Friday, November 1, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
All governments are a 100%scam, and therefor, all government programs are a scam, therefor, Obamacare is itself is just another government scam:
ReplyDeletehttp://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2013/10/video-stefan-molyneux-on-obamacare-scam.html
Regards, onebornfree.
Let's keep it civil, people! I think you'll find that 'therefore' formerly had an alternative spelling as 'therefor', which originally combined 'for' with 'there' (an old oblique form of 'that' that was used with prepositions, and itself spelled 'ther'), and not with 'fore', which makes no sense but was irrationally adopted by some confused scribe decades back by analogy with some of the other English words onto which 'e' has likewise been tacked with the same illogic.
ReplyDeleteMichael Herzog was a sensational guest! What a wealth of knowledge he has!
Michael combines some of the things I've garnered from both left- and right-leaning friends and personalities I've heard and read, and ties together some of the best threads from both. And he seems so chipper for someone who's 64. I'm looking forward to his next appearance!
You know what would be great? To have Michael and Gordon Duff on together.
That's all very well but where does this word "cunt" come from and what was the name of your "confused scribe"?
Delete(Please keep it clear and accurate with none of your "oblique" and irrelevant hogwash).
Also, your ageist and insulting remark/slur in reference to Michael's "seeming so chipper for someone's who's 64 " has NO place on this blog. I'll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head and to stop lowering the tone of Professor Jim Fetzer's blog with your constant and mindless comments.
We are, after all, in the 21st century and the days of the
"scribe" (confused or otherwise) are long gone.
Larry Granger said:" I think you'll find the word is
ReplyDelete"therefore" and not "therefor"."
Please see : "Therefore and Therefor":
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/therefore-and-therefor/
Besides which, your comment has nothing to do with my observation, but then again, what would I expect from a "mind"[for want of a better term] with a mouth such as yours? :-)
No regards, onebornfree
Maeve Maddox (at the linked page) had a point that the old word 'therefor' is used in lawyerspeak, but she gave an example of its use with the wrong meaning. I still stand by my comment.You'll find both meanings at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/therefor. Mine was number (1), the "obsolete" one, and even the lawyers', number (2), is given at Wiktionary with the meaning "for that. In Old English it would have had to be 'himfor' to mean "for it", which didn't exist - it would have been 'for him'. 'Ther' was 'that' in the dative case.
Delete" 'Ther' was 'that' in the dative case." (??!!)
DeleteReally?!!?
The dative case of 'that' was 'thaem'
and was often written as 'tham'.
The 'th' combination was written using the old English runic alphabet Futhark letter 'thorn' which I cannot reproduce here.
Stand by your comment all you want.
Your comment is bogus.
The Old English for 'therefore' was
Delete"forthon".The 'th' was pronounced like the 'th' in the words "thing"and "thought". The Old English 'eth' letter from the runic Futhark alphabet was used for this 'th' sound. The 'th' sound
in words like "thing" and "thought" is not to be confused with the 'th' sound in words like "this", "that", "them" etc. which was represented by the runic alphabet Futhark 'thorn' sign.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere were many dialects of Old English, which I contend were nothing but dialects of Old Saxon. The Saxons came under an Anglican flag but the Angles were a tiny minority. /Ther/ (spelled sometimes with eth and sometimes with thorn, but the pronunciation is the same - a voiceless nonsibilant dental fricative - because it is in initial position) doubtless appeared in one of them at one time and is a cognate of NHG /darum/ and /dafür/. The point is that /therefor/ traces back to an obsolete form that was still formerly used in Modern English. I didn't think it was worthwhile explaining the letters thorn and eth, and I took some other shortcuts so as not to leave everyone behind.
DeleteAgain you can contend all you like. Your comment is of absolutely no value and adds nothing to the matter under discussion. If anyone has been left behind, it is YOU with your specious and unsubstantiated drivel and poppycock.
DeleteInteresting to note that 'dafür' in German means 'for it" whereas
Delete'for him' is 'für ihn'. Likewise 'damit' means 'with it' and 'mit ihm' means 'with him' ( 'with her'
is 'mit ihr' and 'for her' is 'für sie'.
In Old English 'for him' was simply 'him' ( no preposition 'for' since Old English 'him' had a built-in 'for' - so to speak). A bit like modern English in phrases such as "Get him a Budweiser" and " Get a Budweiser for him" and "Give him a Budweiser" and
"Give a Budweiser to him".
Were the Saxons Church of England??
DeleteAnglican??!! LOL
OneBornEveryMinute, New High German (NHG) also has datives for /der die das/ (commonly used where we would have in English /that/ and those are /dem der dem/. That fact doesn't stop NHG from using /da(r)/ in place of those dative forms when connected to prepositions, as in /damit darin daraus etc./.
DeleteTimRogers, the Anglican Church was called "Anglican" because it was literally "The Church of England". /Anglican/ is the adjectival form of the noun /Angle/. The Angles and the Saxons who did yeoman service for them have, of course, come to be referred to collectively as the "English" (from Old English /Aenglisc/, but they were ethnically two different groups. So, I used /Anglican/ to specify the Angles. Any more questions?
Rob Jefries' /forthon/ gives the form using the instrumental case of the neuter nominative /that/, but the instrumental case was not always extant in some of the dialects and during all periods; and it was disappearing in the dialects we know of and its use being taken over by the dative. There was no Standard Old English, so it is a matter of speculation as to where /therefore/ came from. In the dialects we know of, the feminiine dative /thaere/ was likely already being used in place of the missing feminine instrumental, so it might be natural for it to be used in forms such as */thaerfor/ ( /*/ indicating that the form is speculative), with an alternate */forthaer/. The sister-language Old High German /daz/ ("the, that") had the instrumental form in the neuter only, namely /diu/, but /deru/ in the feminine dative; so /da(r)/ may have come into NHG by a similar evolution.
DeleteDecember 23 2013 The Federal Reserve Charter officially ends and up for renewal
ReplyDeleteIs the Federal Reserve Act going to expire?
DeleteNo. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913--which established the Federal Reserve as the central bank of the United States--has been amended or altered by the Congress numerous times over the years, but the act has never included an "expiration date" or repeal date. As stated in the law itself, the Federal Reserve Act can only be repealed, amended, or altered by the Congress.
Good show guys. One point I would bring up though is that meme that Alex Jones keeps repeating about the power structure being threatened by Libertarians is a load of BS.
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism is a Zionist economic system that would bring on a deflationary crash followed by massive unemployment and a transfer of wealth from average people to the financial speculators and banksters of the world (pretty much everything Alex warns you about). Mainline conservatives figure they could never sell such a moronic agenda to the public. But Alex Jones, Ron & Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are having a surprising amount of success convincing people to put their own head in the Zionist economic noose.
Second segment:
ReplyDeleteHerhog, "Jim why do think they are not closing down Gitmo?"
Fetzer, "Ha, Ha, Ha"
WTF!!! The hair on the back of neck stood up!
You got HAIR on the back of your neck??!!
DeleteWho do you think you're kidding, pal??
Hair on the back of your neck?!
LMFAO
Love the fear mongering FEMA camps and hundreds of thousands of plastic coffins earmarked for the truthers etc .... this BS talk has gone on for years, when they gonna start rounding us up? are they gonna pull us outta church, our beds, off the streets, and movie theaters?
ReplyDeletethese are all mind fux ala Gary Null's sun spots were gonna destroy the world late last year ... come on, people, there are enough false flags and awful things our gov and zionists are pulling but this Fema camp crap is past old--you really think that coke head Glen Beck was gonna let that cat outta bag. No, just another TV psyop.
Herzog is a decent guy but like many of these talking heads they often don't critically think their way thru these fear scams.... how they gonna feed and house 5-10 million of us for free, or just gonna off us with bullets and gas? yeah, right,
People who believe that are as bad as the sheep they ridicule.
Link to one of the best short-talks I have heard on monetary reform. Bill Still speaking at International Forum on Financial Systems in Turkey.
ReplyDeleteJim, what are the prospects of you having Bill Still on again? He's the real deal.
Still Report #103 - Bill's Speech in Turkey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBo8J5gSbaQ
http://youtu.be/eC96IACgqWg
ReplyDeleteTo restate my assertion, with "correct" spelling:
ReplyDeleteAll governments are a 100%scam, therefore, all government programs are a scam, therefore, Obamacare is itself is just another government scam:
http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2013/10/video-stefan-molyneux-on-obamacare-scam.html
Regards, onebornfree.
Just wondering if "assertion" is the right word. The definition
Deleteof the word "assertion" is:
" A confident and forceful statement of belief or fact".
However, can you be confident that your assertion that "all governments are a 100% scam" and that " therefore all government programs are a scam " is a fact? Is "assertion" the right word to use? You may be confident and forceful
and believe in your assertion but, again, the question must be asked:
Is "assertion" the right word?
Your views...?
Onebornfree said:
ReplyDelete"All governments are a 100%scam, and therefor, all government programs are a scam, therefor, Obamacare is itself is just another government scam:......."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You sound like Ronald Reagan. Don't blame the government, please.
We no longer have government by the people, rather, it is by the corporations. All of our representatives have received enormous bribes from the insurance company PACs to derail healthcare reform.
They'll never be happy until they can continue to take our premiums and give us nothing in return. We live in a corporatocracy. We should have had the single payer system administrated by Medicare.
Deregulation, privatization, usury by the Fed and orporate welfare have caused this mess. What I don't get is why our leaders have sold us out--threats maybe?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 Reasons Obama Never, Ever Should Have Trusted the Healthcare Industry | Alternet
http://www.alternet.org/obama-never-should-have-trusted-health-insurers
“Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler, and more widely accepted by the public,” wrote Reich. “And Republicans would be hollering anyway.”
Instead, Obama and the Democrats trusted the private insurance industry, thought it would do its part, and not keep stabbing them—and policyholders—in the back.
That doesn’t mean the ACA doesn’t have positive features, as Obama keeps saying in speeches, but with the President as a punching bag the industry can keep doing what it has always done: put its profits first.
No, Joan, what you don't "get" is that government is a 100% criminal scam, and nothing more- always has been, always will be.
ReplyDeleteDreams [Anarchist Blues] lyrics excerpt:
"..... Dreams, that Obama's not a scam
Dreams, that G. Bush was not a scam,
Dreams, that B.Clinton was not a scam,
Dreams, that Ronald Reagan was not a scam,
Dreams, that all the rest were not a scam,
Dreams, that the Constitution is not a scam,
Dreams, that the Bill of Rights is not a scam..."
"Dreams [Anarchist Blues]":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk
Regards, onebornfree
When people heard Obama say:
Delete" Yes. We can", they misheard him.
What Obama really said was:
"Yes. We scam."
It may have been a faulty microphone....bad acoustics. Who knows?
Obama was later overheard saying:
" Do these people actually believe I said "Yes. We can"? After consulting with his advisors, Obama decided to run with " Yes. We can". He figured that's where the votes were.
No, Joan, what you don't "get" is that government is a 100% criminal scam, and nothing more- always has been, always will be.
ReplyDeleteDreams [Anarchist Blues] lyrics excerpt:...Onebornfree
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm no fan of "government" either, but some decades were better than others. At least, there was no problem getting healthcare in the US in the 60s and 70s. Since Reagan/Bush, corporations have taken over and made illness a profit-making scam with the help of ALL the presidents. I do think Obama tried reform but was weak and gave in to the insurance companies.
Like your'e foreskin is too tight..
ReplyDelete"Wolves In Sheep’s Clothing: How the Public Was Duped into Socialism (But Got Totalitarianism)
ReplyDeleteA story of Obamacare, Fabian Socialism, 1984 and the incremental hijacking of our lives." :
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/wolves-in-sheeps-clothing-how-public.html
Regards, onebornfree
Re:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/wolves-in-sheeps-clothing-how-public.html
"The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, may be a functional nightmare, PR blunder and a deeply divisive issue, but it represents a momentous power grab for the rise of Socialism in America – which though once a haunting specter, has gradually become a reality."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OBF, socialism is not the problem in the US, but fascism is as corporations have taken over the government. Who is receiving all government subsidies and contracts? And now they want our "entitlements" which ARE NOT PART OF THE GENERAL REVENUE, BUT PAID FOR BY US.
Social Security and Medicare are popular and necessary. Libertarianism is appealing except for its stance on social programs. The fact that the Republicans and insurance companies are so against the ACA tells us a lot.
Joan, I know I really should not be surprised, but yours and other naivete about the true nature of all governments everywhere here continues to amaze/entertain.
ReplyDeleteJim Fetzer is another person with his head up so far up his a$$ on this issue its not even funny.
To fantasize that Obama is a good guy who means well but who has somehow been sidelined by insurance corporations is total BS.
Obama is a crook, just like Bush, Clinton, Reagan and all the rest. And I mean ALL of the rest.
The entire government is merely "a gang of thieves writ large". Always has been, always will be.
Socialism and fascism are merely two sides of the same exact coin. One is a slight variant of the other, that's all. Both are collectivist top-down economic systems that impose severe limitations on individual choice.
All government-run economies must inevitably manifest/devolve to either an overtly socialistic economic system, or to a minor variant, the fascist system. Fascism is merely a minor variation of socialism, that's all.
If you have a government in the first place,[i.e. an economy run by criminals with the power of law] one or other of these two variants are as inevitable as night following day- there is no escape.
Regards, onebornfree.
The Freedom Network: www.freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com
"If you have a government in the first place,[i.e. an economy run by criminals with the power of law] one or other of these two variants are as inevitable as night following day- there is no escape".......onebornfree
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is imperative that we have a change in the current criminal healthcare system that takes premiums and doesn't pay out on the claims putting people into bankruptcy. Regardless of which gang of crooks is in office, we need the healthcare now. The fact that the insurance industry has done everything in its power to derail this act is telling. BTW, the biggest crooks of all have been the Bush family and the Clintons. Check out their utter mayhem on www.skolnicksreport.org.
Joan Edwards said: "It is imperative that we have a change in the current criminal healthcare system that takes premiums and doesn't pay out on the claims putting people into bankruptcy. Regardless of which gang of crooks is in office, we need the healthcare now."
ReplyDeleteAs with anything else, government involvement _always_ makes everything worse.
The pre-existing laws/regulations on healthcare providers already caused the market disruptions that Obamacare claimed to to fix. But even more regulation[ via Obamacare] ,will only make things even worse than they already are [higher prices, less choice].
Healthcare, like anything else, is doomed in the US as long as people are dumb enough to believe that the government can make things better, when it is government involvement in the first place that had ruined healthcare services _before_ Obamacare existed.
So, as a believer [yourself] in the magical powers of government - enjoy your Obamacare, Joan. You fully deserve what you are going to get :-)
Regards, onebornfree.