Yesterday

Hi Punked, thanks for not making me feel stupid. Would it be a better understanding of left/right/center alignment that would help me to define these groups better? I do not know enough yet to define myself but upon doing the political test elsewhere on this forum I came out dead center left. However, it will take some time before I would venture an opinion on whether or not it accurately describes me.

Yup, I agree about the ruse however the curtain is falling. Have you checked out Finality of Settlements? A theory built on the premis of a world wide reset to gold/mineral based currencies. Another agenda, you are right, the gold ownership is already highly concentrated and no where near fair enough in geological placement around the world. IMO it would not take long for the gold wars to start.

OK I am going to ask a simple question because I am slightly confused. I read the MichealJounals regarding the Social Credit Theory and thought it was Liberal. What is Liberal if not Socialist. Teach me please...

Agendas, everyone has an agenda...Look at the US, they have surrounded Russia, China, Palestine and are looking to mess with North Korea. This says to me that perhaps I am looking at the remnants of Hitler's 1000 year agenda. This coupled with the CIA view of the bankruptcy of the EU by the year 2012. How about Basil 1-11, another Hitler throw back. I view Harper's antics in cementing relations with the EU as a socialist left over from the fall of the Soviet Union which includes Russia, China and Japan. Although Japan seems more communist than socialist they will go where the power is. Then there is the Wall Street crowd, they don't care who's agenda becomes mandate as long as no one interferes with fractionlized banking. There is also outright fringe countries that for reasons of their own refuse to play ball with this bail-out/debt/control scenario like Argentina, North Korea and the very sad Poland. A whole political party decimated over unrest at not being able to reset(not to gold standard but a reset within fractional reserve systems)( I wonder if a currency reset strips international banks/national banks of assets/power) their currency and be rid of the IMF/EU control. Who did it? The Socialist faction or the Communist facists. A who done it of the highest order. The Muslim agenda is interesting in so far as I watched a video that stated a political position of not needing to be at war with the world in any way as simply by Muslim population growth they will outnumber every other human species on earth 8 to 1 in less than 100 years. Infiltration is preferable to war regardless of the US terrorism campaign. There are so many agendas, it is all so interesting. If I am a little off (or way out in left/right field)on sizing up these groups by all means fill me in. It is very confusing and there is MUCH to learn.

Hi, I agree with both of these last posts. My instincts say that those agendas that include the little green men are government produced. Sometimes I toss the fear cover-up concept around but ultimately always fall back to the big brother/disinformation platform. I've been following CMKX/CMKM around for about a year. Right now, specifically, I am trying to get to the bottom of the reset to gold standard rumours. Personally I can't see it happening in any member country of the IMF since currency resets are a no-no within this group. The Global Settlements rumours are also very interesting. One must consider the fake triple A stamp used to sell bad CDOs and what have you. This is one reason for the Mondaq articles written about the process of determining proper justice across many countries regarding international market fraud. There is much going on below the surface. It takes time and tenacity to research all the rumours and also the putting up with many dead ends. Was it not Japan that stated " Nobody wins a currency war "? Time will tell, time and research, it always does.

Kind of makes me feel like I would want to slap that as one would with just about any hysterical person that one would happen to be confronted with. Sounds like a drunk tirade. I feel a little rude(funny in the face of that behavior)but I would have to say back off on the hormone replacements.

From my current understanding, no they are not used as they are redundant and expensive in this age of satellite. From a cultural/nostalgic point of view they are museum quality history though and it does sadden me to see this reality passed by the wayside. I suppose from a federal fiscal point of view it makes sense to unload them but I would like to see more of a provincial/municipal interest.

I so totally agree. Not just fascinated but thrilled. Got'a LOVE transparency!!!!! Like toddlers learning to speak who never shut up, let us never shut up!

I'm down with Peggy's Cove, being a maritimer stuck in Southern Ontario I would appreciate a bit of home right now.

Section 2 is a bit of a light read....giggle.

Are you a Bluenoser? I am. I love Peggy's Cove!!!!!!!I will be sad to see the lighthouse sold, if and when. If I had a billion dollars...

So the right to cut up your children's genitalia is actually being considered in a country where you can't even spank your kids? My position...keep your bloody hands to yourself! This is Canada, a country where Scots, French, German and the like, Muslim, Arabic or Japanese gather to escape the woes of their mother countries. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with retaining old ways, it has to do with being able to take the best of the best customs from around the world and the ability to leave the rest. Physically deforming our bodies in the name of a God or Gods, well, that's tribal and archaic. Deeply disturbing to me.

Hi, I wasn't aware of the option. This makes me respect even more the men and women who opt to go but at the same time makes me respect no less those who don't. I also can agree with the reasoning behind the no sex rules.

Sort of like stock manipulators on stock forums, bashers and the rest. This is my first foray into political forums, if I bring up redundancies please forgive me. I do make use of the forum search but it will take time to thoroughly navigate all the subjects on this forum for such. I must say, this is a most interesting place!

I don't think you are a nut. What these aforementioned groups conspire to control/keep intact is the fractional reserve banking going on around the world. Perhaps too they conspire to not have the world in general know we are fighting a currency war across the developed countries. Is it true that Japan sold the first CDO...?

I MOST WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know, the best medicine for fear is knowledge yet somehow though in this instance the more I learn the stronger my fear gets. Perhaps because understanding it alone is not the same as already figuring out what to do about it. I wonder if the forums that are getting shut down go in depth about alternatives and counter measures.

Third World Debt & Foreign Aid Third World Debt: $2000 billion (up from $100 billion 30 years ago) (UN's World Development Report) ¶ Debt Payments Flowing from the Poor to the Rich Countries: approx 1400 billion (from 1960 to 1993) ¶ Foreign Aid Flowing from the Rich to the Poor Countries: approx 140 billion (from 1960 to 1993) Percentage of Foreign Aid that Reaches the Poor in the Poor Countries: approx 5 % Foreign Aid Given by Canada as a Percentage of GDP: .29 % (.09 % for U.S.) Distribution of World Income (UN Human Development Report) ¶ Richest 20 percent of the World's Population: 85 % (up from 75 % over the past 30 years) ¶ Poorest 20 percent of the World's Population: 1.4 % (down from 2.3 % over the past 30 years) Annual Cost of Alleviating Poverty (UN Human Development Program) For Food, Clean water, Clothes, Education, Health Care & Sanitation for 4.4 billion people: $60 billion For Food and Basic Health Care for 4.4 billion people: $19.5 billion What Americans and Europeans spend annually on pet food: $25 billion (for comparison) http://www.basicincome.com/basic_gendata.htm

Hi, it looks more intimidating then it really is and while reading this perhaps we can help each other put it into context. For instance...this paragraph from the first entry. "In the event of an inconsistency between an obligation in this Agreement and an obligation of a Party under an agreement listed in Annex X, the latter obligation shall prevail provided that the measure taken is necessary to comply with that obligation, and is not applied in a manner that would constitute, where the same conditions prevail, arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.] [EC: for discussion and possible placement in environmental group]" I think this is the clause the government used to remove all restrictions regarding international access to any Canadian water for industrial/commercial use. Everything from the stream that runs through your back yard to the Great Lakes.

Hi, are you kidding? Giggle, they'll take out loans from RBC and the like then amortize it across a 100 years of taxes for us.

In regards to the conspiracy theory, as I go through the various world organizations, really, world government is being simply reformed and expanded, it has always been a factor of world trade and perhaps with firm leadership and concepts (of which I have found none yet myself) could extend to the private sector and not just the commercial sector and greatly enhance the quality of life for everyone (good grief, who am I trying to kid?). Perhaps an issue with this would be is it a Socialist or Communist platform. Kind of makes me wonder if there would be any comparisons to be drawn about the role of transparency in the fall of the Soviet Union and the role of conspiracy theory perhaps as a false front to get truth out in the face of lovely devices such as the Patriot's Act in the US (Little Soviet or are they DVD Deutch bags?). Socialist/Communist they are all buggers. Perhaps Nixon should also come to mind. Disinformation baby.

Canadian negotiators have also included a controversial investor-state dispute mechanism like the one in NAFTA. The Chapter 11 dispute process has allowed and encouraged large multinationals to sue North American governments for compensation against public health and environmental policies that limit corporate profits. http://www.tradejustice.ca/LeakedText?bl=y What can we say about this? I just found it today and thought maybe we should all read it.

Thanks for the derivatives lesson Geoffery. Perhaps currently the overall risk of Canada's finances rate better than some. Even without understanding the finer points of finances if people like you keep talking someone like me will get it quite thoroughly, thanks. Oh yes, perhaps the last article mentioned was not a well written one in your words but was the content (other than the bail-out preference of terms) a true account of what the PM and the finance minister said. It does seem to contradict other statements at least from Flarherty.

This is American but as I look down the pipe at our future this is the kind of BS I see headed straight at us. WASHINGTON Capital is the body fat of banking: too much is debilitating, too little is fatal. During the financial crisis, as large banks burned through their capital reserves, governments were forced to add padding at public expense. They were only forced because of a desire to maintain fractional reserve banking, a reset amongst other concepts were more desirable to many. Jonathan Alcorn/Bloomberg News Howard Atkins of Wells Fargo criticized the proposals. Related Times Topics: Financial Regulatory Reform | Group of 20 Stephen Crowley/The New York Times Michael Barr of the Treasury said the proposals were crucial to reform. Now one of the most consequential decisions about new restraints on the banking industry how much more capital banks should hold in their rainy day reserves is being decided not on Capitol Hill but far from Washington, by a committee based in Basel, Switzerland. The Obama administration is pursuing an international agreement to make banks hold significantly larger reserves, which it regards as essential to increase the stability of the global financial system. It wants to complete the negotiations, which are being coordinated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, by the end of the year. The worlds largest banks have responded with consternation, arguing that the proposed standards would tie up too much money that otherwise could be used for lending, a loss that would curtail economic growth. I can't believe this is accepted as truth. The debate between regulators and banks is about the proper balance between growth and safety, but the implications are much broader. In fixing reserve requirements, governments are deciding how much horsepower belongs under the hood of the global economy. We need them to get the balance right, said Douglas J. Elliott, a Brookings Institution expert who has studied the Basel proposals. More safety will make loans more expensive. We dont want to buy so much safety that the economy suffers. Why would we/they/anybody have to buy fiscal honesty? There is tremendous political pressure to decide quickly. With the Senates passage of financial overhaul legislation, administration officials said that increasing capital and liquidity reserve requirements was the critical remaining piece in their efforts to overhaul financial regulation. Of course it must be fast, any opposing group should not have the time to get a good head of steam about them while the world is still in turmoil over the fraudulent banking practices of the last 60 years or so. Do we really want to be here in the not so far away future? Same tactic as the health care bill passed in the US just recently. The Group of 20 nations affirmed the year-end deadline at its April meetings in Washington, notwithstanding divisions between the United States and some European nations on a range of banking issues. Reform is multifaceted, but at its core must be stronger capital standards, the group wrote in its communiqué. We recommitted to developing by end-2010 internationally agreed rules to improve both the quality and quantity of bank capital and to discourage excessive leverage. IE: we'll be regrouped by then and have the next 1000 years of debt insured by our reforms, has anybody read the Framework Convention on Climate Change? Sounds sort of like a production dividend collected from developed countries and used to indebt underdeveloped countries and a pitch to control resource developement. Go G20! The rules governing capital are dry and technical, a subject that even bankers leave to specialists, but they have become the single most important tool that governments use to restrain and preserve financial institutions. Banks are required to set aside capital in proportion to loans and investments. The rules shape behavior because banks must hold more capital against assets or loans that regulators consider more likely to lose value. Unlike here in Canada where they need not have anything but speculation, doesn't this bode well. Capital is so important that the United States has pushed for international agreements on reserve requirements so as not to place American banks at a disadvantage. As a result, the financial bills passed by the House and Senate leave the issue largely untouched. The first international agreement, known as Basel I, was reached in 1988. Work began almost immediately on a revision, but the standards known as Basel II were not completed until 2004. Now officials are racing to overhaul that framework in little more than a year. Were going to be pushing through this year to make sure that happens. Thats an absolutely critical part of reform, said Michael S. Barr, assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions. The industry mostly is reconciled to an increase many bankers regard it as necessary but in comment letters to the Basel committee made public in mid-April, large banks from across the world linked arms to argue that the initial proposals went much too far. For instance, analysts for JPMorgan Chase estimated that banks would need to raise prices by 33 percent to maintain profits. They also predicted that the Basel proposals would reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by a multiple of $30 billion. 33% Who are they trying to kid, if you can't stun them with brilliance baffel them with bullshit. Banks also warned that governments were piling on proposals to tax and constrain the beleaguered industry. The cumulative financial impact represents a level of conservatism so extreme that it will harm the banking sector, banking customers and national economies, Wells Fargos chief financial officer, Howard I. Atkins, wrote in a letter to the committee. ONLY because of fractional reserve banking! Most large banks held more capital than regulators required in the fall of 2008. But they did not hold enough to survive the financial crisis. As borrowers defaulted and the value of investments fell sharply, many banks failed or were fortified with public money. The United States distributed more than $165 billion to nine of the largest American banks. The Basel committee is still discussing how much to increase the minimum capital requirement. The amount will depend in part on the results of a study estimating the impact of the proposals on banks, scheduled for discussion at the next meeting of the G-20 in June. Already on the table, however, are an overhaul of the risk-weightings, and a tighter definition of capital, closing loopholes that allowed banks to count borrowed money and projected profits as part of their reserves. This all constitutes jailable offences, remember this in 50/100 years when we are subjected to the same amount of injustice. Separately, the proposals would create a new reserve requirement, mandating that banks keep enough cash on hand or assets sold easily for cash to pay their bills for 30 days. Some banks ran out of cash during the crisis as depositors withdrew, investors fled and the borrowing markets shut down. The new rule, called a liquidity requirement, is intended to ensure that banks can survive such a financing drought. A central point of international disagreement is whether banks should be allowed to hold smaller reserves because it is understood that central banks will provide loans during times of crisis. This sends shivers down my spine. Financial analysts say that some nations, including France, are reluctant to make banks duplicate the safety net that the government provides already. Trying to get global buy-in is going to be hard to achieve, said Frederick Cannon, a banking analyst at Keefe, Bruyette and Woods. Banks argue more broadly that the initial Basel proposals are based on the extremes of recent experience, and that the cost of preparing for such extremes is too high in terms of lost lending and growth. ONLY because our respective governments refuse to step up to the plate and assert montary control again. I don't want this, no one should. What can we do about it. The liquidity standard, for example, directs banks to prepare for the loss of 15 percent of deposits. A study of 121 recent bank failures by the American Bankers Association found the average institution lost 2.1 percent of its deposits. Only one bank lost more than 15 percent. 2.1 % and they cost that much to bail-out? Smells fishy, smells like fraud settlement to me. A version of this article appeared in print on May 26, 2010, on page B3 of the New York edition. Why?

Another group of sad facts about money creation for anyone who is interested... http://www.basicincome.com/basic_gendata.htm

Just trying to come to terms with some things... Look at the US...good case in point. We both, the US and Canada, use the same kind of banking/debt scenario. Could you not see how if we had a population of 230 million or more that we would be just as bad off. Our banks sold bad CDOs and the like, even had charges levied which stuck against the RBC. I believe the operative statements levied from politician's regarding this are ones that refer to the bank's lack of access nothing more. The lack of cohesion in our finance minister's statements concerning the banks are enough of a tell in my opinion that we are not getting the truth whatever that may be. If we can't achieve transparency and accountability in our government with a small reasonable population like ours, well, just use your imagination and multiply this absurdity a few million times. To do this gives me nightmares. It seriously saddens me to see how so many Canadian's are willing to fight over scraps of debt tossed down from the overladen table of the falsely entitled. (hypothetical example)How willing we are to accept one tax when four are presented regardless of how absurd all the taxes are. To fight this senseless fight leaves us feeling as if we have made headway, won an issue by deciding which tax gets applied when in reality since we ended up getting taxed again as was the governments agenda in the first place, we accomplished not much eh. Taxes, mmm, the cost of all those fatty, almost protein-less scraps of debt. All this fat and we wonder why us Canadian's have a systemic weight problem. Why are we so entrenched in this debt system? I don't understand this at all. Especially when looking at early political views about money and banks. How did we let this happen and what can we do about it? One thing that really worries me is the fact that the Auditor General does her audit after the fact. Imagine, in this scenario, our Canadian government having access to the amount of revenue generated by a population of 230 million. You think all we would have to complain about is a fake lake in downtown Toronto? Seriously!