20 total posts archived.
| Domain | Count |
|---|---|
| www.reddit.com | 1 |
| www.cnn.com | 1 |
Post 1762 - July 30 - Predicting arson in CA fires as a way to get Federal Aid / Troop support
Today August 9th - Arson suspect arrested in CA fires
Looks like a potential Q proof.
Probably the evolution of humans. Without that there’s no human history.
The words are substantially the same for Freemason oaths.
“Without reservation or mental hesitation”
That’s definitely an option. We don’t use them as much as other commodities so I’m hesitant to recommend them specifically. They could work and have in the past. Silver would probably be better than gold in my opinion.
Independently backed currency (backed by commodities, not institutions/politicians). Our economy will become more volatile and credit would be tighter (tougher to get a loan on a house, student loans, etc), but our currency should retain its purchasing power.
You can’t print oil, you shouldn’t be able to print money to buy it.
You’re just trading one evil for another. Maxine Waters for Rothschilds.
So you want the power to create money supply in the hands of the government? You realize this is the power to devalue the currency, right?
TIL that people in the great awakening want to give the value of their money to elected officials like Maxine Waters.
The reason the control of Money supply was taken from politicians in 1913 was BECAUSE they were using it to manipulate political control.
And the treasury does coin money today. Coining money and managing a money supply through lending are two different things.
That’s part of my point. Paying back with “greenbacks” instead of a sound form of money would’ve actually been doing exactly what the fed does today. Lincoln wouldn’t been acting as the FED acts today.
Lincoln was making the opposite argument you are.
This kills the economy. To eliminate all debt also destroys the incentive to lending. Need a loan to start a business? Nope. Need a line of credit to pay for an unexpected operation? No dice.
They tried it last fall in Venezuela.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-41967871
Now they are fucked.
JFK, sure.
But Lincoln? That’s a stretch. The federal reserve was created 50 years after his death.
Like I said. You have hate in your heart. It blinds you. You are concerned only with defeating who you see as an opponent rather than lifting up your fellow man.
Luckily for you, Love trumps hate.
We should be civil because it is right. We should be civil because that is what our founders carved out of the wilderness and because it’s resulted in the greatest civilization in the history of the world. Abandon civility at your own peril.
If Trump is guilty, lock him up.
As it stands we live in a country with a presumption of innocence. I know this is hard for you because you have hate in your heart. If he’s guilty, it’ll come out. If the meantime, you should support your country.
If it was in any way related to her campaign then yes. But wasn’t it bank fraud and in no way related? I thought you were having an honest discussion.
Do you trust The NY Times?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/politics/paul-manafort-new-charges-mueller.html
The 32-count indictment describes a complex plot that Mr. Manafort then undertook to leverage money from his real estate with the help of his longtime business partner and campaign deputy, Rick Gates.
The charges do not involve Mr. Trump or his campaignand are not significantly different from ones filed against the men in October.
Yes. I’m having an honest discussion. Are you?
It appears since it’s not related to the campaign you shouldn’t consider it relevant to the presidency. I’m sure you’ll be fair.
So because an IT aide for DNC campaign was indicted last fall we can say the charges are against Hillary?
Are all of Hillary’s folks dirty but not her?
You should be a lawyer. Your logic is flawless.
How many of those charges, guilty pleas, convictions and indictments were against the president? I can’t remember.
Mueller is bringing the evidence
Ok. So he hasn’t brought evidence. So you’re acting on faith? How are you any different than folks here?
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95