Truman Administration in 1952, some $2 billion in gold had
been repatriated abroad to our allies. Suspecting that this was not the whole
story, the incoming Eisenhower Administration was faced with demands for an
investigation and promptly conducted one.
An advisory committee was organized under the directorship of Treasury
Secretary George Humphrey, and with the consultation of former Treasury chief
John Snyder. Rules were formulated and an audit conducted.
Reporting to the President, the committee said it "was impressed with the
evidence of the adequacy and effectiveness of the audit and controls methods
that are being followed ... Your committee has no reason to doubt the
accuracy of the Treasury's accounts." For two decades, the result of this
audit was accepted.
Vaults were sealed after that audit in 1953.
Vault doors containing this gold really are little more than compartments
within the giant vault. They have been sealed with a special tape designed to
show breakage and tampering. Hot sealing wax covers both ends, holding them
to a card that was signed at the time of the dealing by three representatives
of the government.
One persistent rumor that there was no gold left in Ft. Knox resulted in the
first opening of the depository to the public in 1974. The cause: Dr. Peter
David Beter, a Washington attorney, whose book "Conspiracy Against the
Dollar," makes an attack on international monetary reform and the Rockefeller
interests.
Beter charged that "powerful Americans have secretly permitted $20 billion
worth of gold to be removed from Ft. Knox." The weekly publication National
Tattler picked up the story, blazed it into headlines, and members of
Congress soon began to receive inquiries from constituents.
Ed Busch, of WFAA Radio, Dallas, Texas, gave Beter a forum to continue with
his charges. The Treasury initially refused comment, not wishing to dignify
the charges by way of rebuttal. Soon, however, congressional pressure for an
answer mandated a statement, made informally, that Beter's view was
"ridiculous."
Heightening suspicion on the part of Beter, and others, was the continued
refusal by the Treasury to open the facility for inspection by anyone --
including members of Congress.
Reason for this was well-explained by Mint Director Mary T. Brooks, whose
Mint bureau had full charge over the depository facility. "The policy against
visitors is longstanding," she commented in an interview with me in 1973.
Security, to be sure, was a dominant factor, but in the minds of some, there
could be only one reason: something to hide.
For me, the trip to Kentucky was a long one. Signs up for Ft. Knox press
contingent were all over the Louisville airport. Ft. Knox personnel handling
the press were present (not terribly large). An army bus awaited to take us
to the depository located on the military reservation.
Among those on the bus besides me: Clifford Mishler [then a senior editor at
Numismatic News, now ANA president], Robert Simon of the Chicago Sun Times
and Bill Barnhill of The Tattler (which started the whole Ft. Knox expose).
Joining later: Margo Russell, editor of Coin World, and Jim Miller, publisher
of COINage. My position was unique -- a freelance writer then taking a day
off from law school to have a story of a lifetime.
My notes from that day reflect the times: gas at 50.9 cents a gallon. (It was
priced 9 cents higher in New York).
Soon, a sign was visible on the road: Ft. Knox: Home of the 194th Armored
Brigade. Traveling along Brandenburg Road turnoff, which leads into the
military reservation, there are some railroad spur lines, rusted and weed
infested, indicating lack of use. I remember thinking, the gold didn't get
out that way.
As we moved still closer to the fort, however, the spur lines criss-cross the
entire area and these aren't rusted, or weeded, and seem to be well used. I
started to wonder.
Helicopters and small aircraft seemed to be in the air all the time.
The bus turned on to Bullion Blvd. The bus continues until it runs into the
perpendicular "Gold Vault Road." One hundred yards, or so, up is Ft. Knox
Bullion Depository.
At the entrance to Gold Vault Road was a sign and a large speaker. The sign
states in bold, large capital letters:
HALT. STATE YOUR BUSINESS IN LOUD SPEAKER. DO NOT ENTER WITHOUT PERMISSION.
Inside, I met up with Charles Stahl, president of the Economic News Agency
and publisher of Green's Commodity Market Comments. I asked him what would
happen if no gold was to be found. Stahl said that the price of gold on the
free market would rise.
"But there's no way it's not here," he said, noting in addition that it was
not even the world's greatest hoard.
"There's $60 billion in the Fed in New York," he noted, "the largest hoard
there contains 402 million ounces." Ft. Knox, he reminded me "has only 147
million ounces."
Recognizing Rep. Philip M Crane, R-Ill., I asked him why he had suggested a
tour of Knox.
"I suggested it because of rampant rumors that significant portions of our
gold reserves were gone," he replied.
"I suggested it to William Simon [Secretary of the Treasury] because, if
coupled with an audit, would serve to help gain confidence in the monetary
system.
"I'll be satisfied with the audit," he said, noting that there was a previous
one in 1953, just after President Eisenhower took office.
Crane noted he had held one of the 400-ounce brick (approximately 27 pounds)
and noted its worth of $65,000 on the free market.
"Exciting" was the way he put it. "It was impressive how much value can be
found in such a small package," he remarked.
Today, the value of the same bullion cube is worth over $360,000.
Ed Busch, of WFAA Radio questioned Crane closely.
Another member of Congress, Clair W. Burgener, R-Calif., on the House Banking
and Currency Committee, was among those present at Ft. Knox. In an interview
with me, he said it was both "interesting and educational and reassuring" to
have been there.
"Concern by some of my constituents," was the reason he cited for his
presence. "The audit is timely," he said, noting that it was "over 20 years"
since the last one.
"Personally," he said, "I'm convinced that only a conspiracy or a military
invasion could get the gold out of here."
Other members of Congress arrived for the tour.
Reporters drew sticks to see who went in first. The space is so crowded and
limited inside that only small groups could go in. Jim Miller and I were
chosen to go in with the congressional delegation.
The guards frisked everyone, including congressmen, with a sensitive metal
detector.
Maneuvering around the narrow corridors, the group entered a large staging
area and carefully examined the 20-ton steel vault door -- proclaimed
"impenetrable" by the guards.
There is a 104-hour time lock on the vault, and, usually, it is kept closed.
Since we went off the gold exchange standard in 1971, there was little call
for gold from the depository.
(Until Aug. 15, 1971, foreign governments could ask for physical gold in
exchange for U.S. Federal Reserve Notes at the rate of $35 a troy ounce,
necessitating physical removal.)
Entering the vault, which is the size of a comfortable four room apartment,
we saw a dozen compartments spread over two floors. Each was sealed with a
special tape designed to show if any forced entry had been made.
Mint Director Brooks took a scissors and prepared to cut the tape, breaking
the seal. She did so, and an officer opened the vault.
"I'm very happy to show the country that the gold is here," she declared.
"I knew it was here, of course." So did nearly everyone else who came, most
believing that the government would never show off an empty vault to the
press or public.
Seeing that much gold for the first time is overwhelming. Initially, the
glare from the light and flashbulbs on the shimmering metal is blinding
Rep. John Rousselot, R-Calif., was next to me and asked a guard about an
unsubstantiated rumor that Beter popularized: that there was an escape tunnel
from the building that was used to take out gold bullion.
Indeed, Rousselot was told, there is a tunnel in the lower level. He asks to
see it and was rebuffed. An argument ensued going up the food chain to Mint
Director Brooks, who approves the visit. I stick by Rousselot's elbow and
take out my camera to start taking pictures.
"No pictures here," a Treasury official said.
"Why not?" Rousselot demands. "He's an American!" Pictures allowed.
We found the tunnel sealed and dated as the vaults are. Explained an official
from the depository, "All vaults have this type of escape device." It can
only be opened from inside the vault and has an intended use only when the
door is shut, the time-lock set and someone mistakenly trapped in the vault.
The escape tunnel is about the size of a sewer pipe, and as Rousselot and
other members of Congress noted at the time, it moves horizontally and can
only he crawled through with some degree of difficulty.
The seal was broken at the delegation's request, and the door opened.
Conclusion was that the tunnel -- which opens inside the depository building,
but outside the vault proper -- was not a viable means for anyone to try to
remove substantial quantities of gold. The escape could only be made outside
the vault, not the building itself.
For a coin collector visiting the facility, there was one terribly ironic
note. More than a quarter of the gold that was viewed appeared to be coinage
gold -- .900 fine, obtained from the melting of United States gold coinage.
It was difficult not to be struck by the irony of seeing the end result of
the destruction of so many formerly collectible coins.
http://www.numismaticnews.net/article/gold_all_there_when_ft_knox_opened_door
s
The above tour was documented in the above-linked History Channel episode.
>
> Since it was no longer being used to back the money, it was removed (read
> pocketed). One could probably make a very educated guess as to who (plural)
> got rich off this. Since 1971, our money has not been backed by anything of value.
> Since it was no longer being used to back the money, it was removed (read
> pocketed). One could probably make a very educated guess as to who (plural)
> It is simply script.
>
Yada Yada Yada
>
>> If we say that an ounce of gold is worth 100 monetary units then each
>> monetary unit will buy a certain amount of stuff. If the gummint prints
>> lots of monetary unit without the wealth of the nation increasing then
>> shortly that ounce of gold will be worth 10,000 units and now that single
>> credit buys 1/1000 of what it did before.
>>
>> I give you Weimar Germany as the most egreious {SIC} example where it took
>> If we say that an ounce of gold is worth 100 monetary units then each
>> monetary unit will buy a certain amount of stuff. If the gummint prints
>> lots of monetary unit without the wealth of the nation increasing then
>> shortly that ounce of gold will be worth 10,000 units and now that single
>> credit buys 1/1000 of what it did before.
>>
Checkmate
Nov 3, 2013, 1:43:36 PM11/3/13
to
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 17:58:43 +0000, Sn!pe put forth the notion that:
Checkmate!
>
> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > So basically you are a sockpuppet. Your philosphy is so corrupt, so gutter,
> > so debased it can only be sold by the lies of liars.
> >
> > If I were you I would kill myself out of embarassment.
>
> So, what do you do for fun these fine days?
Fawkes guys?
--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright ￜ 2013
all rights reserved
-Emmett Gulley
Aratzio
Nov 3, 2013, 2:09:29 PM11/3/13
to
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:43:36 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Checkmate <Lunati...@The.Edge> Pleasantly Postulated::
>Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
>Checkmate!
>
>On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 17:58:43 +0000, Sn!pe put forth the notion that:
>
>
>>
>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So basically you are a sockpuppet. Your philosphy is so corrupt, so gutter,
>> > so debased it can only be sold by the lies of liars.
>> >
>> > If I were you I would kill myself out of embarassment.
>>
>> Hi there, Guy, nice to meet you.
>> So, what do you do for fun these fine days?
>
>Fawkes guys?
With cucumber.
Checkmate <Lunati...@The.Edge> Pleasantly Postulated::
>Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
>Checkmate!
>
>On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 17:58:43 +0000, Sn!pe put forth the notion that:
>
>
>>
>> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So basically you are a sockpuppet. Your philosphy is so corrupt, so gutter,
>> > so debased it can only be sold by the lies of liars.
>> >
>> > If I were you I would kill myself out of embarassment.
>>
>> Hi there, Guy, nice to meet you.
>> So, what do you do for fun these fine days?
>
>Fawkes guys?
Guy Fawkes
Nov 3, 2013, 3:37:17 PM11/3/13
to
ASt...@elgereth.com wrote in
news:c13d791aflseofhko...@4ax.com:
Still it is only surmise until you get in there and conduct an inventory.
2 words come to mind. Paranoia and conspiracy. Lacking concrete PROOF that
is all you have.
news:c13d791aflseofhko...@4ax.com:
2 words come to mind. Paranoia and conspiracy. Lacking concrete PROOF that
is all you have.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 3, 2013, 3:50:09 PM11/3/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-54D68...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA26D78A3A93F9We...@78.46.70.116>,
So? Do you not grasp that a philosophy based on lies might just to a small
extent be BAD?
Or are so immersed in the lies that the lies have become truth? Of course
objective truth does you no good, correct?
What of Obama had said, you won't be able to keep your insurance. You won't
be able to keep your doctor. Your premiums and your dedeductibles will go
up markedly.
Do you REALLY think he would have won 2 elections?
If you have to lie to me to get me to do something that ultimately hurts
me, then you are my enemy.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Guy Fawkes
Nov 3, 2013, 4:04:24 PM11/3/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-58E5F...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA26DA1257773BWe...@78.46.70.116>,
> spending.
My goodness. You are a stupid, stupid person.
Aratzio
Nov 3, 2013, 4:18:25 PM11/3/13
to
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 20:50:09 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks, Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> Pleasantly
Postulated::
For 3% of the populqation you stupid fuck.
75-80% are employer insured you mindless drone.
That leaves 20-25% of the population you dumb motherfucker.
16-18% are not even fucking insured you ignorant fuckstubble.
That leaves around 6% of the population in the individual market you
brainless dipwad.
Of that 6% are in the individual market you doltish toad licker.
Only 1/2 of those will see an increase in their Insurance costs you
insensate stonehead.
So 3% of the population MAY see an increase in their Insurance rates.
Many of them live in states where the Governor and/or Legislature
refused to exand Medicaid and/or set up state run excanges and as a
consequence fucked their own constituents.
So, fuckweasels like you fed a pablum of lies and misrepresentations
wail like newborns that 3% of the population may have to pay an
average of $90.00 a month more for insurance while 16% of the
population that NEVER FUCKING had insurance are getting insured.
Jesus fuck Siri overestimated your intelligence by at least 10X.
alt.usenet.kooks, Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> Pleasantly
Postulated::
75-80% are employer insured you mindless drone.
That leaves 20-25% of the population you dumb motherfucker.
16-18% are not even fucking insured you ignorant fuckstubble.
That leaves around 6% of the population in the individual market you
brainless dipwad.
Of that 6% are in the individual market you doltish toad licker.
Only 1/2 of those will see an increase in their Insurance costs you
insensate stonehead.
So 3% of the population MAY see an increase in their Insurance rates.
Many of them live in states where the Governor and/or Legislature
refused to exand Medicaid and/or set up state run excanges and as a
consequence fucked their own constituents.
So, fuckweasels like you fed a pablum of lies and misrepresentations
wail like newborns that 3% of the population may have to pay an
average of $90.00 a month more for insurance while 16% of the
population that NEVER FUCKING had insurance are getting insured.
Jesus fuck Siri overestimated your intelligence by at least 10X.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Guy Fawkes
Nov 3, 2013, 10:13:41 PM11/3/13
to
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote in news:1lbs5v9.1wfmtno15uh446N%
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk:
> A devastating riposte if ever I saw one, I'm very impressed.
>
Who gives a fuck what the you "think".
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk:
>
Who gives a fuck what the you "think".
Guy Fawkes
Nov 3, 2013, 10:15:00 PM11/3/13
to
Gary Burnore <gbur...@panix.com> wrote in
news:l56im5$s62$5...@reader1.panix.com:
> OMFG I can't stop laughing. Fuckstubble? That's hillarious.
>
> That your post is 100% spot on has GOT to piss him off.
>
>
Insignificant people don't matter. You are one of them.
news:l56im5$s62$5...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> That your post is 100% spot on has GOT to piss him off.
>
>
Insignificant people don't matter. You are one of them.
[Tor] Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Nov 3, 2013, 10:18:28 PM11/3/13
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt.
<snicker>
Arfatzio, in
<news:qoed79hrasqa1qh33...@4ax.com> did thusly
jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> For 3% of the populqation you stupid fuck.
> 75-80% are employer insured you mindless drone.
> That leaves 20-25% of the population you dumb motherfucker.
> 16-18% are not even fucking insured you ignorant fuckstubble.
> That leaves around 6% of the population in the individual market you
> brainless dipwad.
> Of that 6% are in the individual market you doltish toad licker.
> Only 1/2 of those will see an increase in their Insurance costs you
> insensate stonehead.
>
> So 3% of the population MAY see an increase in their Insurance rates.
> Many of them live in states where the Governor and/or Legislature
> refused to exand Medicaid and/or set up state run excanges and as a
> consequence fucked their own constituents.
>
> So, fuckweasels like you fed a pablum of lies and misrepresentations
> wail like newborns that 3% of the population may have to pay an
> average of $90.00 a month more for insurance while 16% of the
> population that NEVER FUCKING had insurance are getting insured.
>
> Jesus fuck Siri overestimated your intelligence by at least 10X.
Well don't hold back, TubbyTard. Tell us how you really
feel.
Be sure to do so in posts of 1370, 1721, 1867 and 1950
lines... for old time's sake.
Your epic meltdowns were so very entertaining.
<snicker>
--
/\ Properly known as Bill
\ /\ The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
\ / \ THERE IS NO CABAL - LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
\/ The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.
Accept no substitutes...
if it's from Databasix, it's a sure bet it's from a kook.
databasix.com / PacketDerm, LLC / COTSE:
all branches of the same malignant tree.
Message-ID: <l4n9dq$9oh$4...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l4pugb$nhv$3...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l4skjg$84r$3...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l4skjh$84r$4...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l4skji$84q$5...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l51rfe$6dd$6...@news.mixmin.net>
<snicker>
Arfatzio, in
<news:qoed79hrasqa1qh33...@4ax.com> did thusly
jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> For 3% of the populqation you stupid fuck.
> 75-80% are employer insured you mindless drone.
> That leaves 20-25% of the population you dumb motherfucker.
> 16-18% are not even fucking insured you ignorant fuckstubble.
> That leaves around 6% of the population in the individual market you
> brainless dipwad.
> Of that 6% are in the individual market you doltish toad licker.
> Only 1/2 of those will see an increase in their Insurance costs you
> insensate stonehead.
>
> So 3% of the population MAY see an increase in their Insurance rates.
> Many of them live in states where the Governor and/or Legislature
> refused to exand Medicaid and/or set up state run excanges and as a
> consequence fucked their own constituents.
>
> So, fuckweasels like you fed a pablum of lies and misrepresentations
> wail like newborns that 3% of the population may have to pay an
> average of $90.00 a month more for insurance while 16% of the
> population that NEVER FUCKING had insurance are getting insured.
>
> Jesus fuck Siri overestimated your intelligence by at least 10X.
feel.
Be sure to do so in posts of 1370, 1721, 1867 and 1950
lines... for old time's sake.
Your epic meltdowns were so very entertaining.
<snicker>
--
/\ Properly known as Bill
\ /\ The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
\ / \ THERE IS NO CABAL - LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
\/ The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.
Accept no substitutes...
if it's from Databasix, it's a sure bet it's from a kook.
databasix.com / PacketDerm, LLC / COTSE:
all branches of the same malignant tree.
Message-ID: <l4n9dq$9oh$4...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l4pugb$nhv$3...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l4skjg$84r$3...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l4skjh$84r$4...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l4skji$84q$5...@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l51rfe$6dd$6...@news.mixmin.net>
GOP_Decline_and_Fall
Nov 3, 2013, 10:52:49 PM11/3/13
to
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:18:25 -0800, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
wrote:
Uh-oh!
Now you've done it.
Put on your helmet and fasten your safety belt...His perennial death
threats can't be far away.
wrote:
Now you've done it.
Put on your helmet and fasten your safety belt...His perennial death
threats can't be far away.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Guy Fawkes
Nov 3, 2013, 11:50:25 PM11/3/13
to
Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
E2A3B8.204...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA26DE22C2C82CWe...@78.46.70.116>,
> Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote in news:1lbs5v9.1wfmtno15uh446N%
>> sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk:
>>
>> > Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> news:chine.bleu-58E5F...@news.eternal-september.org:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <XnsA26DA1257773BWe...@78.46.70.116>,
>> >> > Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Do you REALLY think he would have won 2 elections?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you have to lie to me to get me to do something that ultimately
>> >> >> hurts me, then you are my enemy.
>> >> >
>> >> > We can balance the budget by cutting taxes and increasing military
>> >> > spending.
>> >>
>> >> My goodness. You are a stupid, stupid person.
>> >
>> > A devastating riposte if ever I saw one, I'm very impressed.
>> >
>>
>> Who gives a fuck what the you "think".
>
> So how long has Ronald Reagan been your enemy?
>
>> sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote in news:1lbs5v9.1wfmtno15uh446N%
>> sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk:
>>
>> > Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> news:chine.bleu-58E5F...@news.eternal-september.org:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <XnsA26DA1257773BWe...@78.46.70.116>,
>> >> > Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Do you REALLY think he would have won 2 elections?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you have to lie to me to get me to do something that ultimately
>> >> >> hurts me, then you are my enemy.
>> >> >
>> >> > We can balance the budget by cutting taxes and increasing military
>> >> > spending.
>> >>
>> >> My goodness. You are a stupid, stupid person.
>> >
>> > A devastating riposte if ever I saw one, I'm very impressed.
>> >
>>
>> Who gives a fuck what the you "think".
>
You are a profundly stupid individual.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Hunter of the Shadows
Nov 4, 2013, 2:09:59 AM11/4/13
to
On 11/3/2013 1:50 PM, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> If you have to lie to me to get me to do something that ultimately hurts
> me, then you are my enemy.
Only if you figure out that I did that. If you never realize I was
> If you have to lie to me to get me to do something that ultimately hurts
> me, then you are my enemy.
lying or that it hurt you, I am your best friend with my knife in your back.
--
Julian
PHD
ECE
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Hunter of the Shadows
Nov 4, 2013, 2:12:05 AM11/4/13
to
Hunter of the Shadows
Nov 4, 2013, 2:13:33 AM11/4/13
to
Checkmate
Nov 4, 2013, 2:45:00 AM11/4/13
to
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 20:40:00 -0700, Siri Cruz put forth the notion that:
Checkmate!
>
> In article <l573m3$5ls$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
> [Tor] Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Be sure to do so in posts of 1370, 1721, 1867 and 1950
> > lines... for old time's sake.
>
> PKB*.
>
> > Be sure to do so in posts of 1370, 1721, 1867 and 1950
> > lines... for old time's sake.
>
SPANKY-SPANKY! (TM)
--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Checkmate
Nov 4, 2013, 2:47:30 AM11/4/13
to
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 04:50:25 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes put forth the notion
Checkmate!
that:
>
--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
ASt...@elgereth.com
Nov 4, 2013, 5:16:17 AM11/4/13
to
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 20:37:17 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes <No_email...@wahoo.com>
True sir. But it begs the question: Why did we go off of the gold standard at
the same time as this article was written?
from our government to not be at least a bit skeptical. I wouldn't put it past
any politician, Left or Right, to try and go after the brass ring if they
thought they could get away with it.
I'll put the question to you: Why did we go off of the gold standard. I mean
they had stopped paying American citizens in gold for the money years earlier.
In 1971 they stopped offering it for the money to the rest of the world. The
question is, why? Any thoughts, or just Ad Hominem that I am paranoid and a
conspiracist? A real dialogua would be appreciated. After all, you were the one
who wrote that money in of itself is meaningless. That wasn't always true, but
since 1971 it certainly is.
the same time as this article was written?
>
>2 words come to mind. Paranoia and conspiracy. Lacking concrete PROOF that
>is all you have.
Perhaps it is just paranoia and conspiracy. But I have seen all too much reality
>2 words come to mind. Paranoia and conspiracy. Lacking concrete PROOF that
>is all you have.
from our government to not be at least a bit skeptical. I wouldn't put it past
any politician, Left or Right, to try and go after the brass ring if they
thought they could get away with it.
I'll put the question to you: Why did we go off of the gold standard. I mean
they had stopped paying American citizens in gold for the money years earlier.
In 1971 they stopped offering it for the money to the rest of the world. The
question is, why? Any thoughts, or just Ad Hominem that I am paranoid and a
conspiracist? A real dialogua would be appreciated. After all, you were the one
who wrote that money in of itself is meaningless. That wasn't always true, but
since 1971 it certainly is.
ASt...@elgereth.com
Nov 4, 2013, 5:22:05 AM11/4/13
to
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 12:55:53 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <c13d791aflseofhko...@4ax.com>, ASt...@elgereth.com
>wrote:
As this 'supposedly'(according to the article I cited) happened in 1973-74,
Siri, one would have to look at records during that time of gold sales. But
seeing as the price of gold has wildly fluctuated since that time, one can
certainly believe that it wasn't sold en masse, but perhaps during periods of
higher prices. And one only needs to say Hunt Brothers to know that attempts
have been made to control precious metal markets in the past. Yet another
possibility. The reality is that we are off of the gold standard, meaning there
is nothing backing our money, and there are articles about how the gold was
removed from Ft. Knox during 1973-74, which is two years after the standard was
removed. Being as skeptical about politicians as I am, anything is possible.
>In article <c13d791aflseofhko...@4ax.com>, ASt...@elgereth.com
>wrote:
>
>> As for proof that Ft. Knox is empty, that is laughable. No one is allowed to
>> visit, no exceptions. Pretty much like all government lies, they can tell us
>> what they want, make it top secret to find out the truth and bury it forever
>> to
>> keep it from surfacing. As to whether R's or D's were responsible, I'd
>> probably
>> hedge my bet and say both. Suffice it to say, that we eliminated the gold
>> standard entirely in 1971. The question is....why?
>
>Has 5,000 tons of gold come on the market? I think someone would have noticed.
>> As for proof that Ft. Knox is empty, that is laughable. No one is allowed to
>> visit, no exceptions. Pretty much like all government lies, they can tell us
>> what they want, make it top secret to find out the truth and bury it forever
>> to
>> keep it from surfacing. As to whether R's or D's were responsible, I'd
>> probably
>> hedge my bet and say both. Suffice it to say, that we eliminated the gold
>> standard entirely in 1971. The question is....why?
>
As this 'supposedly'(according to the article I cited) happened in 1973-74,
Siri, one would have to look at records during that time of gold sales. But
seeing as the price of gold has wildly fluctuated since that time, one can
certainly believe that it wasn't sold en masse, but perhaps during periods of
higher prices. And one only needs to say Hunt Brothers to know that attempts
have been made to control precious metal markets in the past. Yet another
possibility. The reality is that we are off of the gold standard, meaning there
is nothing backing our money, and there are articles about how the gold was
removed from Ft. Knox during 1973-74, which is two years after the standard was
removed. Being as skeptical about politicians as I am, anything is possible.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 4, 2013, 9:09:32 AM11/4/13
to
Hunter of the Shadows <nochs...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7MGdnXRd6OWD1OrP...@giganews.com:
You can't tell time. Yours is past.
news:7MGdnXRd6OWD1OrP...@giganews.com:
Guy Fawkes
Nov 4, 2013, 9:10:07 AM11/4/13
to
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote in news:1lbstdx.19r3ew31will59N%
> [...]
> I'm completely awed by your debating skills.
>
Fortunately I am not fooled by your lies.
> [...]
>
>> >> >> My goodness. You are a stupid, stupid person.
>> >> >
>> >> > A devastating riposte if ever I saw one, I'm very impressed.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Who gives a fuck what the you "think".
>> >
>> > So how long has Ronald Reagan been your enemy?
>>
>> You are a profundly stupid individual.
>
> Another utterly convincing argument,
>> >> >> My goodness. You are a stupid, stupid person.
>> >> >
>> >> > A devastating riposte if ever I saw one, I'm very impressed.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Who gives a fuck what the you "think".
>> >
>> > So how long has Ronald Reagan been your enemy?
>>
>> You are a profundly stupid individual.
>
> I'm completely awed by your debating skills.
>
Fortunately I am not fooled by your lies.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 4, 2013, 9:11:10 AM11/4/13
to
Hunter of the Shadows <nochs...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7MGdnXVd6OVY1erP...@giganews.com:
family for posting here and displaying your genetic inferiority.
Guy Fawkes
Nov 4, 2013, 9:12:34 AM11/4/13
to
Hunter of the Shadows <nochs...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7MGdnXpd6OXV1erP...@giganews.com:
> On 11/3/2013 1:50 PM, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
>> If you have to lie to me to get me to do something that ultimately
>> hurts me, then you are my enemy.
>
> Only if you figure out that I did that. If you never realize I was
> lying or that it hurt you, I am your best friend with my knife in your
> back.
You are not simply my enemy, you are the enemy of civilization.
OTOH, it's nice to see a lib admitting the truth, however rare that is.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Checkmate
Nov 4, 2013, 9:48:44 AM11/4/13
to
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:10:07 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes put forth the notion
Checkmate!
that:
>
--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Message has been deleted
Johnny Johnson
Nov 4, 2013, 10:34:30 AM11/4/13
to
In article <6kse795ce0tj1rf8f...@4ax.com>, ASt...@elgereth.com
says...
Simple enough: we didn't.
As I proved, and apparently you igored, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took us off
the gold standard back in 1933.
and "coins of the realm."
When did the United States go off the gold standard?
H.J. Res. 192, approved by President Roosevelt on June 5, 1933, provided that
obligations payable in gold or specific coin or currency are contrary to
public policy, and that those obligations could be discharged dollar for
dollar in legal tender. After that resolution was adopted, currency of the
United States could not be converted into gold by United States citizens, but
the Treasury would convert dollars into gold for foreign governments as a
means of maintaining stability and confidence in the dollar. Because the
dollar was no longer freely convertible, one could consider that the United
States was no longer on the gold standard at that time.
So, AStaton: unless you were a foreign country, you've been "off the gold
standard" since *long* before you were born.
says...
As I proved, and apparently you igored, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took us off
the gold standard back in 1933.
>
>>2 words come to mind. Paranoia and conspiracy. Lacking concrete PROOF that
>>is all you have.
>
> Perhaps it is just paranoia and conspiracy. But I have seen all too much reality
> from our government to not be at least a bit skeptical. I wouldn't put it past
> any politician, Left or Right, to try and go after the brass ring if they
> thought they could get away with it.
>
> I'll put the question to you: Why did we go off of the gold standard. I mean
> they had stopped paying American citizens in gold for the money years earlier.
>
That, by definition, was the end of "the gold standard" of backing currency
>>2 words come to mind. Paranoia and conspiracy. Lacking concrete PROOF that
>>is all you have.
>
> Perhaps it is just paranoia and conspiracy. But I have seen all too much reality
> from our government to not be at least a bit skeptical. I wouldn't put it past
> any politician, Left or Right, to try and go after the brass ring if they
> thought they could get away with it.
>
> I'll put the question to you: Why did we go off of the gold standard. I mean
> they had stopped paying American citizens in gold for the money years earlier.
>
and "coins of the realm."
>
> In 1971 they stopped offering it for the money to the rest of the world.
> The question is, why?
>
Asked and answered -- and answer ignored.
> In 1971 they stopped offering it for the money to the rest of the world.
> The question is, why?
>
>
> Any thoughts, or just Ad Hominem that I am paranoid and a conspiracist?
>
Well, AStaton: "If the Foo shits...."
> Any thoughts, or just Ad Hominem that I am paranoid and a conspiracist?
>
>
> A real dialogua would be appreciated.
> After all, you were the one who wrote that money in of itself is meaningless.
> That wasn't always true, but since 1971 it certainly is.
>
From the FAQs of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (VA):
> A real dialogua would be appreciated.
> After all, you were the one who wrote that money in of itself is meaningless.
> That wasn't always true, but since 1971 it certainly is.
>
When did the United States go off the gold standard?
H.J. Res. 192, approved by President Roosevelt on June 5, 1933, provided that
obligations payable in gold or specific coin or currency are contrary to
public policy, and that those obligations could be discharged dollar for
dollar in legal tender. After that resolution was adopted, currency of the
United States could not be converted into gold by United States citizens, but
the Treasury would convert dollars into gold for foreign governments as a
means of maintaining stability and confidence in the dollar. Because the
dollar was no longer freely convertible, one could consider that the United
States was no longer on the gold standard at that time.
So, AStaton: unless you were a foreign country, you've been "off the gold
standard" since *long* before you were born.
Johnny Johnson
Nov 4, 2013, 11:35:03 AM11/4/13
to
In article <1lbrtsu.19uey3bdxpioeN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>, Sn!pe
<sn...@fsnet.co.uk> says...
>
> Checkmate <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>>> BTW, what does 'VLILLLDM' mean?
>>>
>>> I have no idea. And I'm okay with that.
>
And it fits *you* to a "T", Bleu Balls.
Thanks for admitting it. :)
>
>> I was okay with that when I read it too...
>> just in case you were wondering.
>
> But, but, it's piqued my 'satiable curtiousity.
>
The answer has been posted many times over -- feel free to locate it for
yourselves. ;)
I will say this, though: all but the "D" applies equally to both U.S. and
"Yoo Kay" Liberals.
<sn...@fsnet.co.uk> says...
>
> Checkmate <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <MPG.2cdeebb9e...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's just one of *many* phony nyms this VLILLLDM has used:
>>>>
>>>> Siri Cruise
>>>> China Blue Clay
>>>> Big Trouble in Little China Blue
>>>> Acid Washed China Blue Jeans
>>>> Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>>>> China Blue Corn Chips
>>>> [the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill
>>>> Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
>>>> In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>>>> Light the China Blue Touch Paper
>>>> Chicken Cordon Bleu
>>>> China Blue Veins
>>>> China Blue Jay Way
>>>> China Blue Ribbon
>>>> Where did you get those China Blue jeans
>>>> Out of the China Blue
>>>> Wall of China Blue
>>>>
>>>> among others.
>>>
>>> A lsit {SIC} of my very own.
>> Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <MPG.2cdeebb9e...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Johnny Johnson <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's just one of *many* phony nyms this VLILLLDM has used:
>>>>
>>>> Siri Cruise
>>>> China Blue Clay
>>>> Big Trouble in Little China Blue
>>>> Acid Washed China Blue Jeans
>>>> Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>>>> China Blue Corn Chips
>>>> [the China Blue] Drill Baby Drill
>>>> Don't make my brown eyes China Blue
>>>> In a Very Dark Blue, China Blue Condition
>>>> Light the China Blue Touch Paper
>>>> Chicken Cordon Bleu
>>>> China Blue Veins
>>>> China Blue Jay Way
>>>> China Blue Ribbon
>>>> Where did you get those China Blue jeans
>>>> Out of the China Blue
>>>> Wall of China Blue
>>>>
>>>> among others.
>>>
>>> The rest of you should be jealous.
>>>
>>>> YSTHM 'envious' and yes I am.
>>>
>>>> BTW, what does 'VLILLLDM' mean?
>>>
>>> I have no idea. And I'm okay with that.
>
And it fits *you* to a "T", Bleu Balls.
Thanks for admitting it. :)
>
>> I was okay with that when I read it too...
>> just in case you were wondering.
>
> But, but, it's piqued my 'satiable curtiousity.
>
The answer has been posted many times over -- feel free to locate it for
yourselves. ;)
I will say this, though: all but the "D" applies equally to both U.S. and
"Yoo Kay" Liberals.
Gunner Asch
Nov 4, 2013, 1:13:06 PM11/4/13
to
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:26:56 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <XnsA26E5D2EED452We...@78.46.70.116>,
>Ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooo!
>The Great Cull is coming!
If I were you.....Id not be buying anything except for cash....else
your creditors may be very disappointed.
--
"Their mommies tell them they're special, Liberals just don't understand
that "special" is a polite euphemism for;
*window licker on the short bus*"
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
wrote:
>In article <XnsA26E5D2EED452We...@78.46.70.116>,
>The Great Cull is coming!
If I were you.....Id not be buying anything except for cash....else
your creditors may be very disappointed.
--
"Their mommies tell them they're special, Liberals just don't understand
that "special" is a polite euphemism for;
*window licker on the short bus*"
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages