"I am a most unhappy man..." - Quote by Woodrow Wilson
-
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
-
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
That was certainly one of the big steps away from our founding principles and towards where we are today.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
That was certainly one of the big steps away from our founding principles and towards where we are today.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That was certainly one of the big steps away from our founding principles and towards where we are to
Indeed it was. Its a shame there aren't more people like Ron Paul who are willing to do something about it.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That was certainly one of the big steps away from our founding principles and towards where we are to
Indeed it was. Its a shame there aren't more people like Ron Paul who are willing to do something about it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Its a shame there aren't more people like Ron Paul who are willing to do something about it.
Unfortunantly, Paul is just as wrong as Wilson was. We don't need libertarianism, we need Jeffersonianism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Its a shame there aren't more people like Ron Paul who are willing to do something about it.
Unfortunantly, Paul is just as wrong as Wilson was. We don't need libertarianism, we need Jeffersonianism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Unfortunantly, Paul is just as wrong as Wilson was. We don't need libertarianism, we need Jeffersonianism.
Well unfortunately he is the only one willing to do whats necessary to set things right. His policy on the war on drugs is common sense. It isn't doing any good, its costing a lot of money. He wants to end prohibition on harmless common drugs such as marijuana. Now the anti-fed and this is rare from a possible president and much needed.
-
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
"It appears in his autobiography (The New Freedom), on page 192 and is attributed to a campaign speech from 1912 BEFORE the Federal Reserve was created. It does not contain the first two sentences of your quote suggesting that Wilson felt he was somehow personally responsible. It seems as though someone has maybe added the first two sentences to try to make it seem like the quote is saying something other than its original intent." You need to google stuff before you quote it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
"It appears in his autobiography (The New Freedom), on page 192 and is attributed to a campaign speech from 1912 BEFORE the Federal Reserve was created. It does not contain the first two sentences of your quote suggesting that Wilson felt he was somehow personally responsible. It seems as though someone has maybe added the first two sentences to try to make it seem like the quote is saying something other than its original intent." You need to google stuff before you quote it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
Christian Graus wrote:
You need to google stuff before you quote it.
I have, and it appears that there is a lot of speculation about how accurate that quote is. There are lot of arguments posted online. I concluded that regardless if it was written by him or not, it is factual.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You need to google stuff before you quote it.
I have, and it appears that there is a lot of speculation about how accurate that quote is. There are lot of arguments posted online. I concluded that regardless if it was written by him or not, it is factual.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Unfortunantly, Paul is just as wrong as Wilson was. We don't need libertarianism, we need Jeffersonianism.
Well unfortunately he is the only one willing to do whats necessary to set things right. His policy on the war on drugs is common sense. It isn't doing any good, its costing a lot of money. He wants to end prohibition on harmless common drugs such as marijuana. Now the anti-fed and this is rare from a possible president and much needed.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Unfortunantly, Paul is just as wrong as Wilson was. We don't need libertarianism, we need Jeffersonianism.
Well unfortunately he is the only one willing to do whats necessary to set things right. His policy on the war on drugs is common sense. It isn't doing any good, its costing a lot of money. He wants to end prohibition on harmless common drugs such as marijuana. Now the anti-fed and this is rare from a possible president and much needed.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Well unfortunately he is the only one willing to do whats necessary to set things right. His policy on the war on drugs is common sense. It isn't doing any good, its costing a lot of money. He wants to end prohibition on harmless common drugs such as marijuana. Now the anti-fed and this is rare from a possible president and much needed.
If the only recommendation for Paul is the war on drugs than who cares? I would concur that if we are going to have a war on drugs it should be a real war - people producing, selling or buying them are killed on the spot. Either that or we legalize drugs completely and do nothing at all to treat those who abuse them, just let them die off until we are rid of them - just as long as the rest of us are free to discriminate against them as we please, and as long as state and local community drug laws are respected by the federal government (meaning that if my town wanted to be drug free, it could take whatever actions were necessary to achieve that)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Well unfortunately he is the only one willing to do whats necessary to set things right. His policy on the war on drugs is common sense. It isn't doing any good, its costing a lot of money. He wants to end prohibition on harmless common drugs such as marijuana. Now the anti-fed and this is rare from a possible president and much needed.
If the only recommendation for Paul is the war on drugs than who cares? I would concur that if we are going to have a war on drugs it should be a real war - people producing, selling or buying them are killed on the spot. Either that or we legalize drugs completely and do nothing at all to treat those who abuse them, just let them die off until we are rid of them - just as long as the rest of us are free to discriminate against them as we please, and as long as state and local community drug laws are respected by the federal government (meaning that if my town wanted to be drug free, it could take whatever actions were necessary to achieve that)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the only recommendation for Paul is the war on drugs than who cares?
The more important issue is abolishing the federal reserve. :mad: Look back a few posts.
Stan Shannon wrote:
a war on drugs it should be a real war - people producing, selling or buying them are killed on the spot
You are fucked up! You are a wacko Waco Texas style.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the only recommendation for Paul is the war on drugs than who cares?
The more important issue is abolishing the federal reserve. :mad: Look back a few posts.
Stan Shannon wrote:
a war on drugs it should be a real war - people producing, selling or buying them are killed on the spot
You are fucked up! You are a wacko Waco Texas style.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The more important issue is abolishing the federal reserve. Look back a few posts.
Than why did we change to the war on drugs?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are f***ed up! You are a wacko Waco Texas style.
I don't want to share my society with drug addicts. I say get rid of them by the most expedient manner available - unless they throw themselves on the mercy of christian charity and tolerance, of course.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The more important issue is abolishing the federal reserve. Look back a few posts.
Than why did we change to the war on drugs?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are f***ed up! You are a wacko Waco Texas style.
I don't want to share my society with drug addicts. I say get rid of them by the most expedient manner available - unless they throw themselves on the mercy of christian charity and tolerance, of course.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't want to share my society with drug addicts. I say get rid of them by the most expedient manner available
You are no better than the very people you preach against.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't want to share my society with drug addicts. I say get rid of them by the most expedient manner available
You are no better than the very people you preach against.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are no better than the very people you preach against.
Yes I am. I'm a whole lot fucking better.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are no better than the very people you preach against.
Yes I am. I'm a whole lot fucking better.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes I am. I'm a whole lot f***ing better.
You are no better than Hitler and his Nazi supporters. To make race perfect.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes I am. I'm a whole lot f***ing better.
You are no better than Hitler and his Nazi supporters. To make race perfect.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
To make race perfect.
Why? Apparently not only do you want legalized drugs, you want drug addicts protected, cared for, given health care, full access to society, and anyone who disapproves just has to stay home and hide in their gated communities? I'll say one thing for you, you are a walking talking testament to Jon Oakman's libertarian utopia.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
To make race perfect.
Why? Apparently not only do you want legalized drugs, you want drug addicts protected, cared for, given health care, full access to society, and anyone who disapproves just has to stay home and hide in their gated communities? I'll say one thing for you, you are a walking talking testament to Jon Oakman's libertarian utopia.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
you want drug addicts protected, cared for, given health care,
No i dont' What I want is people to stop controlling other people because they think they know whats better for them. If I want to smoke a joint, then goddammit I will smoke a joint, regardless of the law.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Its a shame there aren't more people like Ron Paul who are willing to do something about it.
Unfortunantly, Paul is just as wrong as Wilson was. We don't need libertarianism, we need Jeffersonianism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We don't need libertarianism, we need Jeffersonianism
Speak for yourself . Most of us don't like dictatorships enforcing shari'a law. . .Okay, I was wrong: speak for yourself and bin Laden.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We don't need libertarianism, we need Jeffersonianism
Speak for yourself . Most of us don't like dictatorships enforcing shari'a law. . .Okay, I was wrong: speak for yourself and bin Laden.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
You could add a lot more than that to that list OT: Hi Jon, been a while :) How are things?
If the post was helpful, please vote! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
-
You could add a lot more than that to that list OT: Hi Jon, been a while :) How are things?
If the post was helpful, please vote! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
You could add a lot more than that to that list
I was recently reminded of a couple of revolutions where a small but disciplined group joined with the revolutionaries, claiming to have common cause with them. But the Jacobins, as soon as they could, betrayed the ideals of the French Revolution and the Bolsheviks betrayed the ideals of the Mensheviks. These two groups had one thing in common - it was not that they were opposed to dictatorial power per se, but to anyone besides them having that power. Thus bin Laden claims to speak for Muslims angry at the elites ruling their country, and Stan who claims to speak for those tired of the increasing control of the Washington D.C. elites. And, of course, there are the pigs of Orwell's Animal Farm. As you say, there are many more who could be added to the list. The good news for America is that Stan doesn't come across as very disciplined.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
How are things?
I am still on the right side of the grass. Compared to the alternative, everything is great. Hows by you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin