# Should the FCC force FOX to warn viewers about GOLD



## Snouter

Ya know, like they do with cigarettes?  For example, before they air the commercials to buy GOLD, just have Greenscam or someone say, "Uhhh, please be advised that consumers buying GOLD coins are scalped when they buy and scalped when they sell."  Seems fair.  Similar to the junk pharmaceuticals they advertise for that have side-effects much worse than any disease.


----------



## HenryBHough

Snouter said:


> Ya know, like they do with cigarettes?  For example, before they air the commercials to buy GOLD, just have Greenscam or someone say, "Uhhh, please be advised that consumers buying GOLD coins are scalped when they buy and scalped when they sell."  Seems fair.  Similar to the junk pharmaceuticals they advertise for that have side-effects much worse than any disease.




Only FOX, eh?

Whatever happened to the liberal whine of "EQUALITY"?


----------



## Rozman

HenryBHough said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, like they do with cigarettes?  For example, before they air the commercials to buy GOLD, just have Greenscam or someone say, "Uhhh, please be advised that consumers buying GOLD coins are scalped when they buy and scalped when they sell."  Seems fair.  Similar to the junk pharmaceuticals they advertise for that have side-effects much worse than any disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only FOX, eh?
> 
> Whatever happened to the liberal whine of "EQUALITY"?
Click to expand...


Randi Rhodes before she quit used to do live reads on her radio show about buying
gold.Same with Ed Schultz...

But only FOX does it....

Typical Liberal bullshit.


----------



## Missourian

Who watches the commercials?


----------



## TheOldSchool

But then how will gold salesmen find old people to trick into buying gold?


----------



## whitehall

Why single out Fox? Either the ads are legal or they aren't? Don't we have enough federal agencies to determine it? You almost gotta laugh when prescription drugs are advertised on one channel and a law firm suing the prescription drug manufactures for injuries resulting from the legal use of the product on another channel.


----------



## Vigilante

LOLOLOL!

Did anyone stop and figure out that when you DIE, your children have to pay an ENHERITANCE AND/OR AN ESTATE TAX? Now, not saying anything that isn't known by those of us who want to pass on as much of our acquired wealth as we can to our children, BUT Gold, and SILVER, for that matter, are relatively easy to sell for CASH when one wants to. Seems, a K-rand here, or an American Eagle there, are quite easily converted, and IF you live in a larger city where there are MANY buyers out there, you can go around and find out who pays the top dollar. You already know what an oz. of gold is worth on the commodities market, and, if you have been buying from a dealer, over time, you already know what the SPREAD is between buying and selling, (even check out prices on e-bay!), and considering what the GOV'T takes off the top, perhaps looking at gold at it currently LOW (by the last few years rate) would be a nice thing to put away a 1 oz. piece per month, just as a little GIFT that your children can open up a box and see all just sitting there! 

Anything that you can do to PRESERVE for your children what should be naturally theirs, and not infringed on by the gov't is a PLUS in my book. Your thoughts?


----------



## percysunshine

The Federal Communications Commission?

There is not another oxymoron which can top that one. 

.


----------



## boedicca

The government has a vested interest in keeping people as Fiat Currency Slaves (as well as Debt and Tax slaves).

There's a reason why Big Government and their Bankster Cronies moved the dollar off the gold standard...printing money and debt bubbles benefit their consolidation of wealth and power.


----------



## HenryBHough

Owning refined gold is usually done for the wrong reasons.

Buying low, selling high appeals to many it's about the same as "investing" your money at a craps table in 'Vegas.

Buying to hold because gold (or any precious metal) has never been worth zero....and perhaps you believe inflation will continue and accelerate....there's some sense in that.

But gold leaves footprints.  FDR once outlawed private ownership of gold and folks were required to turn it in for $32.00/ounce regardless what they might have paid for it.

Sale of gold through commercial channels is tracked.  Any sale at a profit attracts capital gains taxes.  From the moment a commercial facility refines raw gold there's a footprint just waiting to be taxed.  Set up as neatly for confiscation as a registered gun.

OK, so that probably won't happen.  Just like FDR never took out after people's gold.

So what's safe?

Concentrate.  Independent miners are positioned to be the winners.  Most are not equipped to refine gold to ultimate purity.  They work the ore down to a highly concentrated form then send it out for refining.  At that point there's a footprint.  There are records of who owns what.  If they refine only what they need for the near term and keep the concentrate then there's no record.  Nowhere.

Big mining companies can't do that but they wouldn't even if they could because they need to divvy up with shareholders.  Independent small miners can sit on concentrate indefinitely or can sell it for cash, no checks, no credit cards, and definitely no records.  No record even that it ever existed.  Legal?  No.    There's the reason you won't see gold concentrate being hawked on FOX or CNBC or CNN or even PMSNBC.  Not yet.

Now you figure it out from there.


----------



## jon_berzerk

HenryBHough said:


> Owning refined gold is usually done for the wrong reasons.
> 
> Buying low, selling high appeals to many it's about the same as "investing" your money at a craps table in 'Vegas.
> 
> Buying to hold because gold (or any precious metal) has never been worth zero....and perhaps you believe inflation will continue and accelerate....there's some sense in that.
> 
> But gold leaves footprints.  FDR once outlawed private ownership of gold and folks were required to turn it in for $32.00/ounce regardless what they might have paid for it.
> 
> Sale of gold through commercial channels is tracked.  Any sale at a profit attracts capital gains taxes.  From the moment a commercial facility refines raw gold there's a footprint just waiting to be taxed.  Set up as neatly for confiscation as a registered gun.
> 
> OK, so that probably won't happen.  Just like FDR never took out after people's gold.
> 
> So what's safe?
> 
> Concentrate.  Independent miners are positioned to be the winners.  Most are not equipped to refine gold to ultimate purity.  They work the ore down to a highly concentrated form then send it out for refining.  At that point there's a footprint.  There are records of who owns what.  If they refine only what they need for the near term and keep the concentrate then there's no record.  Nowhere.
> 
> Big mining companies can't do that but they wouldn't even if they could because they need to divvy up with shareholders.  Independent small miners can sit on concentrate indefinitely or can sell it for cash, no checks, no credit cards, and definitely no records.  No record even that it ever existed.  Legal?  No.
> 
> Now you figure it out from there.



i buy junk gold and silver


----------



## Ernie S.

TheOldSchool said:


> But then how will gold salesmen find old people to trick into buying gold?



I buy gold from a dealer for 1.5% over spot and sell at spot. If you want to own gold, do some homework.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

the question is, why fox, and not msnbc?   buying gold is stupid I think, but people have rights.


----------



## percysunshine

Baruch Menachem said:


> the question is, why fox, and not msnbc?  ....



I suspect Jay Carney has a job offer from Fox. It would explain a lot of stuff.

.


----------



## whitehall

Buying gold was the smart move about 20 years ago. Silver used to be around $30 oz but dropped down to around $19. Is silver a smart buy?


----------



## Vigilante

whitehall said:


> Buying gold was the smart move about 20 years ago. Silver used to be around $30 oz but dropped down to around $19. Is silver a smart buy?



It's now $18.81 and looks good for a buy within the next 2 weeks, depends on what goes on in the world.... China has built a 2,000 METRIC TONNE vault to house their gold, which is NOWHERE what they are holding today.... Now why would China build something like that?


----------



## Grandma

HenryBHough said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, like they do with cigarettes?  For example, before they air the commercials to buy GOLD, just have Greenscam or someone say, "Uhhh, please be advised that consumers buying GOLD coins are scalped when they buy and scalped when they sell."  Seems fair.  Similar to the junk pharmaceuticals they advertise for that have side-effects much worse than any disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only FOX, eh?
> 
> Whatever happened to the liberal whine of "EQUALITY"?
Click to expand...


Other than right-wing-oriented programming and shop-at-home networks, pretty much no media outlet advertises gold buying.

Because it''s a scam.


----------



## Grandma

Vigilante said:


> LOLOLOL!
> 
> Did anyone stop and figure out that when you DIE, your children have to pay an ENHERITANCE AND/OR AN ESTATE TAX? Now, not saying anything that isn't known by those of us who want to pass on as much of our acquired wealth as we can to our children, BUT Gold, and SILVER, for that matter, are relatively easy to sell for CASH when one wants to. Seems, a K-rand here, or an American Eagle there, are quite easily converted, and IF you live in a larger city where there are MANY buyers out there, you can go around and find out who pays the top dollar. You already know what an oz. of gold is worth on the commodities market, and, if you have been buying from a dealer, over time, you already know what the SPREAD is between buying and selling, (even check out prices on e-bay!), and considering what the GOV'T takes off the top, perhaps looking at gold at it currently LOW (by the last few years rate) would be a nice thing to put away a 1 oz. piece per month, just as a little GIFT that your children can open up a box and see all just sitting there!
> 
> Anything that you can do to PRESERVE for your children what should be naturally theirs, and not infringed on by the gov't is a PLUS in my book. Your thoughts?



So spend a thou on some gold that you can sell for six hundred.

Yer a goddamn genius, Vagisil.


----------



## Snouter

I have a few gold and platinum coins from the mid-90's.  I would never consider using them to buy a pizza as the many apocalypse folks anticipate

What is up with this site's malware...try to click the thanks button and a damn external link pops up.


----------



## Politico

Snouter said:


> Ya know, like they do with cigarettes?  For example, before they air the commercials to buy GOLD, just have Greenscam or someone say, "Uhhh, please be advised that consumers buying GOLD coins are scalped when they buy and scalped when they sell."  Seems fair.  Similar to the junk pharmaceuticals they advertise for that have side-effects much worse than any disease.



So much Leftytoon. So little thought. Here let me help direct your wandering. The problem has shit to do with gold, pharmaceuticals or Fox. And certainly nothing to do with FCC purview. If you want to point a finger go back to 1984 when the Democrap congress and Reagan deregulated the airwaves and renounced the rules limiting the number of commercial minutes that could be broadcast in a given hour. That assclown move is what started all this crap. Thanks to that we have to endure shorter program content and 3 times as many commercials(60% of which are infomercials), where any charletan can sell a baldness cure. Not to mention skyrocketing cable prices from monopoly cable companies because there is no competition.



Baruch Menachem said:


> the question is, why fox, and not msnbc?   buying gold is stupid I think, but people have rights.



They're too busy showing wall to wall reruns of Lockup.


----------



## Stephanie

and they should force certain people from using the internet next I suppose


----------



## Toro

Snouter said:


> Ya know, like they do with cigarettes?  For example, before they air the commercials to buy GOLD, just have Greenscam or someone say, "Uhhh, please be advised that consumers buying GOLD coins are scalped when they buy and scalped when they sell."  Seems fair.  Similar to the junk pharmaceuticals they advertise for that have side-effects much worse than any disease.



I've spent nearly 20 years working in the markets, and it bothers me immensely when anyone touts any investment based on its past performance.  So many people get sucked into buying things before they lose a lot of money. 

Fox is particularly bad for gold because it plays into the ideology of it's viewers, but it isn't unique. Many networks touted houses in the mid-00s and tech stocks in the 90s.


----------



## Snouter

Remember CNBC being a platform for scam artists hyping the Y2K nonsense!  I forget when but at some point they instituted a disclosure rule that reminded viewers what stocks the scam artists had significant holdings in or had a significant short position.


----------



## Ringel05

Vigilante said:


> LOLOLOL!
> 
> Did anyone stop and figure out that when you DIE, your children have to pay an ENHERITANCE AND/OR AN ESTATE TAX? Now, not saying anything that isn't known by those of us who want to pass on as much of our acquired wealth as we can to our children, BUT Gold, and SILVER, for that matter, are relatively easy to sell for CASH when one wants to. Seems, a K-rand here, or an American Eagle there, are quite easily converted, and IF you live in a larger city where there are MANY buyers out there, you can go around and find out who pays the top dollar. You already know what an oz. of gold is worth on the commodities market, and, if you have been buying from a dealer, over time, you already know what the SPREAD is between buying and selling, (even check out prices on e-bay!), and considering what the GOV'T takes off the top, perhaps looking at gold at it currently LOW (by the last few years rate) would be a nice thing to put away a 1 oz. piece per month, just as a little GIFT that your children can open up a box and see all just sitting there!
> 
> Anything that you can do to PRESERVE for your children what should be naturally theirs, and not infringed on by the gov't is a PLUS in my book. Your thoughts?



Uummmmm, the feds don't tax inheritance at all and they don't tax the estate unless it's over a certain amount based on married and single rates.  I believe it's 5 million for single and ten million for a couple then the tax rate starts at 35%.  
Only 6 states impose inheritance tax and two of those states also tax the estate, Maryland and New Jersey.


----------



## Vigilante

Ringel05 said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL!
> 
> Did anyone stop and figure out that when you DIE, your children have to pay an ENHERITANCE AND/OR AN ESTATE TAX? Now, not saying anything that isn't known by those of us who want to pass on as much of our acquired wealth as we can to our children, BUT Gold, and SILVER, for that matter, are relatively easy to sell for CASH when one wants to. Seems, a K-rand here, or an American Eagle there, are quite easily converted, and IF you live in a larger city where there are MANY buyers out there, you can go around and find out who pays the top dollar. You already know what an oz. of gold is worth on the commodities market, and, if you have been buying from a dealer, over time, you already know what the SPREAD is between buying and selling, (even check out prices on e-bay!), and considering what the GOV'T takes off the top, perhaps looking at gold at it currently LOW (by the last few years rate) would be a nice thing to put away a 1 oz. piece per month, just as a little GIFT that your children can open up a box and see all just sitting there!
> 
> Anything that you can do to PRESERVE for your children what should be naturally theirs, and not infringed on by the gov't is a PLUS in my book. Your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uummmmm, the feds don't tax inheritance at all and they don't tax the estate unless it's over a certain amount based on married and single rates. I believe it's 5 million for single and ten million for a couple then the tax rate starts at 35%.
> Only 6 states impose inheritance tax and two of those states also tax the estate, Maryland and New Jersey.
Click to expand...


And how many times have those laws changed over the last 30 years?... Especially with so many states in financial trouble and BILLIONS in the hole?


----------



## Indeependent

Vigilante said:


> LOLOLOL!
> 
> Did anyone stop and figure out that when you DIE, your children have to pay an ENHERITANCE AND/OR AN ESTATE TAX? Now, not saying anything that isn't known by those of us who want to pass on as much of our acquired wealth as we can to our children, BUT Gold, and SILVER, for that matter, are relatively easy to sell for CASH when one wants to. Seems, a K-rand here, or an American Eagle there, are quite easily converted, and IF you live in a larger city where there are MANY buyers out there, you can go around and find out who pays the top dollar. You already know what an oz. of gold is worth on the commodities market, and, if you have been buying from a dealer, over time, you already know what the SPREAD is between buying and selling, (even check out prices on e-bay!), and considering what the GOV'T takes off the top, perhaps looking at gold at it currently LOW (by the last few years rate) would be a nice thing to put away a 1 oz. piece per month, just as a little GIFT that your children can open up a box and see all just sitting there!
> 
> Anything that you can do to PRESERVE for your children what should be naturally theirs, and not infringed on by the gov't is a PLUS in my book. Your thoughts?



You know someone dumb enough not to hire a lawyer and avoid the Inheritance Tax?
I don't.


----------



## Darkwind

whitehall said:


> Buying gold was the smart move about 20 years ago. Silver used to be around $30 oz but dropped down to around $19. Is silver a smart buy?


It was in 2009.  Sold for $9.  In 2010 it was at 45.  Now, its down to 18


----------



## Vigilante

Indeependent said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL!
> 
> Did anyone stop and figure out that when you DIE, your children have to pay an ENHERITANCE AND/OR AN ESTATE TAX? Now, not saying anything that isn't known by those of us who want to pass on as much of our acquired wealth as we can to our children, BUT Gold, and SILVER, for that matter, are relatively easy to sell for CASH when one wants to. Seems, a K-rand here, or an American Eagle there, are quite easily converted, and IF you live in a larger city where there are MANY buyers out there, you can go around and find out who pays the top dollar. You already know what an oz. of gold is worth on the commodities market, and, if you have been buying from a dealer, over time, you already know what the SPREAD is between buying and selling, (even check out prices on e-bay!), and considering what the GOV'T takes off the top, perhaps looking at gold at it currently LOW (by the last few years rate) would be a nice thing to put away a 1 oz. piece per month, just as a little GIFT that your children can open up a box and see all just sitting there!
> 
> Anything that you can do to PRESERVE for your children what should be naturally theirs, and not infringed on by the gov't is a PLUS in my book. Your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know someone dumb enough not to hire a lawyer and avoid the Inheritance Tax?
> I don't.
Click to expand...


You must be a lawyer....


----------



## Gremlin-USA

whitehall said:


> Buying gold was the smart move about 20 years ago. Silver used to be around $30 oz but dropped down to around $19. Is silver a smart buy?



I bought some 50 oz Silver bars at 4.75 an ounce and coins at 5.25 an ounce, but that was in the 70's....

Just have to remember where I put it, darn part timers  

.


----------



## whitehall

At least gold has intrinsic value. It's up to investors to take a gamble that it's value will go up. Why blame Fox? Enron came into power during the 90's (which president was that?) and sold junk stock on TV. Where was the federal government regulators during the Clinton administration? Enron was brought to justice during the Bush administration.


----------



## westwall

Grandma said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL!
> 
> Did anyone stop and figure out that when you DIE, your children have to pay an ENHERITANCE AND/OR AN ESTATE TAX? Now, not saying anything that isn't known by those of us who want to pass on as much of our acquired wealth as we can to our children, BUT Gold, and SILVER, for that matter, are relatively easy to sell for CASH when one wants to. Seems, a K-rand here, or an American Eagle there, are quite easily converted, and IF you live in a larger city where there are MANY buyers out there, you can go around and find out who pays the top dollar. You already know what an oz. of gold is worth on the commodities market, and, if you have been buying from a dealer, over time, you already know what the SPREAD is between buying and selling, (even check out prices on e-bay!), and considering what the GOV'T takes off the top, perhaps looking at gold at it currently LOW (by the last few years rate) would be a nice thing to put away a 1 oz. piece per month, just as a little GIFT that your children can open up a box and see all just sitting there!
> 
> Anything that you can do to PRESERVE for your children what should be naturally theirs, and not infringed on by the gov't is a PLUS in my book. Your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So spend a thou on some gold that you can sell for six hundred.
> 
> Yer a goddamn genius, Vagisil.
Click to expand...







Only a moron would sell gold that far below spot.  You must do all your business at the pawn shops.  Coin shops are far more legit and pay fair prices.


----------



## Vigilante

Grandma said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL!
> 
> Did anyone stop and figure out that when you DIE, your children have to pay an ENHERITANCE AND/OR AN ESTATE TAX? Now, not saying anything that isn't known by those of us who want to pass on as much of our acquired wealth as we can to our children, BUT Gold, and SILVER, for that matter, are relatively easy to sell for CASH when one wants to. Seems, a K-rand here, or an American Eagle there, are quite easily converted, and IF you live in a larger city where there are MANY buyers out there, you can go around and find out who pays the top dollar. You already know what an oz. of gold is worth on the commodities market, and, if you have been buying from a dealer, over time, you already know what the SPREAD is between buying and selling, (even check out prices on e-bay!), and considering what the GOV'T takes off the top, perhaps looking at gold at it currently LOW (by the last few years rate) would be a nice thing to put away a 1 oz. piece per month, just as a little GIFT that your children can open up a box and see all just sitting there!
> 
> Anything that you can do to PRESERVE for your children what should be naturally theirs, and not infringed on by the gov't is a PLUS in my book. Your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So spend a thou on some gold that you can sell for six hundred.
> 
> Yer a goddamn genius, Vagisil.
Click to expand...


Tell you what, you old whore, I'd buy all the 1 oz. pure gold you have at $1100....want to make 10%? ..... That's what happens when you're a stupid ****, who thinks she KNOWS everything, and knows nothing!


----------



## Snouter

Folks calm down.  GOLD is a fucking manipulated hoax.  There are a number of ways to actually make money though using the established markets.  Basically doing the opposite of what CNBC hacks like Jim Cramer says for one.


----------



## Politico

And again it has nothing to do with gold.


----------



## NYcarbineer

whitehall said:


> Why single out Fox? Either the ads are legal or they aren't? Don't we have enough federal agencies to determine it? You almost gotta laugh when prescription drugs are advertised on one channel and a law firm suing the prescription drug manufactures for injuries resulting from the legal use of the product on another channel.



It's funnier when they're on the same channel the same day.  Ads for testosterone boosters, ads for suing the people selling testosterone boosters.

Easy rule to follow:  Never buy ANYTHING advertised on cablenews channels, or talk radio.


----------



## Pogo

What the fuck does the FCC have to do with the content of a _cable_ channel?

Do you maybe mean the F*T*C?


----------



## Pogo

Indeependent said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL!
> 
> Did anyone stop and figure out that when you DIE, your children have to pay an ENHERITANCE AND/OR AN ESTATE TAX? Now, not saying anything that isn't known by those of us who want to pass on as much of our acquired wealth as we can to our children, BUT Gold, and SILVER, for that matter, are relatively easy to sell for CASH when one wants to. Seems, a K-rand here, or an American Eagle there, are quite easily converted, and IF you live in a larger city where there are MANY buyers out there, you can go around and find out who pays the top dollar. You already know what an oz. of gold is worth on the commodities market, and, if you have been buying from a dealer, over time, you already know what the SPREAD is between buying and selling, (even check out prices on e-bay!), and considering what the GOV'T takes off the top, perhaps looking at gold at it currently LOW (by the last few years rate) would be a nice thing to put away a 1 oz. piece per month, just as a little GIFT that your children can open up a box and see all just sitting there!
> 
> Anything that you can do to PRESERVE for your children what should be naturally theirs, and not infringed on by the gov't is a PLUS in my book. Your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know someone dumb enough not to hire a lawyer and avoid the Inheritance Tax?
> I don't.
Click to expand...


We paid no inheritance/estate tax, and we didn't need a lawyer.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Not just Fox and not just gold. 

While we've all been slinging mud at each other, the FCC has been watered down to a mere shadow of what it once was and what it was meant to be.  

I've written this so many times before but if even one person thinks about this, its worth it. 

It used to be that we could trust our media. There was a hard line difference between news and entertainment. Right or left, you all know this is no longer true. 

PLEASE watch _Orwel Rolls In His Grave_. Yes, it concerns Fox but it applies to all media. Right, left and all the nuances in between. As Americans, we need to KNOW what our media has become. 

Just open your mind and watch it. The link is below.

OrwellRollsInHisGrave ? A film by Robert Kane Pappas



> At the high level Leveson inquiry in the UK, Ex-Prime Minister, John Major, stated under oath today that Rupert Murdoch, a non citizen, demanded that the government change its policies or we (the Murdoch organization) would oppose him.  Major&#8217;s government didn&#8217;t and Murdoch then supported Labour, who won the election. This seems to directly contradict Murdoch&#8217;s testimony at the Leveson inquiry &#8211; that he never asks for anything from a Prime Minister. Major complained that this is against the idea of one person one vote; Murdoch controls one third of the British Media, and hence wields huge political power.
> 
> The striking thing here is that Murdoch also controls about one third of the US Media, vertically integrated across network and cable TV properties, newspapers, movie studios, book publishing and the internet. For the corporate news media pundits and politicians to ignore what is going on in the UK, and to not point to the obvious parallels between Murdoch&#8217;s techniques in the two countries is extraordinary.  He literally brainwashes 30% of the US, demands who knows what from politicians, and the public hears not a peep.



Orwell Rolls in His Grave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Orwell Rolls in His Grave is a 2003 documentary film written and directed by Robert Kane Pappas. Covered topics include the Telecommunications Act of 1996, concentration of media ownership, political corruption, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the controversy over the US presidential election of 2000 (particularly in Florida with Bush v. Gore), and the October surprise conspiracy theory.
> 
> The film has previously aired on Free Speech TV, a non-profit TV station based in Denver, Colorado and Link TV.


----------



## HenryBHough

When one runs a web search on "Free Speech TV" one does not find a TV station. One finds a privately funded (Georgie, where art thou????) cable network.  Totally outside the jurisdiction of The FCC.  It's disingenuous to refer to a cable outfit as a "TV station".


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> When one runs a web search on "Free Speech TV" one does not find a TV station. One finds a privately funded (Georgie, where art thou????) cable network.  Totally outside the jurisdiction of The FCC.  It's disingenuous to refer to a cable outfit as a "TV station".



Exactly what I was saying about Fox Noise.  Indeed neither one has what you and I would call a transmitter.  Better described as a TV "service".

"Orwell" is a fine piece of work though about the nature of what we call 'mass media' without even thinking of the religious overtones of that term.  It should be required watching for all citizens.  Matter o' fact I think I'll write my Congresscritter right now and demand that he introduce such a law for everybody under penalty of death.







You mgiht say it's an eye opener.


----------



## Ringel05

Vigilante said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOL!
> 
> Did anyone stop and figure out that when you DIE, your children have to pay an ENHERITANCE AND/OR AN ESTATE TAX? Now, not saying anything that isn't known by those of us who want to pass on as much of our acquired wealth as we can to our children, BUT Gold, and SILVER, for that matter, are relatively easy to sell for CASH when one wants to. Seems, a K-rand here, or an American Eagle there, are quite easily converted, and IF you live in a larger city where there are MANY buyers out there, you can go around and find out who pays the top dollar. You already know what an oz. of gold is worth on the commodities market, and, if you have been buying from a dealer, over time, you already know what the SPREAD is between buying and selling, (even check out prices on e-bay!), and considering what the GOV'T takes off the top, perhaps looking at gold at it currently LOW (by the last few years rate) would be a nice thing to put away a 1 oz. piece per month, just as a little GIFT that your children can open up a box and see all just sitting there!
> 
> Anything that you can do to PRESERVE for your children what should be naturally theirs, and not infringed on by the gov't is a PLUS in my book. Your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uummmmm, the feds don't tax inheritance at all and they don't tax the estate unless it's over a certain amount based on married and single rates. I believe it's 5 million for single and ten million for a couple then the tax rate starts at 35%.
> Only 6 states impose inheritance tax and two of those states also tax the estate, Maryland and New Jersey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many times have those laws changed over the last 30 years?... Especially with so many states in financial trouble and BILLIONS in the hole?
Click to expand...

Considering my current situation with both my parents passing in the last months I've done some research and many states that had inheritance taxes have dropped them in the last decade. 
Now if some of the inheritance is tied up in investments then there is a tax if those accounts are liquidated.


----------



## Pogo

Ringel05 said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uummmmm, the feds don't tax inheritance at all and they don't tax the estate unless it's over a certain amount based on married and single rates. I believe it's 5 million for single and ten million for a couple then the tax rate starts at 35%.
> Only 6 states impose inheritance tax and two of those states also tax the estate, Maryland and New Jersey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how many times have those laws changed over the last 30 years?... Especially with so many states in financial trouble and BILLIONS in the hole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering my current situation with both my parents passing in the last months I've done some research and many states that had inheritance taxes have dropped them in the last decade.
> Now if some of the inheritance is tied up in investments then there is a tax if those accounts are liquidated.
Click to expand...


That's exactly my experience with my mother's estate (last surviving parent).


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Snouter said:


> Ya know, like they do with cigarettes?  For example, before they air the commercials to buy GOLD, just have Greenscam or someone say, "Uhhh, please be advised that consumers buying GOLD coins are scalped when they buy and scalped when they sell."  Seems fair.  Similar to the junk pharmaceuticals they advertise for that have side-effects much worse than any disease.



Been thinking about the buy gold commercials lately watching more Fox than the others (better Israel coverage.) Find it amusing how they're emphasizing the risky nature of paper money to sell gold. But what currency are they accepting for the more reliable gold? Paper you say? Huh.


----------



## Vigilante

Snouter said:


> Ya know, like they do with cigarettes? For example, before they air the commercials to buy GOLD, just have Greenscam or someone say, "Uhhh, please be advised that consumers buying GOLD coins are scalped when they buy and scalped when they sell." Seems fair. Similar to the junk pharmaceuticals they advertise for that have side-effects much worse than any disease.



Do they have a warning about the possibility of stocks crashing, as they did in 2009?


----------



## whitehall

I don't watch many other news networks but if the FCC allows ambulance chasing lawyers to guarantee law suits against drug companies for the legal use of a legal product while the drug companies are advertising the product at the same time anything is possible.


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> I don't watch many other news networks but if the FCC allows ambulance chasing lawyers to guarantee law suits against drug companies for the legal use of a legal product while the drug companies are advertising the product at the same time anything is possible.



The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.

And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.


----------



## whitehall

Pogo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch many other news networks but if the FCC allows ambulance chasing lawyers to guarantee law suits against drug companies for the legal use of a legal product while the drug companies are advertising the product at the same time anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
Click to expand...


I expect that the FCC has a role in determining the legality of ambulance chasing law firms to advertise about suing companies about the legal use of their products while the companies are legally advertising the use of their product but maybe not. It seems as if the FCC and the EPA and the NSA and the CIA and  all the bloated three digit competing federal agencies are competing with each other while low information left wingers are waging war against a single news agency.


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch many other news networks but if the FCC allows ambulance chasing lawyers to guarantee law suits against drug companies for the legal use of a legal product while the drug companies are advertising the product at the same time anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I expect that the FCC has a role in determining the legality of ambulance chasing law firms to advertise about suing companies about the legal use of their products while the companies are legally advertising the use of their product but maybe not. It seems as if the FCC and the EPA and the NSA and the CIA and  all the bloated three digit competing federal agencies are competing with each other while low information left wingers are waging war against a single news agency.
Click to expand...


Well you expect wrong.  The FCC regulates who gets on the airwaves.  What's in anybody's commercials is neither in their interest nor their authority, since advertising is not broadcasting.  Nor are any of the other alphabets named involved in that.  You might want to try the F*T*C.

FCC has never regulated any broadcaster's content except to the extent that you can't libel somebody or run a lottery.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Pogo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch many other news networks but if the FCC allows ambulance chasing lawyers to guarantee law suits against drug companies for the legal use of a legal product while the drug companies are advertising the product at the same time anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
Click to expand...


And fox isn't news - its entertainment. 

I've harped about this in the past and the RWs don't get it: the Repubs sold out journalistic integrity a long time ago. That's why its now possible to have an entertainment network passing itself off as "news" with a Muslim Arab oil mogul controlling the programming. 

Anyone who wants to learn how that happened and who controls our news now just needs to watch the documentary, Orson Rolls In His Grave.


----------



## Katzndogz

If a Muslim Arab mogul controlled the programming Fox would not be telling the truth about hamas.  It would be the same as MSNBC.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Snouter said:


> Ya know, like they do with cigarettes?  For example, before they air the commercials to buy GOLD, just have Greenscam or someone say, "Uhhh, please be advised that consumers buying GOLD coins are scalped when they buy and scalped when they sell."  Seems fair.  Similar to the junk pharmaceuticals they advertise for that have side-effects much worse than any disease.



Maybe YOU got scalped when you bought and sold gold, but buying NON-NUMISMATIC gold is very easy to do, and you don't get "scalped" if you know what the hell you are doing.

Silver is even easier to buy.

If Fox wants to do people a favor, they should issue a warning about PAPER MONEY before they talk about the U.S. dollar.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch many other news networks but if the FCC allows ambulance chasing lawyers to guarantee law suits against drug companies for the legal use of a legal product while the drug companies are advertising the product at the same time anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And fox isn't news - its entertainment.
> 
> I've harped about this in the past and the RWs don't get it: the Repubs sold out journalistic integrity a long time ago. That's why its now possible to have an entertainment network passing itself off as "news" with a Muslim Arab oil mogul controlling the programming.
> 
> Anyone who wants to learn how that happened and who controls our news now just needs to watch the documentary, Orson Rolls In His Grave.
Click to expand...


LIBERALS are the best entertainment around, and they entertain the rest of us FOR FREE!

Only the LIBERALS don't understand that they are living, breathing JOKES.


----------



## HenryBHough

TruthSeeker56 said:


> LIBERALS are the best entertainment around, and they entertain the rest of us FOR FREE!
> 
> Only the LIBERALS don't understand that they are living, breathing JOKES.



Robin was funnier than any (other) liberal  and now there is much more libs could learn from him.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Anyone who buys stuff off tv deserves to be ripped off.


----------



## Ernie S.

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch many other news networks but if the FCC allows ambulance chasing lawyers to guarantee law suits against drug companies for the legal use of a legal product while the drug companies are advertising the product at the same time anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And fox isn't news - its entertainment.
> 
> I've harped about this in the past and the RWs don't get it: the Repubs sold out journalistic integrity a long time ago. That's why its now possible to have an entertainment network passing itself off as "news" with a Muslim Arab oil mogul controlling the programming.
> 
> Anyone who wants to learn how that happened and who controls our news now just needs to watch the documentary, Orson Rolls In His Grave.
Click to expand...


What, pray tell, is MSNBC?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Ernie S. said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And fox isn't news - its entertainment.
> 
> I've harped about this in the past and the RWs don't get it: the Repubs sold out journalistic integrity a long time ago. That's why its now possible to have an entertainment network passing itself off as "news" with a Muslim Arab oil mogul controlling the programming.
> 
> Anyone who wants to learn how that happened and who controls our news now just needs to watch the documentary, Orson Rolls In His Grave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, pray tell, is MSNBC?
Click to expand...


Nope, no hijacking the thread.

Watch the documentary.

Instead of trying to change the subject of the OP, watch the documentary. 






Just open your mind and watch the documentary.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Snouter said:


> .  Should the FCC force FOX to warn viewers about GOLD



No, we live in a free society wherein the competition can warn the viewers. As a soviet liberal you simply lack the IQ to know that capitalism works better.


----------



## Politico

TruthSeeker56 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And fox isn't news - its entertainment.
> 
> I've harped about this in the past and the RWs don't get it: the Repubs sold out journalistic integrity a long time ago. That's why its now possible to have an entertainment network passing itself off as "news" with a Muslim Arab oil mogul controlling the programming.
> 
> Anyone who wants to learn how that happened and who controls our news now just needs to watch the documentary, Orson Rolls In His Grave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIBERALS are the best entertainment around, and they entertain the rest of us FOR FREE!
> 
> Only the LIBERALS don't understand that they are living, breathing JOKES.
Click to expand...


What neither of you seems to get is none of them are news.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch many other news networks but if the FCC allows ambulance chasing lawyers to guarantee law suits against drug companies for the legal use of a legal product while the drug companies are advertising the product at the same time anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
Click to expand...



Fox News saved America. It has the only libertarian show on TV. Fox brought back America's political philosophy after liberals almost succeeded in burying it. What could be more heroic than that.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch many other news networks but if the FCC allows ambulance chasing lawyers to guarantee law suits against drug companies for the legal use of a legal product while the drug companies are advertising the product at the same time anything is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News saved America. It has the only libertarian show on TV. Fox brought back America's political philosophy after liberals almost succeeded in burying it. What could be more heroic than that.
Click to expand...


"Saved"?  From what?

Liberals _invented_ America's political philosophy.  Ask the nurse to explain it to you when your meds come.  Or give Thomas Freaking Jefferson a phone call.


----------



## percysunshine

Damn...I red the title a bit too fast. I thought it was... 

"Should the FCC force FOX to warn viewers about GOD?"


In other stock market news, the price of oil is going down.

.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News saved America. It has the only libertarian show on TV. Fox brought back America's political philosophy after liberals almost succeeded in burying it. What could be more heroic than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Saved"?  From what?
> 
> Liberals _invented_ America's political philosophy.
Click to expand...


if so that would mean liberals  are for very very limited government as our Founders were.
Dear, do you feel our Founders were for very very limited govt. Isn't thinking fun?


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has nothing in the fucking world to do with drug companies or approving anybody's advertising.
> 
> And Fox Noise is a _cable_ channel anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News saved America. It has the only libertarian show on TV. Fox brought back America's political philosophy after liberals almost succeeded in burying it. What could be more heroic than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Saved"? From what?
> 
> Liberals _invented_ America's political philosophy. Ask the nurse to explain it to you when your meds come. Or give Thomas Freaking Jefferson a phone call.
Click to expand...


OCD Pogo, off on her high horse again, ready to fall into the manure!

 Jefferson was less a 'liberal' and more a revolutionary. Again, by definition.

He was ideologically a republican, in today's terms he was a conservative for conserving the Constitutional Republic!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vigilante said:


> Jefferson was less a 'liberal' and more a revolutionary. Again, by definition.
> 
> !



Dear,  Jefferson was a conservative by today's definition. In fact, he Founded the Republlican Party in 1793 to stand for very very limited govt. Welcome to your first lesson in American history.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Vigilante said:


> He was ideologically a republican, in today's terms he was a conservative for conserving the Constitutional Republic!



Dear, there was nothing to conserve in Jefferson's day. His life was about establishing the Constitution as a conservative Republican document that forthcoming generations could then conserve as a blueprint for conservative or limited govt. If you're still confused please feel free to ask questions.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was less a 'liberal' and more a revolutionary. Again, by definition.
> 
> !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear,  Jefferson was a conservative by today's definition. In fact, he Founded the Republlican Party in 1793 to stand for very very limited govt. Welcome to your first lesson in American history.
Click to expand...


Then it's odd that the Republican Party *itself* claims to have been founded in 1854, while Jefferson claims to have died in 1826.

Which one's lying, o Special Ed?


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was ideologically a republican, in today's terms he was a conservative for conserving the Constitutional Republic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, there was nothing to conserve in Jefferson's day. His life was about establishing the Constitution as a conservative Republican document that forthcoming generations could then conserve as a blueprint for conservative or limited govt. If you're still confused please feel free to ask questions.
Click to expand...


Special Ed quotes Pissyante.  The blind leading the blind... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Jefferson and the other founders were Liberals, _opposed to_ the conservatism of the day -- which consisted of Government of, by and for the First and Second Estates -- meaning the Church and the "nobility".  That's why we got a republic based on the power of the People with a protection _against _undue influence from the Church and an elected legislature entirely free of "nobility".  That's what Liberalism _means_.

But you don't even understand linear time, so this will be way over your pointed little head...


----------



## candycorn

No.  It's legal for people to sell stuff to folks they really don't need.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

candycorn said:


> No.  It's legal for people to sell stuff to folks they really don't need.



of course, do we want a libcommie govt  deciding what people really need?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Jefferson and the other founders were Liberals, _opposed to_ the conservatism of the day -.



Dear, our Founders opposed the big central governments of all the days in human history!!

Thomas Jefferson:
"My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government".

"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Then it's odd that the Republican Party *itself* claims to have been founded in 1854,



Yes it does but this is the second Republican Party, not Jefferson's first Republican Party founded in 1793. Its a great choice too since it enables them capitalize on Lincoln's reputation as the greatest and most well known president in American History.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Liberals _invented_ America's political philosophy.



if so then they were for very very limited govt as our founders were?


James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison: in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's odd that the Republican Party *itself* claims to have been founded in 1854,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does but this the second Republican Party, not Jefferson's first Republican Party founded in 1793. Its a great choice too since it enables them capitalism on Lincoln's reputation as the greatest and most well known president in American History.
Click to expand...



Then how mindfuckingly stupid was it for you to have created this thread?

And while you're at it, do tell us all how anybody knew in 1854 that Abe Lincoln was going to be elected in the future, let alone what his legacy was going to be.  Let alone what the fuck it has to do with "capitalism".


Linear time --- it's not for children.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Then how mindfuckingly stupid was it for you to have created this thread?
> 
> .



dear, if it was stupid why are you so afraid to tell us the reason it was stupid? What does your fear teach you?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> , do tell us all that anybody knew in 1854 that Abe Lincoln was going to be elected in the future,



dear, why would I tell you that??? Do you have a reason for asking me to tell you that? Does it ever occur to you to have a reason? See why we say a liberal will be slow?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

_Should the FCC force FOX to warn viewers about GOLD _

No.

It should warn viewers that watching Fox is confirmation of their stupidity.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> _Should the FCC force FOX to warn viewers about GOLD _
> 
> No.
> 
> It should warn viewers that watching Fox is confirmation of their stupidity.



Fox is libertarian like our Founders so if you say that you must be anti-American. Why not move to Cuba where you belong? Better hurry before they switch to capitalism too.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then how mindfuckingly stupid was it for you to have created this thread?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, if it was stupid why are you so afraid to tell us the reason it was stupid? What does your fear teach you?
Click to expand...


That's an interesting post, actually.

Why is it interesting?

Because it's exactly the same thing you posted *over two years ago* when you tried to float this same turd:



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the evidence a liberal uses!! It will not even occur to a liberal to have evidence!!
> 
> WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you, sir, are a fucking maroon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to present your evidence? *What does your fear tell you?*
Click to expand...


---- as you also did back in this thread as well.  And you got schooled every single time -- by Republicans, Democrats, Independents and everybody in between who knows how to read.


What does your repeated posting the same ignorant crapola over and over expecting different results tell* you*?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> What does your repeated posting the same ignorant crapola over and over expecting different results tell* you*?



dear, if ignorant why so afraid to present an example of the ignorance?


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Should the FCC force FOX to warn viewers about GOLD _
> 
> No.
> 
> It should warn viewers that watching Fox is confirmation of their stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox is libertarian like our Founders so if you say that you must be anti-American. Why not move to Cuba where you belong? Better hurry before they switch to capitalism too.
Click to expand...


The Founders were Liberals; Libertarians weren't even _invented _yet.  That would come around the same time as the Republican Party --- the one you keep insisting Jefferson founded 28 years after his own death.

The use of the word _libertarian_ to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate, _libertaire_, coined in a scathing letter French libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857, castigating him for his sexist political views.[18][19] Déjacque also used the term for his anarchist publication _Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social_, which was printed from 9 June 1858 to 4 February 1861. In the mid-1890s, Sébastien Faure began publishing a new _Le Libertaire_ while France's Third Republic enacted the lois scélérates ("villainous laws"), which banned anarchist publications in France. _Libertarianism_ has frequently been used as a synonym for _anarchism_ since this time.[20][21][22]  (Wiki)​


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> The Founders were Liberals; Libertarians weren't even _invented _yet.



Dear Founders and libertarians were for very very limited govt. The idea started with Aristotle( not called liberal libertarian or conservative in his day)  Cicero Jesus Locke Jefferson. Welcome to your first lesson in World  History.


----------



## Pogo

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does your repeated posting the same ignorant crapola over and over expecting different results tell* you*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, if ignorant why so afraid to present an example of the ignorance?
Click to expand...



Voilà:



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, by the time the Republican Party was founded, Jefferson had been dead 28 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Jefferson and Madison didn't found the Republican party in 1793 or so I'll pay you $10,000. Bet? What party do you think they founded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Democratic-Republican" Party, which, like the Whigs and the Federalists, no longer exists and is unrelated to the current Republican Party, founded in *1854*.
> 
> Pay up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear, what makes you think he founded the Democratic-Republican Party rather than the Republican Party?
Click to expand...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does your repeated posting the same ignorant crapola over and over expecting different results tell* you*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, if ignorant why so afraid to present an example of the ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Voilà:
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, by the time the Republican Party was founded, Jefferson had been dead 28 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Jefferson and Madison didn't found the Republican party in 1793 or so I'll pay you $10,000. Bet? What party do you think they founded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Democratic-Republican" Party, which, like the Whigs and the Federalists, no longer exists and is unrelated to the current Republican Party, founded in *1854*.
> 
> Pay up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear, what makes you think he founded the Democratic-Republican Party rather than the Republican Party?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


????


----------



## Pogo

Yup.  That's what I expected.


----------



## SteadyMercury

whitehall said:


> Buying gold was the smart move about 20 years ago.


???

Buying gold was a smart move five years ago too.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Pogo said:


> Yup.  That's what I expected.



Dear, trust me, it doesn't matter what you expected. What matters is the you lack the IQ to understand that liberalism is unAmerican.


----------



## blastoff

Katzndogz said:


> If a Muslim Arab mogul controlled the programming Fox would not be telling the truth about hamas.  It would be the same as MSNBC.



Nuddley is totally full of shit and taken to making up lies - JoeB-ing - to support a position.  A Saudi owns 7-9% of the stock of Fox's parent company so the idiot morphed that into he controls Fox programming.  It sounds good and sure to be swallowed up by other low info dupes like rdeany and others.  Nice try and all but intelligent folks know it's bullshit.


----------



## Snouter

SteadyMercury said:


> Buying gold was a smart move five years ago too.



Are you kidding?  Break even after commission after 5 years is not smart.


----------



## jon_berzerk

there are many ways much smarter to obtain gold 

then through a  tv ad


----------



## SteadyMercury

Snouter said:


> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buying gold was a smart move five years ago too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  Break even after commission after 5 years is not smart.
Click to expand...

At the time of my post gold was about $1,280
Five years before my post gold was about $950

What kind of commissions do you pay?


----------



## william the wie

SteadyMercury said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SteadyMercury said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buying gold was a smart move five years ago too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  Break even after commission after 5 years is not smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the time of my post gold was about $1,280
> Five years before my post gold was about $950
> 
> What kind of commissions do you pay?
Click to expand...

You are trying to convince people that a balanced portfolio is smart. While true, it is not possible to convince of that fact. How many people on this board do you think have both the background and the temperament to follow the rules of a Modigliani portfolio? And that includes the professional investors and economists on this board by their own admission. Can Old Fart, Pinqy, Toro or you name them explain how and why such a strategy works better other than any other technique with large numbers of back tests? Yeah, have they pulled the trigger on doing so? Not if their posts truthfully reflect their actions. 

Most people lack the temperament to follow any proven strategy.


----------



## SteadyMercury

You are creating problems that don't exist. Who cares whether someone can follow the Modigliani portfolio (whatever that is) and why would anyone be required to explain why one works better? 

One can spend all day playing around at portfoliovisualizer.com to backtest, but I don't think one needs to have the absolute best asset allocation. Having the absolutely perfect/best asset allocation is a totally different thing than following some simple rules of having an appropriately balanced portfolio that is suitable for your risk tolerance.


----------



## Snouter

Dudes, I just sold some 14K gold to offset the cost of them installing an almost flawless 1.4 carat diamond in a white gold setting.  The insanity of investing on GOLD as an investment cannot be underestimated.  That is not to say playing Newmont Mining or other stocks is a mistake.  Just realize GOLD is a worthless commodity just like in that Twilight Zone episode back in the day!


----------



## SteadyMercury

Snouter said:


> Just realize GOLD is a worthless commodity


It isn't worthless.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Snouter said:


> Dudes, I just sold some 14K gold to offset the cost of them installing an almost flawless 1.4 carat diamond in a white gold setting.  The insanity of investing on GOLD as an investment cannot be underestimated.  That is not to say playing Newmont Mining or other stocks is a mistake.  Just realize GOLD is a worthless commodity just like in that Twilight Zone episode back in the day!



gold is not meant to be the currency during hard times


----------



## william the wie

SteadyMercury said:


> You are creating problems that don't exist. Who cares whether someone can follow the Modigliani portfolio (whatever that is) and why would anyone be required to explain why one works better?
> 
> One can spend all day playing around at portfoliovisualizer.com to backtest, but I don't think one needs to have the absolute best asset allocation. Having the absolutely perfect/best asset allocation is a totally different thing than following some simple rules of having an appropriately balanced portfolio that is suitable for your risk tolerance.


I agree but that was not the point I was trying to make but rather finding a workable strategy that you can and will pull the trigger on is quite difficult.


----------



## Snouter

I was actually considering buying GOLD proxies like Newmont Mining and Gold iShares and SPDRs but the bottom out happened already.  GOLD is barbecued.  Stick a fork in it.


----------



## fmdog44

HenryBHough said:


> Owning refined gold is usually done for the wrong reasons.
> 
> Buying low, selling high appeals to many it's about the same as "investing" your money at a craps table in 'Vegas.
> 
> Buying to hold because gold (or any precious metal) has never been worth zero....and perhaps you believe inflation will continue and accelerate....there's some sense in that.
> 
> But gold leaves footprints.  FDR once outlawed private ownership of gold and folks were required to turn it in for $32.00/ounce regardless what they might have paid for it.
> 
> Sale of gold through commercial channels is tracked.  Any sale at a profit attracts capital gains taxes.  From the moment a commercial facility refines raw gold there's a footprint just waiting to be taxed.  Set up as neatly for confiscation as a registered gun.
> 
> OK, so that probably won't happen.  Just like FDR never took out after people's gold.
> 
> So what's safe?
> 
> Concentrate.  Independent miners are positioned to be the winners.  Most are not equipped to refine gold to ultimate purity.  They work the ore down to a highly concentrated form then send it out for refining.  At that point there's a footprint.  There are records of who owns what.  If they refine only what they need for the near term and keep the concentrate then there's no record.  Nowhere.
> 
> Big mining companies can't do that but they wouldn't even if they could because they need to divvy up with shareholders.  Independent small miners can sit on concentrate indefinitely or can sell it for cash, no checks, no credit cards, and definitely no records.  No record even that it ever existed.  Legal?  No.    There's the reason you won't see gold concentrate being hawked on FOX or CNBC or CNN or even PMSNBC.  Not yet.
> 
> Now you figure it out from there.


Advertising is down there in the sewers of the world along with lawyers and the IRS. How I long for the days of cigarette commercials showing young, beautiful people on top of green mountains and a beautiful blue sky sucking on a stick you ignite to inhale smoke from a little fire and then blow smoke out of your head orifices. Ah yes, to be young and happy and healthy all because they are smokers. Then there are the beer commercials on beer showing young people in crowds having a ball while "drinking responsibly". Last, a house hold cleaner that removes cancer, birth defects and war.
P.S. BUT GOLD NOW OR BE CAST OUT!!


----------



## fmdog44

Snouter said:


> I was actually considering buying GOLD proxies like Newmont Mining and Gold iShares and SPDRs but the bottom out happened already.  GOLD is barbecued.  Stick a fork in it.



Jim Cramer on CNBC states categorically SPDR GLD is the ONLY way to buy in to the precious metal. I don't own it but am thinking of adding it to my portfolio but even though he says about 5% should be your portion mine would be less, maybe 2%. I know nothing about buying gold coins but did back off buy when it was 1,700+ (thankfully).


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Gold's what you invest in during times of uncertainty. Not in 'good times' when markets are at their all-time highs. If markets are doing well, stay away from metals and currencies. If markets are tanking, look at gold and such.


----------



## william the wie

Snouter said:


> I was actually considering buying GOLD proxies like Newmont Mining and Gold iShares and SPDRs but the bottom out happened already.  GOLD is barbecued.  Stick a fork in it.


That means it is time to buy.


----------



## HenryBHough

The gold I bought at $300/Oz still looks good though not as good as it did a few weeks ago.  What little there is of it....  Still, I'm confident gold will never decline to zero dolalrs/Oz.

OTOH:
The "OLD" General Motors shares (could only afford a few and wasn't I lucky) are still pretty but are worth precisely zero.  If I hold them long enough they may be worth as much as $2-$3 as curiosities.

But go ahead, shun gold and buy Government Motors.

Please.

Somebody has to....


----------



## william the wie

HenryBHough said:


> The gold I bought at $300/Oz still looks good though not as good as it did a few weeks ago.  What little there is of it....  Still, I'm confident gold will never decline to zero dolalrs/Oz.
> 
> OTOH:
> The "OLD" General Motors shares (could only afford a few and wasn't I lucky) are still pretty but are worth precisely zero.  If I hold them long enough they may be worth as much as $2-$3 as curiosities.
> 
> But go ahead, shun gold and buy Government Motors.
> 
> Please.
> 
> Somebody has to....





HenryBHough said:


> The gold I bought at $300/Oz still looks good though not as good as it did a few weeks ago.  What little there is of it....  Still, I'm confident gold will never decline to zero dolalrs/Oz.
> 
> OTOH:
> The "OLD" General Motors shares (could only afford a few and wasn't I lucky) are still pretty but are worth precisely zero.  If I hold them long enough they may be worth as much as $2-$3 as curiosities.
> 
> But go ahead, shun gold and buy Government Motors.
> 
> Please.
> 
> Somebody has to....



not being a smartass but no they don't.


----------



## Snouter

Maybe the RAPTURE myth is about those who bought GOLD thinking they were preparing for the future, when the reality is they are the "folks left behind" on the hot plains as the APPLE they were taught not to touch ascends to the heavens above!


----------



## william the wie

Snouter said:


> Maybe the RAPTURE myth is about those who bought GOLD thinking they were preparing for the future, when the reality is they are the "folks left behind" on the hot plains as the APPLE they were taught not to touch ascends to the heavens above!


 Your theology is somewhat at variance with just about everyone.


----------



## Snouter

In the past 5 years GOLD is down...Apple is up 400%.  So if you neocon, apocalypse dummies invested $1,000 in GOLD you would have LESS than $1,000 after commissions while normal kids would have $4,000 just by buying Apple instead.


----------



## HenryBHough

The BEST time to buy gold is ALWAYS in the past.


----------



## Snouter

Actually it is best to NEVER buy GOLD if you want to make money.  I am upset at the moment.  I sold AAPL the other day and set up a limit buy and it went up crazy.  Fortunately I own it indirectly in other investment vehicles.


----------



## Darkwind

Snouter said:


> Ya know, like they do with cigarettes?  For example, before they air the commercials to buy GOLD, just have Greenscam or someone say, "Uhhh, please be advised that consumers buying GOLD coins are scalped when they buy and scalped when they sell."  Seems fair.  Similar to the junk pharmaceuticals they advertise for that have side-effects much worse than any disease.


When you were scammed, did you report it to the SEC?  Or were you to embarrassed by your lack of investigative skills on the legitimacy of the company you were spending money with?


----------



## Snouter

GOLD is around 1,060, pricing circa 2010.  My God, for idiots that bought it for "end times" purposes please seek professional help.


----------

