patrick.net

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

f you’re dying and can’t afford to buy a hospital or something you need to ask yourself why you refused to become a billionaire like so many other Americans.

Roger that. I haven't been buying lottery tickets b/c it's always been my stance that they are a tax on people who don't understand statistics. I might have to rethink that and start playing for the MegaMillions. I better start small, like with scratch offs.

artistsoul says

And infant mortality rates? Please. Our care rocks in this area. We are victims here of BETTER healthcare. Think I jest? Infant mortality stats higher here b/c we have a lot more premature births….b/c we do a lot more fertility treatments. And….what does reproductive technology result in? Multiple births (twins or more). And multiple births are at greater risk of premature delivery. Did you know that there are actually legal restrictions throughout Europe to curb use of fertility treatment. The result is this whole new “IVF Tourism” market for wealthy Europeans. Further, what about mothers who smoke, are obese or lack education. Do you think they have the same outcomes as others? Again…not a healthcare system issue. A societal issue. The other issue with the infant mortality stat is how we count a live birth. We count any sign of life in a premature birth. European nations have all these rules about size & what is counted as stillbirth v life birth. In some nations, fetus has to be over a one lb, in Switzerland, fetus has to be > 2″, etc. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm *I will be honest here (as I always try to be) to say our healthcare system may contribute to the high infant mortality stat *a little* in this area b/c we OVER provide. We are so rich that we have too many NICU’s. Probably need to consolidate those into larger more centralized hospitals where the NICU is dealing with a higher volume and therefore has a better trained more dedicated staff.

"infant mortality rates please". The usnews story cherry picked the cdc 2008 report. The people at cdc are very smart researchers. They did look at the differences in reporting methodology and concluded that it was NOT the primary reason for the US low international ranking.

There are legal restrictions on IVF around the entire first world. If it is unlikely to succeed the state won't pay for it. Not an unreasonable stance. There are plenty of mothers who smoke, are obese, and lack education everywhere in the world. Most of Europe has much higher smoking rates and drinking during pregnancy is a lot more common.

bob2356 says

infant mortality rates please”. The usnews story cherry picked the cdc 2008 report. The people at cdc are very smart researchers. They did look at the differences in reporting methodology and concluded that it was NOT the primary reason for the US low international ranking.

There are legal restrictions on IVF around the entire first world. If it is unlikely to succeed the state won’t pay for it. Not an unreasonable stance. There are plenty of mothers who smoke, are obese, and lack education everywhere in the world. Most of Europe has much higher smoking rates and drinking during pregnancy is a lot more common.

Did you read the usnews story I linked? The story didn't cherry pick the 2008 CDC report because it was authored in 2006. Dated beyond what some may accept. I could understand that objection, had you raised it. The USnews story was authored by Dr. Bernadine Healy - Harvard & Johns Hopkins educated and former head of the National Institutes of Health in DC. She makes some points. She is a republican so perhaps you would think she has a biased agenda to keep healthcare privatized.

I did notice, in retrospect, that what I linked was a summary opinion piece. So, I googled the 2008 CDC report. http://198.246.98.21/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf Here's the thing: this is all it says with respect to differences in the ways nations report births "International comparisons of infant mortality can be affected by differences in reporting of fetal and infant deaths. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking." It seems to be asking why is our ranking falling in the US? It concludes that it is, primarily a rise in premature births. It doesn't compare how many premature births occur in Europe v America.

You talk about legal restrictions throughout 1st world. Germany & Italy ban embroyo freezing and egg donation. Britain, Spain and Belgium do allow it. But, in Britain you can only implant one or two embroyos to prevent mulitple births. In our country we do it all. My girlfriend in Boston had 5 embroyos implanted --> two took & she has twin boys (one they are "watching" due to developmental delays). Octomom spurred a nationwide ethical debate on how far we should go.

You also point out smoking & drinking during pregnancy more prevalent in Europe. The drinking part I would accept without question. But, that doesn't matter at ALL with regard to the overall point that I was attempting to make. I was simply trying to say that you can't hold up the statistic of higher infant mortality rates & say that we need to follow the European model for healthcare. Because I firmly believe that these two particular statistics happen to measure issues (like smoking or drinking or other personal choices) that are TOTALLY out of the control of the healthcare system. That's it. That is the extent of what I was trying to bring to the discussion.

Are you trying to say that you found some kind of credible evidence (that wasn't cherry picked) that suggests that the higher infant mortality rates are due to the failure of US healthcare system over a European system? Personally, I think we need to adopt some model other than ours....but it is because I think the COSTS are crushing us....not because I believe they are doing it better. To the contrary, despite arguments that will arise, I really do think services will decline some when we finally reform care. They have to though. I wrote a bunch of other stuff about why I think are outcomes are worse on other threads. But, I'm already becoming a broken record.

marcus says

I agree. Too bad we don’t all get to have an honest unemotional debate about it.

You're right of course. But that is tough to do for a myriad of reasons.

Even in person, money & politics are topics that people get passionate and overly emotional about. Hence, the widening divide between left and right - probably the result of all the biased reporting of the 24 hour cable news. Result: more explosive debate out there at the kitchen tables.

The main point should be to help the person you are discussing things with see things in a different way. But, I think a lot of times (esp on the internet), people are so entrenched in their views that it becomes more about ripping someone else to shreds to prove their right. It the arguing that is the point sometimes.

I don't really want to be in that category of people. I have been too rude at times but it is been in response to someone saying something insulting, condescending or manipulative. Not really an excuse for my behavior but, hey, I'm human. I don't think I'll be able to stop that. In real life, I guess I would never go that far. It's dangerously easy to do it over the internet. Too easy I suppose.

bob2356 says

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Ron Paul is a pinko tool. He is taking money from an illegal government. And takes Medicare payments for his medical practice. He is a screaming commie. A real proponent of Freedom would demand the end to ALL taxation and ALL government. But Paul hates Freedom, too, and is just another sell out to the stalinists and al qaeda operatives running this country.

I love it. This is great stuff. Very funny. Are you the guy who bought the unibombers house by any chance? Are you related to Tim McViegh?
Being a dirty harry man of action type (you’re not just some internet poser who is actually a milk toast walter mitty type accountant are you? I would be very disappointed.) when do you plan on acting on your convictions by moving to somewhere that has abandoned all government and taxation. Like Somolia or Nigeria.

Yeah, Bob, AF is on your side of the issues... simply trying to parody the "right wing" position by using extreme straw man arguments. You should cheer him on, because using such types of illogical arguments and sarcastic approaches helps you win the debate and frame the truth to your liking.

klarek says

Funny, speaking of police state, that you would attempt to compare our incarceration and infant mortality rates with countries that have absolutely zero transparency or freedom of press, and therefore publish numbers that are suspect at best and utter horseshit in all likelihood.

I can't agree with this characterization: The list of countries that do better than the US in infant mortality include pretty much every country in Western Europe. It is not honest to pick out Cuba and claim that their stats are unreliable. Look at all the other examples instead, since Cuba does not make you happy.

artistsoul says

Are you trying to say that you found some kind of credible evidence (that wasn’t cherry picked) that suggests that the higher infant mortality rates are due to the failure of US healthcare system over a European system? Personally, I think we need to adopt some model other than ours….but it is because I think the COSTS are crushing us….not because I believe they are doing it better. To the contrary, despite arguments that will arise, I really do think services will decline some when we finally reform care. They have to though. I wrote a bunch of other stuff about why I think are outcomes are worse on other threads. But, I’m already becoming a broken record.

Why are you fixated on Europe? there are public health systems all over the world, most (not all) with very good to excellent health care. I didn't notice the dates so your point on the article is a good one. The statement that the differences in rates can't be explained by reporting methodology still stands.

One thing that was not examined by the CDS is the differences in prenatal care. It would be almost impossible to quantify so I can see why it wasn't addressed. So many women in the US don't have health insurance. Many them get very poor or no prenatal care. It makes a big difference. I know this for a fact. My wife is a practicing ob/gyn who worked in the states for 10 years before we moved to NZ (because being a ob/gyn in the states just sucks, no one these days goes into ob/gyn) where prenatal care is good and universal. She still sees train wrecks in terms of prenatal care, especially since we live in the poorest most rural area of NZ, but it is much much rarer that in the states. The outcomes because of this are very markedly better based on her experiances.

I think your point about anything goes for IVF vs a cost benefit based system goes against your argument. Should IVF be pursued even in cases where there is high potential that the financial costs could be horrible in terms of premature infants that will require huge amounts of medical services sometimes for their entire life? Would that money be better spent on things like immunizations rather that supporting a person who will always be a drain on society? What about the quality life for a severely impaired child/person. I don't know, no one knows, each country has to decide what it's worth to them as a society. It seems that some statistical reasonable grounds for success should be a part of the decision to me. Who defines reasonable is always the sticking point.

Services will decline for who? Would it decline for the millions of people without healthcare at all who simply don't visit a doctor until they are very ill and difficult to treat. Then they go to the ER to use the most expensive service available. Most countries that have public health care you are free to buy private health care insurance if you so desire. If I wanted it private health insurance would be $150NZ ($120US) per month for a family of 4. I have been very satisfied with the public system and have had very good experiences. I've had to wait longer for some tests than in the US, but not $800 per month that insurance would cost me in the US longer.

bob2356 says

Why are you fixated on Europe?

I'm not. Why are you fixated on trying to make certain that you disassemble my larger point? I mention these stats of lower life expectancy and higher cost of living as measures of things largely beyond the control of the US healthcare system - therefore these stats shouldn't be thrown around as evidence that America's problems would all be magically fixed if we only revamped our system to match XXX countries. Did you read the part in my original post that I think that even if you changed models, we would not (IMO) improve our statistics in these areas. If we are obese, don't exercise, etc we will still die younger and consume more expenses of medical care because we are, in general, more ill. This is a cultural issue in America, a habits issue in America. I *think* that Marcus was also trying to make this larger point with respect to the educational system in America. Don't keep pointing to statistics that show we lag behind and naively assume you can blame the whole thing on how we deliver education in America. Some of the shortcomings are cultural. Education isn't valued in this country the way it is in others. I probably shouldn't interject that and drag him into this.

Are there ways to do things better in America? Absolutely. Can we learn from other countries successes and failures? Absolutely. I never we couldn't. To the contrary, I said we need to make changes.

As far as the statistic of high infant mortality rates, since you insist on trying to invalidate everything I say based on the fact that you think we have higher infant mortality because of worse healthcare, please show me some evidence that our healthcare isn't the among the best in the world in MOST areas.

bob2356 says

The statement that the differences in rates can’t be explained by reporting methodology still stands.

Yes, the difference in the ways things are reported isn't the primary reason why our infant mortality rates are higher. It is a reason, though....and one I ticked off near last in my stream of consciousness list of why pointing to the higher infant mortality rate shouldn't be cited by extreme liberals. To a lot of folks, they hear those statistics and probably don't even try to look beyond them.

bob2356 says

One thing that was not examined by the CDS is the differences in prenatal care. It would be almost impossible to quantify so I can see why it wasn’t addressed. So many women in the US don’t have health insurance.

I'm glad you did try to see if our higher premature term labor was due to something other than the increased amount of fertility treatments. I'm sure lack of prenatal care is part of it. Young, healthy mothers generally go to term unless there are abusing drugs, smoke, are obese, drink, etc. Again, this is a habit issue. Older, middle aged career first moms who delayed starting a family beyond the optimal timeframe (and maybe relied on fertility treatments to conceive in the first place) more often don't come to full term even if they receive excellent prenatal care and spend the last 6 wks bed ridden with their feet up.

bob2356 says

Many them get very poor or no prenatal care. It makes a big difference. I know this for a fact. My wife is a practicing ob/gyn who worked in the states for 10 years before we moved to NZ (because being a ob/gyn in the states just sucks, no one these days goes into ob/gyn) where prenatal care is good and universal.

Ok. Well then you *should* know that anyone here can get access to prenatal care...but many don't. If you are low income, there are most certainly programs to offer BOTH prenatal care and postnatal care (milk from WIC, etc). Now, is it more difficult to gain access to that prenatal care? Yes. Because you don't have the funds to pay for it (I'm sure your wife would agree she is entitled to some compensation for the care she provides), then you have to go to the established governmental agencies and show the proof necessary that you can receive these benefits. The government even has billboards in certain areas of certain cities with the places to go, the phone #'s to call. Sometimes, a person will make a choice not to care for herself or her unborne child....sounds like it is happening in NZ too per your own point.

bob2356 says

I think your point about anything goes for IVF vs a cost benefit based system goes against your argument.

I didn't make that aspect of my point very well. Medical care in America is the best. Our technology has really advanced. So by better, I meant we can offer .... and, ask any OB/GYN in America today.... we do offer it. I'm not saying it is wise to rely so heavily on it. But these are choices that women in America make - delaying motherhood, pursuing education and careers. A good thing, no?

bob2356 says

Services will decline for who? Would it decline for the millions of people without healthcare at all who simply don’t visit a doctor until they are very ill and difficult to treat. Then they go to the ER to use the most expensive service available

Let me end on a positive note: YES YOU ARE 100% CORRECT TO SAY THAT IF WE OFFERED UNIVERSAL CARE, THE POOR IN OUR SOCIETY WOULD BE BETTER OFF. I never suggested they would not be. I only suggested that we need to look at the statistics we wave around to justify how far America has fallen by the wayside. It is not that simple unfortunately. Our culture, our value system in America, our habits, our greed, etc are all contributing to some of the dysfunctions in our society that we see today.

I hope you are considering the larger point that I am trying to make. Other 1st world countries do have very good care. But they do make different choices, intervene less and have a whole different set of population (healthier, although they are catching up to us in the couch potato dept). Changing healthcare in America isn't necessarily going to change those two statistics. I have said let's look at other systems when we redesign ours. But, we also need to hold a mirror up to ourselves in America and begin to examine our habits and personal choices. We began so affluent and our standard of living is comparatively so high here that we are that we sort of victims of our own success.

Found this helpful (YMMV) in trying to understand REITs. From the Fool:
Looking at the REIT example in particular, American Capital Agency, Cypress, Chimera, and their brethren are making a killing because of the government's interest rate policy. With the government keeping rates low, these REITs have been able to borrow money very cheaply and profit from large interest rate spreads on the longer-term mortgage-backed securities they buy.
And they've been paying out almost all of these profits because, as REITs, they have to to qualify for special tax treatment. Pretty sweet deal.
Very tempting... until Ben loses control of the rates.

justme says

US has substandard infant mortality.

Yes we do. No dispute there. However, WHY we do is an entirely different issue. The important question is only: How do you suggest we improve that statistic?

artistsoul says

Let me end on a positive note: YES YOU ARE 100% CORRECT TO SAY THAT IF WE OFFERED UNIVERSAL CARE, THE POOR IN OUR SOCIETY WOULD BE BETTER OFF. I never suggested they would not be. I only suggested that we need to look at the statistics we wave around to justify how far America has fallen by the wayside. It is not that simple unfortunately. Our culture, our value system in America, our habits, our greed, etc are all contributing to some of the dysfunctions in our society that we see today.

I hope you are considering the larger point that I am trying to make. Other 1st world countries do have very good care. But they do make different choices, intervene less and have a whole different set of population (healthier, although they are catching up to us in the couch potato dept). Changing healthcare in America isn’t necessarily going to change those two statistics. I have said let’s look at other systems when we redesign ours. But, we also need to hold a mirror up to ourselves in America and begin to examine our habits and personal choices. We began so affluent and our standard of living is comparatively so high here that we are that we sort of victims of our own success.

Many good points. I'm not nitpicking. I just don't buy the argument that says other countries have good health statistics because they have such a healthy lifestyle but America has worse statistics because it is so affluent that people are just fat and lazy. The standard of living isn't very different. I've lived in France, there are plenty of unhealthy lifestyles going on. They smoke and drink a lot more for one. I've lived in Australia and NZ, there are lots of issues with obesity and binge drinking is totally out of control. The societies aren't different enough to make the argument.

America has some of the best as well as some very poor health care. It depends on who you are and where you are. Other countries have a much more consistent system. You also have to factor in the cost per person is almost double the rest of the first world. We don't seem to be getting much bang for the buck. That to me is the larger picture.

Pension-related news worth following…

Gingrich seeks bill allowing state bankruptcy (and reneging on pensions) to avert bailouts

http://www.pionline.com/article/20110110/PRINTSUB/301109976

Former House Speaker and possible GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich is pushing for federal legislation giving financially strapped states the right to file for bankruptcy and renege on pension and other benefit promises made to state employees.

Seeing that Argentina was raped by the IMF and pensions were raided, and that Obama has an allegiance to the IMF since Obama is the UN Security Council Chairman and the IMF is one of the two financial arms of the UN -- I'd have to say some of the passionate "informers" here are off a bit.

Buy silver bullion and land for growing food, but do not buy near nature corridors that may ultimately be taken by your new communitarian government, for the "greater good."

M8R-8eneeq says

Pension-related news worth following…
Gingrich seeks bill allowing state bankruptcy (and reneging on pensions) to avert bailouts
http://www.pionline.com/article/20110110/PRINTSUB/301109976
Former House Speaker and possible GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich is pushing for federal legislation giving financially strapped states the right to file for bankruptcy and renege on pension and other benefit promises made to state employees.
Seeing that Argentina was raped by the IMF and pensions were raided, and that Obama has an allegiance to the IMF since Obama is the UN Security Council Chairman and the IMF is one of the two financial arms of the UN — I’d have to say some of the passionate “informers” here are off a bit.

Obviously I'm missing something here. I don't see how Gingrich's pushing (for what that is worth, he's a private citizen now) ties into Argentina, the IMF and Obama at all. Is there a comprehensive explanation available that brings all these disparate things together somehow?

shrekgrinch says

bob2356 says

Remind me again exactly what position in the Obamacrats administration Ghilarducci holds (hint none)?

Who cares? YOU SAID, “No one was scheming to force IRAs, 401(k)s into bonds held and managed by ss”. I just proved you were full of shit. You can’t ‘qualify’ your statement after the fact like it is some excuse to admit you fucked up. Yet, that is precisely what you are doing.
So, next time try qualifying your statements if you want said qualifications to be take into consideration by those who are determining whether what you say is valid or not, ok?
And you are one to balk about MY education? Talk about psychological projection issues on your part.

In my book one single person's opinion presented to congress isn't "scheming" no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

Oh my, of course, I didn't realize. That person must be part of the great liberal underground network thrusting it's tentacles though out the entire fabric of American society. A nefarious secretive society along the lines of Freemasons, Skull and Crossbones, Knights Templar passed down through the ages via initiates participating in secret handshakes and blood rituals all the while controlling the fate of mankind. Now I see where you are going.

I certainly don't want to denigrate all those years you spent attending podunk elementary. It has left you truly gifted with a classical education that has provided you with Jesuit like qualities of clarity, brevity, and complex analytical thinking that is unprecedented in the ebb and flow of humankind. One day the towering intellect represented by the hallowed words of shrekgrinch will be held up by future scholars as a monument to greatness in thought achievable by the human race that will be given a rightful place alongside such lesser luminary greats as Plato, Socrates, Augustus, and Aquinas. I am in awe to be here and see it happening.

bob2356 says

Obviously I’m missing something here. I don’t see how Gingrich’s pushing (for what that is worth, he’s a private citizen now) ties into Argentina, the IMF and Obama at all. Is there a comprehensive explanation available that brings all these disparate things together somehow?

Well, that and (a) Obama isn't the UNSC Chairman(*) (b) the UNSC doesn't have a Chairman (c) the IMF governance structure is not controlled by the UNSC but by the IMF member countries more or less in proportion to their contributions - the US has significant representation and (d) oh never mind, there's no convincing a lunatic by presenting facts...

Reminds me of this woman in our local social dance community. Beautiful, decent dancer, and utterly nuts. I happened to be carpooling somewhere with her recently and made the mistake of alluding to contemporary politics. Quickly found that in her world view, the reason for being in Afghanistan was that if we weren't, Al Qaeda would reconstitute, take over Russia in a lightning coup, and launch their entire nuclear arsenal at us. Yes, she was completely serious. I guess in that view a trillion dollars and a few thousand soldier's lives are a small price to pay to prevent global thermonuclear holocaust.

(*) Apparently this particular lunatic fringe rumour was inspired by a very brief period in Sep. 2009 during which the US held the rotating UNSC Presidency for the month and the US President also happened to be in town and the technical leader of the US delegation to the UNSC - though how you get from that to allegiance to some particular UN institution escapes me. Was Obama also declaring his allegiance to UNICEF at the same time?

bob2356 says

M8R-8eneeq says

Pension-related news worth following…
Gingrich seeks bill allowing state bankruptcy (and reneging on pensions) to avert bailouts
http://www.pionline.com/article/20110110/PRINTSUB/301109976
Former House Speaker and possible GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich is pushing for federal legislation giving financially strapped states the right to file for bankruptcy and renege on pension and other benefit promises made to state employees.
Seeing that Argentina was raped by the IMF and pensions were raided, and that Obama has an allegiance to the IMF since Obama is the UN Security Council Chairman and the IMF is one of the two financial arms of the UN — I’d have to say some of the passionate “informers” here are off a bit.

Obviously I’m missing something here. I don’t see how Gingrich’s pushing (for what that is worth, he’s a private citizen now) ties into Argentina, the IMF and Obama at all. Is there a comprehensive explanation available that brings all these disparate things together somehow?

Need there be a tie other than that there's a drive at both ends (IMF and the US Congress) pushing for pension grabs?

If you absolutely need a definitive connection between the two to arrive at "belief," it's not too much work. Gingrich is a CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) member. As is Obama and his wife. CFR is blatantly pro-communist, pro-One World Government. CFR is dominated by central bankers such as David Rockefeller, a long-time CFR member. Central bankers dominate the IMF. Need more? There's plenty, you know. This is just scratching the surface...

oddhack says

bob2356 says

Obviously I’m missing something here. I don’t see how Gingrich’s pushing (for what that is worth, he’s a private citizen now) ties into Argentina, the IMF and Obama at all. Is there a comprehensive explanation available that brings all these disparate things together somehow?

Well, that and (a) Obama isn’t the UNSC Chairman(*) (b) the UNSC doesn’t have a Chairman (c) the IMF governance structure is not controlled by the UNSC but by the IMF member countries more or less in proportion to their contributions - the US has significant representation and (d) oh never mind, there’s no convincing a lunatic by presenting facts…
Reminds me of this woman in our local social dance community. Beautiful, decent dancer, and utterly nuts. I happened to be carpooling somewhere with her recently and made the mistake of alluding to contemporary politics. Quickly found that in her world view, the reason for being in Afghanistan was that if we weren’t, Al Qaeda would reconstitute, take over Russia in a lightning coup, and launch their entire nuclear arsenal at us. Yes, she was completely serious. I guess in that view a trillion dollars and a few thousand soldier’s lives are a small price to pay to prevent global thermonuclear holocaust.
(*) Apparently this particular lunatic fringe rumour was inspired by a very brief period in Sep. 2009 during which the US held the rotating UNSC Presidency for the month and the US President also happened to be in town and the technical leader of the US delegation to the UNSC - though how you get from that to allegiance to some particular UN institution escapes me. Was Obama also declaring his allegiance to UNICEF at the same time?

Damn, is it really my job to demonstrate to you that Obama has central banker ties? Did the bank bailout mean anything to you, or his campaign contributors, or his affiliations with thinktanks backed by central bankers? You're not even worth wasting time on. That's like me having to tie your shoes for you. And that you are belligerent on top of it does not help or inspire. I often find that the first person to so quickly reach for the "lunatic" label is generally the lunatic, themself.

Yes, Obama was UNSC chair/president for a month. That DOES demonstrate an affiliation, does it not? If you chaired the KKK for a month, you think people might believe you backed their ideals?

The two financial arms of the UN are the IMF and World Bank, the wealth of which are both privately owned. These same institutions coordinate with the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), which is a corporation comprised of all 169 central banks worldwide, all of which are privately owned. Yes, some of these central banks are owned through shares by other financial corporations, but if you examine who owns those corpoations it's mostly the same individuals who own the wealth of the central banks, World Bank and IMF (mostly Rothschild family money). The US Federal Reserve is one of these central banks. If you ever take time out to look at the nitty gritty of it, the same names pop up on all sides of this equation, time after time. I mention this to give you the foundation of the connection, which is in plain view for anyone to see.

The communitarians are not hard to identify. They are the ones with all the money, and the lust for even more power in the form of a world socialist/totalitarian government. They certainly like to document their objectives. It's the news media that does not cover it much, though. But who trusts mainstream news anymore?

You seem to be mirroring the rhetoric on the television. I am merely reflecting the actual documented plans of the communitarians. They are not secret plans, by any means. Do any reading beyond the TV, friend?

If you are a paid-for disinformation agent, please do not respond. You have already been tagged.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Ron Paul is a pinko tool. He is taking money from an illegal government. And takes Medicare payments for his medical practice. He is a screaming commie. A real proponent of Freedom would demand the end to ALL taxation and ALL government. But Paul hates Freedom, too, and is just another sell out to the stalinists and al qaeda operatives running this country.

Wow, anyone who is dumb enough to poke a stick at Ron Paul when there are so many other over-ripe wonderful targets to choose from needs some re-education on reality. Ron Paul is harmless and has good intent. He is also not a pawn of the central bankers. I guarantee you your favorite politicians are, which makes you a fool, be default.

Mr.Fantastic says

ApocalypseFuck, I just invested into a 9mm Sig Sauer. How much ammo do you think I should invest in?

2,000 rounds per hunting weapon. 5,000 rounds for defense.

Food storage will be your biggest concern, above all else.

Member # whose it whats it... lecture noted.

But if you want to talk to her, just do it. Because, honestly, for a mere mortal like myself if I have to choose between these options:

M8R-9t6a6i says

you’re nuts, or you’re version of fun is debating on behalf of Satan, for pure shock value.

I'm figuring either is an acceptable answer

Hedge yourself, just buy a few rounds. Find someone who has bought 2000 rounds and another 5000 for defense and just sit out side their house waiting for them to leave to go hunting. No one can protect against a sniper, and it will be pretty obvious who has supplies.

That's your best post ever Shrek.

Nomograph says

(13) Techgromit - Bought in Egg Harbor because Suzanne researched it.

Hey, Suzanne don't lie. :)

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

...
The problem was there were “dueling” forums. Most of the “originals” stayed with commenting to Patrick or Harm’s posts. Relative “Newcommers” such as myself were more apt to use the forum, which eventually was so spam infested (”water” posts, etc.) that Patrick solicited moderators, to which end I volunteered my services.

...

I almost miss the water posts. :) I never volunteered for moderator because I didn't want anything porn related showing up on my computer at work. I really started avoiding Patrick.net at work at one point due to these issues.

My biggest pet peeves were people not staying on topic, I remember posting a Title "Change this topic" and people quoting sources but not backing it up with a link.

Darn, M8R-gibberish got me. I'm off to deposit my paychecks from the IMF and the Trilateral Commision now.

how about a CD at 1.1% APR? If i try to cash it in during the cannibal wars the bankers might eat me? (this seems logical, so I should worry about it!)

Believe it or not, Texas has a lot of tax breaks for people who use renewable energy and green construction. I am thinking about buying a acre of land and building a state-of-the-art home. No Realtors involved. LOL.

M8R-ywkgjs says

Need there be a tie other than that there’s a drive at both ends (IMF and the US Congress) pushing for pension grabs?

If you absolutely need a definitive connection between the two to arrive at “belief,” it’s not too much work. Gingrich is a CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) member. As is Obama and his wife. CFR is blatantly pro-communist, pro-One World Government. CFR is dominated by central bankers such as David Rockefeller, a long-time CFR member. Central bankers dominate the IMF. Need more? There’s plenty, you know. This is just scratching the surface…

You said Gingrich is pushing the issue, he's a private citizen not a member of congress. Now you are saying congress is pushing. Which is it?

Gingrich and Obama are both on the CFR is connecting the dots, that's it? So are something like ten thousand other people. You're are joking right? Is this tongue in cheek somehow? Please feel free to scratch deeper because this is pretty seriously shallow.

I'm also confused about your comment that the 169 central banks are privately owned including the federal reserve. How is the federal reserve privately owned? It is owned by the member banks, all of which are public corporations. Here's a dated but pretty good article about ownership of the Fed that I read several years ago and was able to dig up, even though the article is addressing the issue of foreign ownership of the fed.
http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html
Please explain.

Tenouncetrout says

Bearmarket moved to Utah where he now practices Polygamy Abstinence.

this was funny when I first read it. now, it is still funny. A sign of true funnyness.

Nomograph says

You had a beautiful woman in your car, were on your way to go dancing, and you decided to talk about politics? Are you completely insane?

Well, sorta. It was on the way back from the dance, and having known her for 6 years and having slept with crazy women who were even more beautiful, it really wouldn't be worth the trouble to try and take it off the dance floor.

Regarding the Federal Reserve... http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212

Read that. All your questions will be answered.

Regarding the CFR... read this --
http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Capitalist-W-Cleon-Skousen/dp/0686091647/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294805809&sr=1-1

For the deniers, please go back to practicing your herd mentality training. You are more pleasant when you are asleep.

Does that include not masturbating with Tina thumb & her four sister fingerwives?

bob2356 says

M8R-ywkgjs says

Need there be a tie other than that there’s a drive at both ends (IMF and the US Congress) pushing for pension grabs?
If you absolutely need a definitive connection between the two to arrive at “belief,” it’s not too much work. Gingrich is a CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) member. As is Obama and his wife. CFR is blatantly pro-communist, pro-One World Government. CFR is dominated by central bankers such as David Rockefeller, a long-time CFR member. Central bankers dominate the IMF. Need more? There’s plenty, you know. This is just scratching the surface…

You said Gingrich is pushing the issue, he’s a private citizen not a member of congress. Now you are saying congress is pushing. Which is it?
Gingrich and Obama are both on the CFR is connecting the dots, that’s it? So are something like ten thousand other people. You’re are joking right? Is this tongue in cheek somehow? Please feel free to scratch deeper because this is pretty seriously shallow.
I’m also confused about your comment that the 169 central banks are privately owned including the federal reserve. How is the federal reserve privately owned? It is owned by the member banks, all of which are public corporations. Here’s a dated but pretty good article about ownership of the Fed that I read several years ago and was able to dig up, even though the article is addressing the issue of foreign ownership of the fed.
http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html
Please explain.

One does not belong to the CFR for shits and giggles. The CFR doesn't let you join unless you are 100% on board with their agenda. Their agenda is quite clearly a world communist government. If you still think there's no valid connection, then I can't help you.

The Federal Reserve Bank in the US is comprised of 12 banks which are primarily owned by financial investment firms. These firms are generally controlled by the same group of individuals who control the rest of the central banks worldwide. It's a group of about 500 people, roughly.

This is not easy task to figure out. It took me a few years to figure this out, relying on hard evidence from multiple sources and piecing it all together. This is not some kind of simple Google search.

When in doubt, read the history of the creation of the US Federal Reserve...
http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212

Carroll Quigley -- Bill Clinton's mentor -- was an elite insider who was so proud of what they were doing, he chose to document it in a book. Leon Skousen later wrote extensively regarding Quigley's writings and expanded on them.

These are just a handful of several works directly from the source.

Nomograph says

Lemmie get this straight: Newt Gingrich and Obama are secretly working behind the scenes to install a world communist government? Sweet.

Found on News One:

According to several friends, Jared Loughner, suspect in the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman, Gabrielle Gifford, Loughner was fan of conspiracy theory movies produced by right wing radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. The two movies are “Loose Change” which claims 9/11 was an inside job, which Alex Jones was an executive producer and “Zeitgeist” another conspiracy theory movie which had parts of Jones movie “Terrorstorm.” “Zeitgeist” claims that the Federal Reserve was behind several wars and manipulates the American public and that there was a secret conspiracy for a “One World Government” or “New World Order,” common themes in the Patriot Movement.

But I'm sure there's no relation at all to this thread.

M8R-ptqwyw says

The Federal Reserve Bank in the US is comprised of 12 banks which are primarily owned by financial investment firms. These firms are generally controlled by the same group of individuals who control the rest of the central banks worldwide. It’s a group of about 500 people, roughly.

Perfect you are just the guy I've been looking for to explain a few things. I've been curious for years about these 500 people that I keep hearing about.

I'm a little confused about your term "financial investment firms" since is has no actual meaning that I am aware of. If you meant investment banks then you must have misspoke. As someone who has spent years studying this you are of course aware that commercial banks are the shareholders in the fed. Nationally chartered banks must participate to the tune of 6% (if I remember correctly) of assets, state chartered banks are not required to buy shares in the fed but many do. Investment banks cannot own shares of the fed.

So my question is how do these 500 people actually control the fed. The fed is owned by banks who are publicly traded corporations. Something like 75% of the banks stocks are held by institutions like public pension plans, ira's, etc.. The 500 people certainly don't control all the ira's and public pension plans. How do they do it? What is the legal framework for it? What is the mechanism that allows this? There is nothing that I have ever seen in the banks public filings with the SEC that gives any clue to this.

With your back round of study on the subject this should be an easy one.

bob2356 says

M8R-ptqwyw says

The Federal Reserve Bank in the US is comprised of 12 banks which are primarily owned by financial investment firms. These firms are generally controlled by the same group of individuals who control the rest of the central banks worldwide. It’s a group of about 500 people, roughly.

Perfect you are just the guy I’ve been looking for to explain a few things. I’ve been curious for years about these 500 people that I keep hearing about.
I’m a little confused about your term “financial investment firms” since is has no actual meaning that I am aware of. If you meant investment banks then you must have misspoke. As someone who has spent years studying this you are of course aware that commercial banks are the shareholders in the fed. Nationally chartered banks must participate to the tune of 6% (if I remember correctly) of assets, state chartered banks are not required to buy shares in the fed but many do. Investment banks cannot own shares of the fed.
So my question is how do these 500 people actually control the fed. The fed is owned by banks who are publicly traded corporations. Something like 75% of the banks stocks are held by institutions like public pension plans, ira’s, etc.. The 500 people certainly don’t control all the ira’s and public pension plans. How do they do it? What is the legal framework for it? What is the mechanism that allows this? There is nothing that I have ever seen in the banks public filings with the SEC that gives any clue to this.
With your back round of study on the subject this should be an easy one.

So harsh and critical. Are you always like this? You'll die of a heart attack before you're 50 you know.

Here ya go...
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

It's a complex web of relationships. Once you've been exposed to the network and seen how these boys all work together, you begin to realize it's about 500 people at the core of it, roughly.

There's a famous presidential quote basically saying the same thing, but can't find it offhand. There's also a speech from JFK that goes over this same topic.

But you know it won't matter how much fact I put in front of you. You will never see what's in front of your face. I already know this. My posts are really for the people who happen to be reading this, who are on the fence and are confused about what is going on...

Media ownership works in much the same manner. These guys figure that if the relationships are complex and slightly indirect, most will be confused and refuse to believe it's an organized network with a mutual agenda. And they were right, people assume that because it's complex, it must not be real. For the deniers (paid or unpaid) it also makes for good ammo to attack those who know what is going on.

For example, how many people know that the Rothschild family owns Royal Dutch Shell (Shell gasoline)? This is the top of the food chain as far as central bankers go. How many people know the Rockefeller family owns/controls Citibank, Chase Bank, and ABC, CBS, and NBC? You know how long it took to determine this? Years! Just scratching the surface here... for most people, if it's not on the TV, it doesn't exist.

M8R-ptqwyw... or is it c2809939? says

The CFR doesn’t let you join unless you are 100% on board with their agenda. Their agenda is quite clearly a world communist government.

LOL. Nice to see a real conspiracy buff here. Yeah I'm sure that communist world gov't thing was what Dick Cheney was after when he joined.

Nomograph says

c2809939 says

For example, how many people know that the Rothschild family owns Royal Dutch Shell (Shell gasoline)? This is the top of the food chain as far as central bankers go. How many people know the Rockefeller family owns/controls Citibank, Chase Bank, and ABC, CBS, and NBC? You know how long it took to determine this? Years! Just scratching the surface here…

OMG THEY’RE IN MY SOCK DRAWER

I find it interesting that I bring sourced facts to the conversation, and you bring emotional buzzwords that have been specifically designed to deflate the facts without hardly any effort at all.

What is your purpose here? If you want to go back to high school, please feel free to do so. That is, inside the walls of a high school. You will be king there.

MarkInSF says

M8R-ptqwyw… or is it c2809939? says

The CFR doesn’t let you join unless you are 100% on board with their agenda. Their agenda is quite clearly a world communist government.

LOL. Nice to see a real conspiracy buff here. Yeah I’m sure that communist world gov’t thing was what Dick Cheney was after when he joined.

I think you will enjoy watching Cheney and Rockefeller laugh it up about how he kept the fact that he headed up the CFR out of the media spotlight --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg

What's even more fascinating is that I have an endless amount of factual information to support my statements here, yet not only does this not register for you, you go out of your way to actually try to create the impression that I am not of sound mind. I can't fathom that so many individuals here are so belligerent. My only guess is that some of this high school bully mentality is actually paid for, and intentional. Then there are the spinless individuals who subscribe to the herd mentality at all costs. Those are the soul-less individuals of society who are like the walking dead.

People ask me why I am so jaded about humanity these days. It's because of your responses, folks. I feel like I am talking to 1 out of 1,000 people out there who actually know what is going on. The rest of you are either paid for or opportunistic jackasses who find a ready orgasm waiting for you by gangbanging the unpopular idea (based in facts, I might add).

When people no longer use facts, that's when people are disposable because they have become animals. Civilization ends. If you want to cater to animalistic desire, go for it. Don't let anyone hold you back. Attack the facts and the logic, and then live for the high of the instant orgasm, as there is no higher state of being for you.

Why bother hanging out on forums such as this one? Reach for the stars baby and join your local Satanic cult.

c2809939 says

So harsh and critical. Are you always like this? You’ll die of a heart attack before you’re 50 you know.

WTF is harsh and critical? I asked a simple and I thought polite question. Paranoid much? I'm well over 50 and play 1-2 hours of squash a day, thank you for your concern about my health.

What facts did you put in front of me? A chart from 1976 talking about ownership control of banks in 1914. Exactly how does that work in 2011? What does Royal Dutch Shell have to do with banking or central banks? How do the Rothchilds own RDS? Here is a list of major stockholders for RDS http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-major.html?t=RDS.B the largest of which is Hawkins Capital out of Houston. How does the Rockefeller family own/control Citi/Chase etc.? They are not the majority stockholders, that's easy to look up also. So what mechanism do they use for this control?

I'm sitting on the fence. Answer my question and move me over the line. I'll try again, without having majority stockholder status, how do these people "control" public corporations? How do they go on to "control" the FED which is owned by publicly traded banks? You've studied this for years so a simple summary should be no problem.