Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being disingenuous anyway; you don't want the Fed audited - you want it abolished.[/b]

So what if he does? Where is some middle ground here? And they call us extremists?

So I suppose if you are in favor of the Fed they should rule with impunity? If you are in favor of things like abortion, I suppose it should be allowed no matter whatk, even if the baby has its head sticking out of the womb or if uncle Ed is driving his 10 year old neice to the aborion factory without parenltal notification.

The country has been taken over by extremists.

Originally posted by whodey

Responding to your ranting and raving would be a complete waste of time.

To the point, I don't see how Harry Reid is preventing a vote all by his lonesome. Rand Paul proposed an identical bill in the Senate 19 months ago and it hasn't even gotten out of Committee. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s202

If the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs doesn't pass it, I fail to see how it gets a Senate floor vote.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Responding to your ranting and raving would be a complete waste of time.

To the point, I don't see how Harry Reid is preventing a vote all by his lonesome. Rand Paul proposed an identical bill in the Senate 19 months ago and it hasn't even gotten out of Committee. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s202

And I suppose I'm suppose to be supportive of Rand why?

Oh, cause he has the "R" by his name and his daddy. I forgot what game I was playing here. 😳

Originally posted by whodey
And I suppose I'm suppose to be supportive of Rand why?

Oh, cause he has the "R" by his name and his daddy. I forgot what game I was playing here. 😳

I repeat: responding to your ranting and raving would be a waste of time.

I was giving information pertinent to the topic at hand, not responding to your nonsense.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How many audits of the Fed are necessary? You were crowing about the "first ever" audit done a few months ago under Dodd-Frank and that law has provisions for yearly ones. Why is this "audit the Fed" bill even necessary?

You're being disingenuous anyway; you don't want the Fed audited - you want it abolished.

When did I ever say I wanted it abolished? I can recall saying I wanted the Fed to have a competitor, but abolished? Show me where I said that or shut up!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
When did I ever say I wanted it abolished? I can recall saying I wanted the Fed to have a competitor, but abolished? Show me where I said that or shut up!

You want the Federal Reserve Board to have a "competitor"? What would that actually mean? What do you think it does that some other entity could "compete" against it for?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You want the Federal Reserve Board to have a "competitor"? What would that actually mean? What do you think it does that some other entity could "compete" against it for?

When the government created Fannie Mae they later created Freddie Mac to have the appearance of competition. As we all know, this worked out great!! So maybe they can do the same with the Fed. Just call them "Fedup". 😵

Originally posted by no1marauder
You want the Federal Reserve Board to have a "competitor"? What would that actually mean? What do you think it does that some other entity could "compete" against it for?

I have explained that in detail in the past but you paid no attention. Ask telerion.

Originally posted by whodey
Maybe he just decided to rule by edict like Obama. I mean, who's gonna stop them? You? 😛

yup, milk toast Harry..

Originally posted by whodey
When the government created Fannie Mae they later created Freddie Mac to have the appearance of competition. As we all know, this worked out great!! So maybe they can do the same with the Fed. Just call them "Fedup". 😵

you're on one tonight dude.. :-)\

Originally posted by moon1969
Voters hate Congress but they love their Senator and Representative.

Yup. Out of 435 house seats, less than 100 are in play in most elections. Senate seats are also a great many in the "safe" category, although not as many as in the House.

This was one of the protections against democracy the founders provided.

Originally posted by normbenign
Yup. Out of 435 house seats, less than 100 are in play in most elections. Senate seats are also a great many in the "safe" category, although not as many as in the House.

This was one of the protections against democracy the founders provided.

That doesn't even make sense. What did the Framers do to make it so House and Senate seats were "safe" or "not in play"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That doesn't even make sense. What did the Framers do to make it so House and Senate seats were "safe" or "not in play"?

They may not have foreseen all of the details, who could have, but they knew the system they created would be contentious, and great changes would be difficult.