Sgatr15

Quoted: gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/08162004/mrt.jpg

ROFLMFAO

You know even though these threads sometimes are assenine, I LOVE 'EM, cuase the pics you guys post are friggin hilarious. ARFCOM is the best!

Quoted: I suppose this is the fault of the jews.....

I would have no clue about that, except that I doubt it.  I am not coming from a position of hatred for any religious or ethnic group.

Sgtar15

Quoted: THERE IS A TYRANNY SNEAKING UP ON YOU Ever wonder why it is so important for the gun-banners to develop databases of gun owners?

It just cracks me up .

Everyone knows that they are tracking gun owners by molecular sniffers at the doors
of post office and other high traffic buildings . Add to that the face scanning cameras and software
attached to traffic lights and don’t forget Carnivore and the other ones you don’t know about !!!

They got you .................... RUN DUDE , RUN !!

The condescending tone of frdmftr1's twaddle reminds me of a certain poster who is no longer with us. The writing style is a little different, but the idea that we are dozing sheeple is a familiar one. Any bets on how long before he closes out his contribution to this thread with an elegy on his wounded nobility and a reflection on the travails of the voice crying in the wilderness?

Those damn low post count trolls again.

Quoted: Quoted: You can be certain the major national and international banks want you to be deprived of your right to keep and bear arms. If they can do away with physical money, they can prevent any transaction involving a firearm from being completed, and they can charge any fee they want if they do let it go through -- and they don't need a law to do it, on the theory expressed by many on this board "If you don't like it, deal with someone else."  Only there won't be anyone else. Why? If you're going to suggest a conspiracy (among all major national and international banks) - you have to explain WHY these banks want that. Or is it big government that's out to get us?  I've got trouble following your "logic" - but I am curious as to your explanation WHY "major and international banks" don't want me to own firearms.  Please explain.

I will respond in two parts.  First, no, I do not have to explain WHY the banks want that (though I will offer a fair answer in a moment).  All I have to do is demonstrate that they want that.  Perhaps it has slipped your mind, but within the last couple of years two banks have caused quite an uproar in the RKBA community by refusing Merchant Account Services to perfectly legitimate businesses involved in the firearms industry.  One was a shooting range in Nevada, and the other was a gunsmith here in Phoenix, Arizona, who did smithing for law enforcement officers and agencies.  The two banks were Citibank and Bank of America.  Both suspended the policy when they discovered that gun owners across the nation were closing their accounts.  It was a case of some local twerp trying to curry favor by implementing a policy he knew was desired by the higher-ups, but before such policy became official -- or maybe it did become official, and it backfired on them.  In any event, you can do all the research you want, but I think you will never find a major national or international banking institution that is a friend of gun owners.

Here is my fair answer as to why, and I consider it fair because it jibes with the circumstances described in my original post bringing up the issue:  Profit without accountability.  They successfully lobbied for a section of the Uniform Commercial Code (3-408) holding them immune from liability if they refuse to accept a check for cashing, and the exemption is without restriction.  They don't have to show it is because the check is defective, and in fact it doesn't have to be defective.  They can simply refuse to cash it for any reason or no reason.  Because they claim (successfully, so far) that they have a right to refuse service to anyone, they can legally require you to do back flips in the lobby as a condition precedent to accepting your check.  (Oh, you can go somewhere else if you don't like it -- except nowhere else has any legal obligation at all to cash that check).  Currently their requirement to cash a payroll check over the counter, written on an account at their bank, is a fingerprint, an extortionate fee, and two forms of ID from bank-approved institutions -- most of which institutions are banks or credit-card companies.  As many on this board have pointed out, "If you don't like it, go somewhere else."  Sure, except that as I point out above, anyone else who refuses to cash the check has not dishonored it, because they have no obligation to cash it.  If the bank it is written on refuses to cash it, only then do you have recourse against the signer of the check.

Remember Bonnie and Clyde?  They and a bunch of other outlaws wreaked havoc with the banks during the Federal Reserve-created Depression.  They don't want to see that again, and they don't want to see us kick their ass out of the United States like we did by winning the American Revolution.  In fact, the banking dynasties of the nation-state "City of London" (the internal financial conclave in the middle of London, England) still take a very dim view of American independence from their economic profiteering.  They vowed to regain economic control over their colonies by 1900, and they did in 1913, and got even with us in 1929.  Then, in 1949, they vowed to regain political control over their colonies by the year 2000 -- they are almost there, having set themselves back a few years by precipitously getting the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban passed and finding that both nearly doubled the number of firearms in circulation before the law could go into effect.

Ever known a plantation owner to allow his slaves to go about armed?  They want us disarmed because they can't make a profit off of armed people without the permission of the people.  If we are armed, and we discover our wages are not available unless we subscribe to their political agenda, what do you think is going to happen?  You know darned well what is going to happen, and it won't be one man who can be dealt with by a SWAT team as mentioned in an earlier post.  They don't want us to have that capability.

Alrighty then!!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Give us your proposed solution. Don't just run around in a circle waving your arms over your head and hollering that the sky is falling. Suggest a solution. Government control of banks? Payroll in cash every Friday? Well? Okay, since yours was the only response to date that indicated an interest in the subject rather than in being an ignorant smart-ass, I will respond: Oh hey, thanks for coming to our little board and lowering your self to discuss stuff here with all of us unwashed heathens. Sorry we're so ignorant Luckily, Im not THAT ignorant, or Id say something dumb like "fuck off and die, prick"

Sorry you took offense, but given the asinine replies that filled this board in response to my original post, I don't think you have any room to complain.

Ahh, now it's the bloody English!!!  Yeah they never got over that whole Declaration of Independence thing.

So now I'm confused, is it the English, the Bilderburgers, the IMF, FEMA, the UN, or the Jews that are "really" in control?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can be certain the major national and international banks want you to be deprived of your right to keep and bear arms. If they can do away with physical money, they can prevent any transaction involving a firearm from being completed, and they can charge any fee they want if they do let it go through -- and they don't need a law to do it, on the theory expressed by many on this board "If you don't like it, deal with someone else."  Only there won't be anyone else. Why? If you're going to suggest a conspiracy (among all major national and international banks) - you have to explain WHY these banks want that. Or is it big government that's out to get us?  I've got trouble following your "logic" - but I am curious as to your explanation WHY "major and international banks" don't want me to own firearms.  Please explain. I will respond in two parts.  First, no, I do not have to explain WHY the banks want that (though I will offer a fair answer in a moment).  All I have to do is demonstrate that they want that.  Perhaps it has slipped your mind, but within the last couple of years two banks have caused quite an uproar in the RKBA community by refusing Merchant Account Services to perfectly legitimate businesses involved in the firearms industry.  One was a shooting range in Nevada, and the other was a gunsmith here in Phoenix, Arizona, who did smithing for law enforcement officers and agencies.  The two banks were Citibank and Bank of America.  Both suspended the policy when they discovered that gun owners across the nation were closing their accounts.  It was a case of some local twerp trying to curry favor by implementing a policy he knew was desired by the higher-ups, but before such policy became official -- or maybe it did become official, and it backfired on them.  In any event, you can do all the research you want, but I think you will never find a major national or international banking institution that is a friend of gun owners. Here is my fair answer as to why, and I consider it fair because it jibes with the circumstances described in my original post bringing up the issue:  Profit without accountability.  They successfully lobbied for a section of the Uniform Commercial Code (3-408) holding them immune from liability if they refuse to accept a check for cashing, and the exemption is without restriction.  They don't have to show it is because the check is defective, and in fact it doesn't have to be defective.  They can simply refuse to cash it for any reason or no reason.  Because they claim (successfully, so far) that they have a right to refuse service to anyone, they can legally require you to do back flips in the lobby as a condition precedent to accepting your check.  (Oh, you can go somewhere else if you don't like it -- except nowhere else has any legal obligation at all to cash that check).  Currently their requirement to cash a payroll check over the counter, written on an account at their bank, is a fingerprint, an extortionate fee, and two forms of ID from bank-approved institutions -- most of which institutions are banks or credit-card companies.  As many on this board have pointed out, "If you don't like it, go somewhere else."  Sure, except that as I point out above, anyone else who refuses to cash the check has not dishonored it, because they have no obligation to cash it.  If the bank it is written on refuses to cash it, only then do you have recourse against the signer of the check. Remember Bonnie and Clyde?  They and a bunch of other outlaws wreaked havoc with the banks during the Federal Reserve-created Depression.  They don't want to see that again, and they don't want to see us kick their ass out of the United States like we did by winning the American Revolution.  In fact, the banking dynasties of the nation-state "City of London" (the internal financial conclave in the middle of London, England) still take a very dim view of American independence from their economic profiteering.  They vowed to regain economic control over their colonies by 1900, and they did in 1913, and got even with us in 1929.  Then, in 1949, they vowed to regain political control over their colonies by the year 2000 -- they are almost there, having set themselves back a few years by precipitously getting the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban passed and finding that both nearly doubled the number of firearms in circulation before the law could go into effect. Ever known a plantation owner to allow his slaves to go about armed?  They want us disarmed because they can't make a profit off of armed people without the permission of the people.  If we are armed, and we discover our wages are not available unless we subscribe to their political agenda, what do you think is going to happen?  You know darned well what is going to happen, and it won't be one man who can be dealt with by a SWAT team as mentioned in an earlier post.  They don't want us to have that capability.

So in other words, you've got NO ANSWER - to the critical question that every person proposing a conspiracy theory should easily be able to answer.  

Big surprise



It's hilarious how your illustration of HOW all "major and international banks" want to stop people from owning firearms is TWO examples of businesses that (for some reason or another) particular banks didn't want to do business with.    Yeah, BIG sinister global consiracy revealed there  

.. and that makes PERFECT sense, because it I was in charge of giant banking conglomorates, and companies the size of Bank of America, the way that I would try to stop individual citizens from owning firearms would NOT be to give billions of dollars to the Brady people, HCI and other gun-control groups, NOR would it be to spend billions to lobby Congress for more gun control.  Nooooo - the best way to take away individuals' rights to own firearms to to make some company in Nevada get a loan from a different bank!  Yeah, that's the plan!!    Seriously - do you ever read what you write??  Does it actually make sense to you?


And you answer as to WHY - is your same inane obsessive prattle about banks cashing checks!!  WTF, over?    

... but, in all fairness, your stuff about British/European banks taking over the U.S. economoy is hilariously entertaining.  

Here's some free advice.  Try subscribing to the Economist - you might actually LEARN something about how international banking functions.  I'm sure when you do (because you're obviously interested in learning), you'll be very embarassed and come back and apologize for your stupidity.  We'll still be here!  

frdmftr1

I feel your frustration. It seems like most people on this forum care more about making stupid topics or making dumbass comments, than to try to have an educated discussion. I happen to agree with you and believe the big bankers and Gov. want to eventually have a cashless society. I remember reading something years ago about VP Gore doing an experiment at some collage where the students only used credits. I don't remember much more than that.

Why is it that anyone who thinks outside the box is wearing a tin foil hat. Why are all the sheeple so easily tricked into thinking everything is for their own good? I for one will never voluntarily use direct deposit, I will never voluntarily have an ATM card and only have one credit card that I only will use if I have to. Since they made it imposable to do anything without a major credit card. I cash my paycheck and take what is left after the mandatory taxes and try to pay food gas and anything else I can with cash. I guess everyone will now post relies saying I have a tin foil hat too.

Quoted: frdmftr1 I feel your frustration. It seems like most people on this forum care more about making stupid topics or making dumbass comments, than to try to have an educated discussion. I happen to agree with you and believe the big bankers and Gov. want to eventually have a cashless society. I remember reading something years ago about VP Gore doing an experiment at some collage where the students only used credits. I don't remember much more than that.

I wasn't mocking him - I asked him why he thinks there is a global cocnspiracy among banks to end the right to keep and bear arms, and got nonsense and gobbledygook in response.

I've got no issue with someone trying to make the point that banks would like to ultimately have a cashless society, and would love to have all sorts of financial and purchase tracking information on their customers.  That makes perfect sense, and banks have obvious motives for WHY they would want that.  Nobody would acuse him of tinfoil if this was his point.

Where his train goes off the tracks, is when he starts with outreagoues and unfounded claims that banks want to keep individuals from owning guns, and this is all tied together somehow (along with bizarre notions of how European banks are taking over the U.S. economy).

Combine that with the other thread (referenced earlier) where he CLEARLY does not know what he is tlaking about, when he is making claims about the legal standing of corporations.

So - he has made bizarre and unfounded claims, and demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the things he talks about - why is it surprising that people dismiss or ridicule him?

Quoted: Why is it that anyone who thinks outside the box is wearing a tin foil hat.

I will answer a serious question in the spirit in which it is asked.

We, the active members of AR15.com, tend to be a diverse group.  We actually have a wide range of political opinions.  We tend to welcome a well-stated argument and the discussions that follow.

But, when the original statement is so silly that it smacks of "tin-foil-hatism", we have very little patience.

If you post something like this, as USMC2111 said it so well:

So now I'm confused, is it the English, the Bilderburgers, the IMF, FEMA, the UN, or the Jews that are "really" in control?

Then we are going to make jokes because such stuff is not "thinking outside the box", it is just stupidity.

Why are all the sheeple so easily tricked into thinking everything is for their own good? I for one will never voluntarily use direct deposit, I will never voluntarily have an ATM card and only have one credit card that I only will use if I have to. Since they made it imposable to do anything without a major credit card. I cash my paycheck and take what is left after the mandatory taxes and try to pay food gas and anything else I can with cash. I guess everyone will now post relies saying I have a tin foil hat too.

If that's the way you want to live, go right ahead.  Fine with me.

But don't expect us to join the ranks of nuts and conspiracy theorists just because someone thinks they "see the light".

Come back with this thing called "proof" and we will listen.

Quoted: frdmftr1 I feel your frustration. It seems like most people on this forum care more about making stupid topics or making dumbass comments, than to try to have an educated discussion.

Perhaps because we've heard all this before and debated it so many times that we're tired of it?

Why is it that anyone who thinks outside the box is wearing a tin foil hat.

Because they usually are.

double tap

Quoted: frdmftr1 I feel your frustration. It seems like most people on this forum care more about making stupid topics or making dumbass comments, than to try to have an educated discussion. * * * Why is it that anyone who thinks outside the box is wearing a tin foil hat. Why are all the sheeple so easily tricked into thinking everything is for their own good? * * *

Why is there a certain category of blowhard who thinks that his "special" insights put him far above the run-of-the-mill militant freedom-loving gun nut on arfcom? Why do these idiots think that only  "sheeple" would correctly identify their "newsflashes" about things that started happening years ago as an effort to work out inarticulable social retardation issues ?

What kind of a jackass thinks that "mandatory direct deposit sucks" is a noteworthy opinion?

Such condescending fuckwits probably do have insights and information superior to that of the guys down at the local fuckwit bar, but they don't have anything on the people who frequent this board, and they don't have any business dropping in here to play out their fantasies of messianic martyrdom.

Quoted: Quoted: frdmftr1 I feel your frustration. It seems like most people on this forum care more about making stupid topics or making dumbass comments, than to try to have an educated discussion. * * * Why is it that anyone who thinks outside the box is wearing a tin foil hat. Why are all the sheeple so easily tricked into thinking everything is for their own good? * * * Why is there a certain category of blowhard who thinks that his "special" insights put him far above the run-of-the-mill militant freedom-loving gun nut of arfcom? Why do these idiots think that only  "sheeple" would correctly identify their "newsflashes" about things that started happening years ago as an effort to work out inarticulable social retardation issues ? What kind of a jackass thinks that "mandatory direct deposit sucks" is a noteworthy opinion? Such condescending fuckwits probably do have insights and information superior to that of the guys down at the local fuckwit bar, but they don't have anything on the people who frequent this board, and they don't have any business dropping in here to play out their fantasies of messianic martyrdom.

Well said, in your usual, charming, way.

Quoted: I suppose this is the fault of the jews.....

I'm betting he refers to them as "The Jew".

I love the "logic" here.  Look at the assumptions, then the conclusion (fluff removed):

Quoted: ...I will respond: With regard to "Government control of banks":  FYI, the Office of the Comptroller of the United States has given color of authority (not pursuant to law) to the national banks to refuse to cash payroll checks (or any checks) ... the policy of the federal government is to do away with physical money and make all transactions electronic.

PROOF??!!??

The objective is to make it possible for banks ... to easily charge a fee for every transaction that occurs in the marketplace; ... to assess and collect taxes for government without effective opposition or objection; ... to deprive those who oppose government policies ... of their resources.   As for a suggested solution, the solution already exists and is a matter of statutory law:  <insert "the courts are wrong, but I know the truth diatribe", here> "Payroll in cash every Friday" would work, and don't claim it is impossible in today's world because that is exactly how Australian businesses pay their non-management personnel (it is required there by law) and it works fine.  (I lived there four years.)

Sure, they pay everybody there in cash every week.  Damn backwards colony!  

However, if that is too big a problem, there is an easier way:  The property conveyed by check is the property belonging to the payee...   < insert non-verifiable, quasi-legalistic mumbo jumbo here> Lastly, you may think this is a big joke because all you have to do is waive your right to financial privacy ...

...and loans, credit, mortgages, savings accounts, etc., assuming this is even TRUE!

You can be certain the major national and international banks want you to be deprived of your right to keep and bear arms.  If they can do away with physical money, they can prevent any transaction involving a firearm from being completed...

Will-assed speculation reigns supreme in your world, apparently, accompanied by leaps of fancy and wierd comglomerations of "facts" known only to the tuly illuminated.  Or is that "illuminati"?.  I saw Lara Croft kick their ass, BTW.  

She was much more entertaining.  

Ok,  I agree that some people post really strange ideas but I would like to know why they think like that or what did they read or hear to think that way. Maybe frdmftr1 works in some financial institution and has seen something we haven't, but it seems like everyone jumps up to attack any idea someone wants to talk about that they don't like. I'm not saying I see the light , or that I'm any smarter than the next guy, but certain things that I have read make me believe the way I do. In my last post I mentioned something I read years ago about Al Gore, does anyone remember reading anything like this? Maybe this would help people to see why I believe in using cash and not credit.

cmjohnson

Kennedy tried that and was murdered. Oh yea, by a guy using a surplus rifle. Does anyone remember the US TREASURE NOTE ? Or is my tin foil hat on again?

Quoted: cmjohnson Kennedy tried that and was murdered. Oh yea, by a guy using a surplus rifle. Does anyone remember the US TREASURE NOTE ? Or is my tin foil hat on again?

Yep.  Too tight.

Before this gets out of hand (too late) I would like to ask the origional poster something.

FYI, the Office of the Comptroller of the United States has given color of authority (not pursuant to law) to the national banks to refuse to cash payroll checks (or any checks) for any reason or no reason supposedly to cut down on losses due to "identity theft". (That approval is not speculation; it is fact.)

1. Prove it, if this is fact than it is easily provable.

Regardless of the legitimacy of the "identity theft" issue, the policy of the federal government is to do away with physical money and make all transactions electronic. The objective is to make it possible for banks (being the ones who facilitate transactions) to easily charge a fee for every transaction that occurs in the marketplace; to assess and collect taxes for government without effective opposition or objection; and to deprive those who oppose government policies for whatever reasons (and some reasons are darned good ones!) of their resources.

2. how do you know this is so?  did you read it somewhere?  hear it somewhere?  Firgure it out for yourself?  how do you know it is true?  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can be certain the major national and international banks want you to be deprived of your right to keep and bear arms. If they can do away with physical money, they can prevent any transaction involving a firearm from being completed, and they can charge any fee they want if they do let it go through -- and they don't need a law to do it, on the theory expressed by many on this board "If you don't like it, deal with someone else."  Only there won't be anyone else. Why? If you're going to suggest a conspiracy (among all major national and international banks) - you have to explain WHY these banks want that. Or is it big government that's out to get us?  I've got trouble following your "logic" - but I am curious as to your explanation WHY "major and international banks" don't want me to own firearms.  Please explain. I will respond in two parts.  First, no, I do not have to explain WHY the banks want that (though I will offer a fair answer in a moment).  All I have to do is demonstrate that they want that.  Perhaps it has slipped your mind, but within the last couple of years two banks have caused quite an uproar in the RKBA community by refusing Merchant Account Services to perfectly legitimate businesses involved in the firearms industry.  One was a shooting range in Nevada, and the other was a gunsmith here in Phoenix, Arizona, who did smithing for law enforcement officers and agencies.  The two banks were Citibank and Bank of America.  Both suspended the policy when they discovered that gun owners across the nation were closing their accounts.  It was a case of some local twerp trying to curry favor by implementing a policy he knew was desired by the higher-ups, but before such policy became official -- or maybe it did become official, and it backfired on them.  In any event, you can do all the research you want, but I think you will never find a major national or international banking institution that is a friend of gun owners. Here is my fair answer as to why, and I consider it fair because it jibes with the circumstances described in my original post bringing up the issue:  Profit without accountability.  They successfully lobbied for a section of the Uniform Commercial Code (3-408) holding them immune from liability if they refuse to accept a check for cashing, and the exemption is without restriction.  They don't have to show it is because the check is defective, and in fact it doesn't have to be defective.  They can simply refuse to cash it for any reason or no reason.  Because they claim (successfully, so far) that they have a right to refuse service to anyone, they can legally require you to do back flips in the lobby as a condition precedent to accepting your check.  (Oh, you can go somewhere else if you don't like it -- except nowhere else has any legal obligation at all to cash that check).  Currently their requirement to cash a payroll check over the counter, written on an account at their bank, is a fingerprint, an extortionate fee, and two forms of ID from bank-approved institutions -- most of which institutions are banks or credit-card companies.  As many on this board have pointed out, "If you don't like it, go somewhere else."  Sure, except that as I point out above, anyone else who refuses to cash the check has not dishonored it, because they have no obligation to cash it.  If the bank it is written on refuses to cash it, only then do you have recourse against the signer of the check. Remember Bonnie and Clyde?  They and a bunch of other outlaws wreaked havoc with the banks during the Federal Reserve-created Depression.  They don't want to see that again, and they don't want to see us kick their ass out of the United States like we did by winning the American Revolution.  In fact, the banking dynasties of the nation-state "City of London" (the internal financial conclave in the middle of London, England) still take a very dim view of American independence from their economic profiteering.  They vowed to regain economic control over their colonies by 1900, and they did in 1913, and got even with us in 1929.  Then, in 1949, they vowed to regain political control over their colonies by the year 2000 -- they are almost there, having set themselves back a few years by precipitously getting the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban passed and finding that both nearly doubled the number of firearms in circulation before the law could go into effect. Ever known a plantation owner to allow his slaves to go about armed?  They want us disarmed because they can't make a profit off of armed people without the permission of the people.  If we are armed, and we discover our wages are not available unless we subscribe to their political agenda, what do you think is going to happen?  You know darned well what is going to happen, and it won't be one man who can be dealt with by a SWAT team as mentioned in an earlier post.  They don't want us to have that capability. So in other words, you've got NO ANSWER - to the critical question that every person proposing a conspiracy theory should easily be able to answer.   Big surprise It's hilarious how your illustration of HOW all "major and international banks" want to stop people from owning firearms is TWO examples of businesses that (for some reason or another) particular banks didn't want to do business with.    Yeah, BIG sinister global consiracy revealed there   .. and that makes PERFECT sense, because it I was in charge of giant banking conglomorates, and companies the size of Bank of America, the way that I would try to stop individual citizens from owning firearms would NOT be to give billions of dollars to the Brady people, HCI and other gun-control groups, NOR would it be to spend billions to lobby Congress for more gun control.  Nooooo - the best way to take away individuals' rights to own firearms to to make some company in Nevada get a loan from a different bank!  Yeah, that's the plan!!    Seriously - do you ever read what you write??  Does it actually make sense to you? And you answer as to WHY - is your same inane obsessive prattle about banks cashing checks!!  WTF, over?     ... but, in all fairness, your stuff about British/European banks taking over the U.S. economoy is hilariously entertaining.   Here's some free advice.  Try subscribing to the Economist - you might actually LEARN something about how international banking functions.  I'm sure when you do (because you're obviously interested in learning), you'll be very embarassed and come back and apologize for your stupidity.  We'll still be here!

Been there and done that.  Proved exactly my point:  Profit without accountability.

Quoted: Quoted: frdmftr1 I feel your frustration. It seems like most people on this forum care more about making stupid topics or making dumbass comments, than to try to have an educated discussion. I happen to agree with you and believe the big bankers and Gov. want to eventually have a cashless society. I remember reading something years ago about VP Gore doing an experiment at some collage where the students only used credits. I don't remember much more than that. I wasn't mocking him - I asked him why he thinks there is a global cocnspiracy among banks to end the right to keep and bear arms, and got nonsense and gobbledygook in response. I've got no issue with someone trying to make the point that banks would like to ultimately have a cashless society, and would love to have all sorts of financial and purchase tracking information on their customers.  That makes perfect sense, and banks have obvious motives for WHY they would want that.  Nobody would acuse him of tinfoil if this was his point. Where his train goes off the tracks, is when he starts with outreagoues and unfounded claims that banks want to keep individuals from owning guns, and this is all tied together somehow (along with bizarre notions of how European banks are taking over the U.S. economy).

Hardly outrageous and unfounded.  I provided the evidence that a national bank and an international bank were doing so, and  there have been many cases of major super-stores in various parts of the country no longer selling firearms because their bank made that a condition of their relationship.  Just because you haven't done your research to find out for yourself doesn't mean my claim is outrageous and unfounded.

Combine that with the other thread (referenced earlier) where he CLEARLY does not know what he is tlaking about, when he is making claims about the legal standing of corporations.

Now their is an outrageous and unfounded statement.  Until you show me the difference between the officers of a limited liability corporation and the owner of a feudal title of nobility -- substantive differences, not merely differences in what they are called -- you have no grounds to suggest I don't know what I am talking about.  Before you can say that you first have to address the issue rather than simply dismissing it.

So - he has made bizarre and unfounded claims, and demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the things he talks about - why is it surprising that people dismiss or ridicule him?

It is surprising because I have done neither of the things you claim.  OTOH, it is not surprising, because people would rather shoot the messenger than face the reality of their enslavement.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: frdmftr1 I feel your frustration. It seems like most people on this forum care more about making stupid topics or making dumbass comments, than to try to have an educated discussion. I happen to agree with you and believe the big bankers and Gov. want to eventually have a cashless society. I remember reading something years ago about VP Gore doing an experiment at some collage where the students only used credits. I don't remember much more than that. I wasn't mocking him - I asked him why he thinks there is a global cocnspiracy among banks to end the right to keep and bear arms, and got nonsense and gobbledygook in response. I've got no issue with someone trying to make the point that banks would like to ultimately have a cashless society, and would love to have all sorts of financial and purchase tracking information on their customers.  That makes perfect sense, and banks have obvious motives for WHY they would want that.  Nobody would acuse him of tinfoil if this was his point. Where his train goes off the tracks, is when he starts with outreagoues and unfounded claims that banks want to keep individuals from owning guns, and this is all tied together somehow (along with bizarre notions of how European banks are taking over the U.S. economy). Hardly outrageous and unfounded.  I provided the evidence that a national bank and an international bank were doing so, and  there have been many cases of major super-stores in various parts of the country no longer selling firearms because their bank made that a condition of their relationship.  Just because you haven't done your research to find out for yourself doesn't mean my claim is outrageous and unfounded. Combine that with the other thread (referenced earlier) where he CLEARLY does not know what he is tlaking about, when he is making claims about the legal standing of corporations. Now their is an outrageous and unfounded statement.  Until you show me the difference between the officers of a limited liability corporation and the owner of a feudal title of nobility -- substantive differences, not merely differences in what they are called -- you have no grounds to suggest I don't know what I am talking about.  Before you can say that you first have to address the issue rather than simply dismissing it. So - he has made bizarre and unfounded claims, and demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the things he talks about - why is it surprising that people dismiss or ridicule him? It is surprising because I have done neither of the things you claim.  OTOH, it is not surprising, because people would rather shoot the messenger than face the reality of their enslavement.

Hey, as long as YOU think YOU make sense, that's great!  Makes little difference to me.  I tried to engage in a rational discussion and got nothing but garbled nonsense in return.

Seriously - get an education or something, and really LEARN something about the things that you think you understand.   Take some college classes in finance, banking, macro-economics and political economy - (and start reading the Economist) - and you'll be amazed at how much more sense the world makes.

Quoted: Quoted: Why is it that anyone who thinks outside the box is wearing a tin foil hat. I will answer a serious question in the spirit in which it is asked. We, the active members of AR15.com, tend to be a diverse group.  We actually have a wide range of political opinions.  We tend to welcome a well-stated argument and the discussions that follow. But, when the original statement is so silly that it smacks of "tin-foil-hatism", we have very little patience. If you post something like this, as USMC2111 said it so well: So now I'm confused, is it the English, the Bilderburgers, the IMF, FEMA, the UN, or the Jews that are "really" in control? Then we are going to make jokes because such stuff is not "thinking outside the box", it is just stupidity. Why are all the sheeple so easily tricked into thinking everything is for their own good? I for one will never voluntarily use direct deposit, I will never voluntarily have an ATM card and only have one credit card that I only will use if I have to. Since they made it imposable to do anything without a major credit card. I cash my paycheck and take what is left after the mandatory taxes and try to pay food gas and anything else I can with cash. I guess everyone will now post relies saying I have a tin foil hat too. If that's the way you want to live, go right ahead.  Fine with me. But don't expect us to join the ranks of nuts and conspiracy theorists just because someone thinks they "see the light". Come back with this thing called "proof" and we will listen.

That's a pretty thin response when I have provided the proof; I have cited events and the statutes that address them, and I get response like "Huh?" and "Is he talking about my tranny squeaking?" and that kind of crap.  What part of "Drawee not liable on unaccepted draft" (UCC 3-408) do you not understand?  What part of charging you an extortion to get permission to receive your own wages do you not understand?  What part of employers refusing to cash the payroll checks their own banks dishonor do you not understand?  The reality of what is happening is the proof, and the reality of government's policy favoring it is the proof.  I'm giving you information you can confirm for yourself.  Why don't you do so before you claim it's all "just stupidity"?

Quoted: Let me guess... 1.   A bank you don't have an account at won't cash your paycheck, 2.   You refuse to go the direct deposit route, 3.   You deal only in cash to avoid as many taxes as possible, 4.   You think the John Burch Society is way too optimistic, 5.   You have secret pictures of secret UN vehicles in secret locations in Utah, 6.   You never sit with your back to a window or door, 7.   You know that International Jewry controls the US, 8.   Everybody else is a tool but you, 9.   Your mind was poisoned by a small pox innoculation in the 1960's, and, last but not least... 10.  You live alone in the woods of Idaho Arizona with no one around for 100 miles, but the Federal Government has you on their watch list because you "know too much." Maybe it's time to get a med check?

How did you know??? Are you with the Goobermint??Was that you in the pink tube top, daisy dukes, and flipflops at the free clinic last week?...........

Quoted: Quoted: frdmftr1 I feel your frustration. It seems like most people on this forum care more about making stupid topics or making dumbass comments, than to try to have an educated discussion. * * * Why is it that anyone who thinks outside the box is wearing a tin foil hat. Why are all the sheeple so easily tricked into thinking everything is for their own good? * * * Why is there a certain category of blowhard who thinks that his "special" insights put him far above the run-of-the-mill militant freedom-loving gun nut on arfcom? Why do these idiots think that only  "sheeple" would correctly identify their "newsflashes" about things that started happening years ago as an effort to work out inarticulable social retardation issues ? What kind of a jackass thinks that "mandatory direct deposit sucks" is a noteworthy opinion?

Obviously, not someone who wants to ask some disinterested third party for permission to receive his earned wages, and obviously not someone who understands the doctrine of legal tender and cares about the personal liberty it guarantees.  Excuse me for bothering you, sir.  Feel free to continue letting some twerp in a bank decide whether you support your family or not, and excuse the rest of us who think that is a pretty radical form of oppression.

Such condescending fuckwits probably do have insights and information superior to that of the guys down at the local fuckwit bar, but they don't have anything on the people who frequent this board, and they don't have any business dropping in here to play out their fantasies of messianic martyrdom.

If you think the right to keep and bear arms will protect you from starvation and eviction when the bank decides your right to keep and bear arms is not socially acceptable for their utopian view of society, then yes, I think I do have insight and information superior to you, at least.  At that point it will be a little late for the right to keep and bear arms to do anything about it.

Quoted: Quoted: I suppose this is the fault of the jews.....   I'm betting he refers to them as "The Jew".

You've lost your bet.  I already addressed that unwarranted suspicion.  I don't know if they are "Jews", as you call them, or not, and I don't care.

Quoted: It is a matter of record that in the Great Depression following the stock market crash of '29,  America was bankrupt as a corporate entity.     Before too long,  we'd been bailed out by foreign banking interests operating under the guise of the Federal Reserve, which is no more a FEDERAL agency than is Federal Express. The Federal Reserve is, in essence, a consortium of mostly foreign banking interests that CHARGE us money to LOAN us our OWN money. I have a severe problem with that. If I were President,  I'd bide my time and when the time was right, dissolve the Fed instantaneously via Executive Order and then I'd really fuck up those banking interests by(1) kicking them out of all business in America and (2) switching over to a gold and/or silver based currency again.  We'd have the only HARD currency left in the world.   Where would we get the gold and silver to back it up?  By quietly buying it up with greenbacks out of the reserve warehouses and right off the presses.      It wouldn't matter if prices for gold climbed as a result of all the stocking up on it as the end goal is to divorce the new gold based currency from the existing greenback totally.    Greenbacks would have the value of paper,  but the new American Gold Standard Dollar would be the only remaining hard currency in the world, backed by gold at a fixed price of X dollars per troy ounce.       Yes, it'd destabilize things,  but only for a while.  And then we'd have the only solid currency left in the world and everybody would want it.     CJ

Hoo-yah!  But there is a problem, and it would have to be addressed:  Our liberty was and is severely distressed by the theft of our gold and silver by the international bankers you describe, but it cannot be replaced today without the destruction of our manufacturing base.  Gold especially, and silver to a lesser extent, are far too valuable in the manufacture of electronic circuits to be worn away in people's pockets.  It would have to be some other precious metal of intrinsic value, and it would have to be a form of bi-metallicism to maintain stability.  No one has figured out what that should be yet, but we sure need to.  We cannot abolish the IRS without abolishing the Federal Reserve, for the only function of the IRS is to pull worthless paper money out of the economy before it causes hyper-inflation.

Quoted: If you think the right to keep and bear arms will protect you from starvation and eviction when the bank decides your right to keep and bear arms is not socially acceptable for their utopian view of society, then yes, I think I do have insight and information superior to you, at least.  At that point it will be a little late for the right to keep and bear arms to do anything about it.

Once again, banks care about YOUR MONEY, and not your guns!  Bankers do not give a shit about anything other than profits - and your ownership of guns, porn, expensive cars, or anything else, doesn't matter one iota to a bank.  Getting YOUR MONEY matters to them.   Unless you can show how private ownership of guns affects the potential profits of banks, you are talking out of your ass.

And even if they did, the refusal of some bank to deal with gunowners would merely create a new market niche for other banks to enter and capitalize upon.  It is how the free market economy works.  Banks are NOT going to ignore an opportunity to make money, and it is ludicrous to suggest they would.

The title was "There is a Tyranny Sneaking Up On You"

I'm going to side step a little and remind people that the Federal courts have removed many Constitutional safeguards already. The biggest being your right to a jury trial in all criminal trials. (Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 US 541), the Supreme Court ruled that offenses carrying less than 6 months imprisonment are deemed "petty offenses" in which the 6th Amendment right to jury trials is inapplicable.

In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury...

I don't see anything about "petty offenses" do you?  When "all" can mean some then get my tin foil hat.

Whew, that's a relief! I could have sworn you said there was a tranny sneaking up on me.

'Whiskey Tango Foxtrot'-over.

See more uneducated stupid post. Watch more TV. Check out the new sport channel, pick up the new swimsuit edition. Yea dude.

What ever you do don't pick up a book and read.

Quoted: Uh-oh.... Corporations have no rights IBTL

I say again....

frdmftr1
Member
Joined :: August 2004
Post Number :: 60

60 posts, 2 threads, both started by frdmftr1, both .  Are you guys done having fun with this bozo yet?

Quoted: Quoted: Uh-oh.... Corporations have no rights IBTL I say again.... frdmftr1 Member Joined :: August 2004 Post Number :: 60 60 posts, 2 threads, both started by frdmftr1, both .  Are you guys done having fun with this bozo yet?

I know I am - freakin' broken record. .  


Apologies all around for contributing to keeping this nonsense going.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is it that anyone who thinks outside the box is wearing a tin foil hat. I will answer a serious question in the spirit in which it is asked. We, the active members of AR15.com, tend to be a diverse group.  We actually have a wide range of political opinions.  We tend to welcome a well-stated argument and the discussions that follow. But, when the original statement is so silly that it smacks of "tin-foil-hatism", we have very little patience. If you post something like this, as USMC2111 said it so well: So now I'm confused, is it the English, the Bilderburgers, the IMF, FEMA, the UN, or the Jews that are "really" in control? Then we are going to make jokes because such stuff is not "thinking outside the box", it is just stupidity. Why are all the sheeple so easily tricked into thinking everything is for their own good? I for one will never voluntarily use direct deposit, I will never voluntarily have an ATM card and only have one credit card that I only will use if I have to. Since they made it imposable to do anything without a major credit card. I cash my paycheck and take what is left after the mandatory taxes and try to pay food gas and anything else I can with cash. I guess everyone will now post relies saying I have a tin foil hat too. If that's the way you want to live, go right ahead.  Fine with me. But don't expect us to join the ranks of nuts and conspiracy theorists just because someone thinks they "see the light". Come back with this thing called "proof" and we will listen. That's a pretty thin response when I have provided the proof; I have cited events and the statutes that address them, and I get response like "Huh?" and "Is he talking about my tranny squeaking?" and that kind of crap.  What part of "Drawee not liable on unaccepted draft" (UCC 3-408) do you not understand?  What part of charging you an extortion to get permission to receive your own wages do you not understand?  What part of employers refusing to cash the payroll checks their own banks dishonor do you not understand?  The reality of what is happening is the proof, and the reality of government's policy favoring it is the proof.  I'm giving you information you can confirm for yourself.  Why don't you do so before you claim it's all "just stupidity"?

Get back with us when "they" pass a law that requires everybody to be paid via check.

DigDug

Oh that's right my post wasn't as educational as the post of two transvestites.

Quoted: I love the "logic" here.  Look at the assumptions, then the conclusion (fluff removed): Quoted: ...I will respond: With regard to "Government control of banks":  FYI, the Office of the Comptroller of the United States has given color of authority (not pursuant to law) to the national banks to refuse to cash payroll checks (or any checks) ... the policy of the federal government is to do away with physical money and make all transactions electronic.   PROOF??!!??

As for the Office of the Comptroller proof, call them up and ask them.  Or write them a letter.  I have been so informed by the Office of the Comptroller directly by letter, and I have been independently so informed by a United States Bankruptcy Judge in ruling (against me) in my lawsuit against the employer's estate for his refusal to make good his payroll checks two years before his bankruptcy.  As for the policy of the United States government, every disbursement from government (VA pensions, etc.) comes with an IBM-sized card exhorting the recipient to go for Direct Deposit, and even providing special authorization for a special account for those people who otherwise don't "qualify" for a bank account.

The objective is to make it possible for banks ... to easily charge a fee for every transaction that occurs in the marketplace; ... to assess and collect taxes for government without effective opposition or objection; ... to deprive those who oppose government policies ... of their resources.   As for a suggested solution, the solution already exists and is a matter of statutory law:  <insert "the courts are wrong, but I know the truth diatribe", here> As usual, you mischaracterize my argument.  My argument is not "the courts are wrong but I know the truth".  My argument is that the UCC says I am right and the court is wrong.  If you don't believe that (and there is no reason you should without proof) look up UCC 2-511, 3-104, 3-106, 3-310, 3-408, 3-414, 3-501, 3-502, 3-503 and 4-402.  My thesis is fully supported, 100%, by those statutes, and those statutes were specifically raised at trial and at appeal, and the court ignored them and failed to even mention them in the final ruling. "Payroll in cash every Friday" would work, and don't claim it is impossible in today's world because that is exactly how Australian businesses pay their non-management personnel (it is required there by law) and it works fine.  (I lived there four years.)   Sure, they pay everybody there in cash every week.  Damn backwards colony!

Yes, they do.  (Or at least, they did when I was there from 1970 to 1974.)  The law required -- get this; REQUIRED -- all non-management personnel to be paid in cash weekly, and REQUIRED all management personnel to have bank accounts and to have Direct Deposit.  Communists MUST keep an eye on those mean ol' capitalists, don'tcha know!

However, if that is too big a problem, there is an easier way:  The property conveyed by check is the property belonging to the payee...   < insert non-verifiable, quasi-legalistic mumbo jumbo here> Just because you aren't interested in verifying it doesn't mean it is non-verifiable.  It may be verified at http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html any time you want.  I sure don't want you to take my word for it; I don't give legal advice.  But you should go look it up before you make an ass of yourself by saying it is "non-verifiable". Lastly, you may think this is a big joke because all you have to do is waive your right to financial privacy ... ...and loans, credit, mortgages, savings accounts, etc., assuming this is even TRUE! Well, you can check if it is true or not, but you provide no justification for claiming it waives your loans, credit, mortgages, savings accounts, etc.  The banks offered those services before they started taking control of payroll and other check transactions; why wouldn't they offer them after they were prohibited by law from usurping your rights.  (And thank you for saying "assuming this is even TRUE!"  That indicates you might be bothered enough to do the simple research I have outlined and find out that it is.) You can be certain the major national and international banks want you to be deprived of your right to keep and bear arms.  If they can do away with physical money, they can prevent any transaction involving a firearm from being completed... Will-assed speculation reigns supreme in your world, apparently, accompanied by leaps of fancy and wierd comglomerations of "facts" known only to the tuly illuminated.  Or is that "illuminati"?.  I saw Lara Croft kick their ass, BTW.   She was much more entertaining.

You must be entertained sufficiently; you are spending significant keyboard time trying to discredit it by innuendo and sarcasm without first finding out whether it is true or not.  Maybe you should do your homework as I have done mine.

Geez...

You guys fail to actualy SEE his point.

A bank is not REQUIRED to cash your payroll check, even though it was drawn on an account AT that bank.

Do you guys just not understand that?

Anyone remember a time when you were paid in cash? It was before my time.
But in my time, I've seen things go from checks, to direct deposit, from cash transactions to credit card transactions, to debit transactions.

Does it make things easier? Sure.

But does it open up avenues for abuse? Sure does.

And that is what he is pointing out.

The possible abuse of the system, which invariably happens when the government controls the system.

Remember the gold standard? What is the dollar based on now to gaurentee it value? Nothing.

I read an article several years ago about the international banking system, and how pervasive abuse in it's system is.

And it has nothing to do with the Jews. It goes back into the late 1700's early 1800's when Britian was the sole superpower.
I wish I could remember the name of the bank in the article, but it is still in operation today.

Quoted: Ok,  I agree that some people post really strange ideas but I would like to know why they think like that or what did they read or hear to think that way. Maybe frdmftr1 works in some financial institution and has seen something we haven't, but it seems like everyone jumps up to attack any idea someone wants to talk about that they don't like. I'm not saying I see the light , or that I'm any smarter than the next guy, but certain things that I have read make me believe the way I do. In my last post I mentioned something I read years ago about Al Gore, does anyone remember reading anything like this? Maybe this would help people to see why I believe in using cash and not credit.

Thank you for at least having an open mind.  No, I don't work for a financial institution.  I know what I know because I found out the hard way:  The banks -- all the banks -- demanded that as a condition precedent to my receiving my wages, I waive my right to the privacy of my fingerprints, waive my right to due process of law (because they can't use the fingerprints for ID unless the check proves to be bogus), waive my right to be secure from extortion, waive my right to contract, and especially, waive my right to my property (earned wages) by acquiescing to my employer's command that I ask some third party twerp for permission to receive my wages.  This constitutes several petty offenses and several Class 2 misdemeanors on his part, BTW, not to mention extortion, unlawful conversion, and theft, as well as conspiracy (with his bank) to commit these crimes.  I first took the case to the Unemployment Appeals Board, where I was informed by the hearing officer, and I quote:  "Mr. ----, the federal government pays for unemployment benefits and therefore the federal government calls the shots.  You lose."  I appealed that and later found proof that the DES had submitted someone else's handwritten appeal to the Court of Appeals under my name and case number, and the Court of Appeals declined to hear the case.  I proved the substitution to the Appeals Court, and without looking at my case, the Appeals Court ruled they had already read "my" case and had ruled.  I sued the employer in Justice Court, and the wannabe paralegal presiding (Justice Court judges are not lawyers; nor are they admitted to the Bar) ruled against me from the bench without ever looking at my pleadings or looking up the laws that I cited.  That was clear from the wording of the ruling, in which he made several off the cuff remarks that indicated he knew nothing about what the law said.  I appealed his ruling to the Appeals Division of the Superior Court (that's as high as you can go when you start in Justice Court) and the judge there listened to five minutes only of oral argument from each side, and issued a written ruling against me two months later, basing his ruling on an issue that does not apply to this case and was not raised -- could not be raised -- by either side.  He responded to absolutely none of the issues raised on appeal and cited none of the laws that apply to the issue.  I could still file a "Special Action", actually suing the judge for an incompetent ruling not pursuant to law, but I have had other evidence the Arizona Appeals Court is no more competent and no more interested in the rights of anyone but business owners than is the Justice Court.

I am aware of another almost identical case that was taken up the judicial ladder in Texas, I believe, with exactly the same results.

THAT'S why I say this is a tyranny sneaking up on you:  The law says one thing very VERY clearly on this issue, but the courts are not ruling pursuant to law, and the government is supporting those rulings.