Thread: Here's The Plan

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I will admit I know very little about the ins and outs of commodity trading or any other kind for that matter.

My opinions comes from watching impossible things being done in our country, and the world, for quite a few years. Things that we know have been manipulated - and many more we think have been manipulated.

So commodity trading controls the price?

Who is doing the commodity trading?
Just everyday Joes (not many) - or big corporations and investors?


Very few things happen in this country or the world in finances or politics that isn't carefully orchestrated and managed.

Anybody in the country or the world who has the money to invest may invest in commodity futures and options. When buying commodity futures, you are paying for the given commodity at a given future delivery date and gambling that the going price at that time will be greater than the price you paid in advance. When trading options, you are purchasing the option to buy at that future date and securing it with only a small percentage of the actual purchase price. Because people want to buy low and sell high, the actual purchasers of futures want to see the prices stay low, thereby creating an incentive for prices to stay down. People buying options can go short or long, meaning that they can gamble on increasing or decreasing prices.

I am not saying that these markets can in no way be influenced. I am simply saying that doing so is beyond the control of simple politicians. You have to look well beyond partisan politics if you hope to even have a chance of demonstrating some form of manipulation.

I am not saying that these markets can in no way be influenced. I am simply saying that doing so is beyond the control of simple politicians. You have to look well beyond partisan politics if you hope to even have a chance of demonstrating some form of manipulation.

I am so proud of mastering the quote feature.

Now I didn't say that it was 'simple politicians' that would be manipulating this. Politicians - simple as they may be - are the ones being paid and manipulated and they, in turn, manipulate the people.

Do you think if big oil wanted a certain person or group running this country, they wouldn't do something to make it happen???

However, I don't find the Bush family to be 'simple politicians' -

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I am not saying that these markets can in no way be influenced. I am simply saying that doing so is beyond the control of simple politicians. You have to look well beyond partisan politics if you hope to even have a chance of demonstrating some form of manipulation.

I am so proud of mastering the quote feature.

Now I didn't say that it was 'simple politicians' that would be manipulating this. Politicians - simple as they may be - are the ones being paid and manipulated and they, in turn, manipulate the people.

Do you think if big oil wanted a certain person or group running this country, they wouldn't do something to make it happen???

However, I don't find the Bush family to be 'simple politicians' -

Even that would be difficult. Commodities are traded institutionally and globally, and there are many competing interests. Remember, for example, that OPEC has an interest in keeping the prices fairly low, because they don't want nations to have incentives to search for petroleum alternatives. Domestic drillers have an interest in keeping prices relatively high because they don't make a profit until crude goes over about $35/barrel. Our government wants prices fairly low so that we don't go broke trying to keep our military vehicles and aircraft fuelled. The transportation sector wants to keep prices low for obvious reasons. speculators want prices high because that's how they turn a profit. All of this is, of course, subject to the law of supply and demand and to monetary policy.

The point is that the idea that the petroleum industry as such has the power to change prices at will is not valid. The idea that a given political family can do so is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by xanadu

Think about this!! Our companies have been sent overseas attracted by lower tax bases, our jobs have been outsourced rendering the working people to a class lower than they are accustomed to but one that will be world wide for the serf population. . . .

IF I were you I would be checking out my state constitution and state representatives because that is the only soveriengty left in this country. . . .


WAKE UP read your state constitution and start actively working there. Those are the only sovereign borders left (maybe) if they seceed from the Federal government. First they need to bring their National Guard back home. Good luck to that. You heard Bush at least four more years.

READ - EDUCATE your selves and PROTECT YOUR FAMILY AND THIS NATION.

thank you, thank you, thank you! I'm so glad to see other people seeing this as a 'state's rights' issue and not an 'immigration' issue. That's why it is so important to get the right people at the state level -- if they aren't there we will be in a bad situation with both a Congress and state legislature AGAINST us. It is a lot easier to control the state than it is to control Congress and we need to let them know it -- they are either for us or against us, there's not middle ground

We lost state's rights with the cival war.I don't think that war was about slavery,it was about states rights.Not that I am agreeing with slavery,it was a bad thing and needed to be stopped,but we lost our state's rights then.

I agree Mamie, I already have my target list of State Senators as well as all MA member of the House of Representatives. Will start bombarding them immediately. As it does look like they will pass this bill today

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

We lost state's rights with the cival war.I don't think that war was about slavery,it was about states rights.Not that I am agreeing with slavery,it was a bad thing and needed to be stopped,but we lost our state's rights then.

EXACTLY! If the Civil War was about slavery, then why did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only free the slaves in the Confederacy and not those in the remaining federal territories and mixed states? The fact is that the war was fought over tariffs and the grossly disproportionate taxation of the Southern states that was being used to fund westaward expansion and to support the flagging industrial North. when the states that became the Confederacy exercised the option afforded them by the nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence, and cast off a government that no longer served their People, the North instigated a war. Because the President had no constitutionally delegated power to act against the seceding states and because Congress could not lawfully act so long as the Union declared that the states that seceded were still part of the Union (because there was no quorum), Lincoln sought power from the European monarchical system under the Holy Roman Empire and gained new powers through apotheosis under the governance of the Church of Rome. That is why the Vatican artist, Brumidi, came and commemorated the event by painting the Apotheosis of Washington (using George Washington as the symbol for the office of the Presidency in perpetuity) on the Capitol rotunda in the middle of a raging war. The Vatican claimed its primacy over the new Civil Republic under roman civil law by also placing the statue of Persephone atop the Capitol dome at the same time.

Once the war was over, the federal government assumed dictatorial powers and has never truly relented.

According to some writings regarding Texas and the Confederacy, it seems that the main reason TExas seceded was because the US had promised Texas they would protect them from Mexico if they became a state.

I keep that filed under 'things haven't changed all that much'.

It seems some wanted to form another TExas army and go after Mexico and some wanted to join the confederacy - the confederacy side won.

I think that if Texas seceded it would from an army and join Mexico now.I think Texas might be to far over run for any other thing to happen.I don't live there so I cannot say for sure

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

I think that if Texas seceded it would from an army and join Mexico now.I think Texas might be to far over run for any other thing to happen.I don't live there so I cannot say for sure

I don't think that's an accurate assessment, though we have been overrun. The issue is that many of the Mexicans here are transient, which is to say that they come and go between here and Mexico. All we have to do is to stop them from "coming" after they "go."

Also, Texas probably has the highest number of firearms per capita of any state (at least of any large state). Actually getting the job done of tossing the interlopers back to the other side of the border would probably be easier than one would imagine. I am reminded of the first days of the Los Angeles riots in which rabble-rousers were trying to spread the anarchy to other cities. In the few areas that trouble started, armed Texans simply pulled out the lawn chair and the shotgun and dared the miscreants to do their worst. The riots in this area were over before they started.