logo Sign In

JediSage

User Group
Members
Join date
22-Mar-2005
Last activity
10-Jan-2011
Posts
2,109

Post History

Post
#105864
Topic
Animal Rights Extremists
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105864/action/topic#105864
Time
I agree. I think medical research is a necessary evil. Cosmetics research is a different story.

I once had a Behavioral Psych professor talk about how there was no conclusive evidence that smoking causes cancer. And how he knew of an experiment where they put these masks on dogs (beagles) that basically forced them to smoke cigarettes to try to prove it one way or the other. That's AWFUL.
Post
#105861
Topic
ROTS: poll, who's already got their tickets?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105861/action/topic#105861
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
By the way, I went to this sleeze flea market yesterday, and some bootleg seller had Episode 3 already. It was fullscreen and very high-quality, so I think it must have been ripped from a promotional copy. When I saw what that was I closed my eyes and runned away, screaming "NO! NO! SPOILERS! BAD SPOILERS!"

Damn those bootlegers, don't they lnow that crime never pays?


LOL...I got ripped like that once. A loooong time ago, at a flea market where I live I thought I'd do something nice and get a copy of a recently released Disney movie. Not realizing it was bootleg, I was shocked by how crappy it was when my niece and nephew watched it.

In answer to the question of the moment...I got my tix on Thursday, for the Friday 7:45 showing. Woo hoo!

Post
#105858
Topic
Yeah, its us OLD people George- thanks!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105858/action/topic#105858
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I'm 24. I love the OT and think the prequels suck. Sorry Georgie, doesn't fly.
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
I'm waiting for Lucas to pull some kind of Howard Hughes. He'll just crack and wind up locking himself in a room on the ranch, naked, watching his movies for mistakes, and peeing in milk jugs.

HaHaHAHAHAHahah. Classic.


Kind of like the Simpsons when Burns got his casino. GL's sitting in bed, finger nails a mile long, beard down to his waist, Kevin Smith is there, picking GL's pubes out of his teeth, GL says "Look, I've designed a new tie-fighter. I call it the Spruce Moose. Get in, Kevin!" *shows him a tie-fighter model* "Uhhhhh, George, don't you think it's a little too small for us to fit in?" *GL pulls out a revolver and cocks it* "I said GET IN"


That Simpson's episode was a spoof of Howard Hughes last days...

Anyone remembers that "mad tv" skectch someone posted here some months ago? I bet George will turn into that. "If you wanted fries, why didn't you order them?"



LOL!! "Wanna see the back 9?" *drives like 3 feet* "OK, we're here!"
Post
#105841
Topic
Yeah, its us OLD people George- thanks!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105841/action/topic#105841
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I'm 24. I love the OT and think the prequels suck. Sorry Georgie, doesn't fly.
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
I'm waiting for Lucas to pull some kind of Howard Hughes. He'll just crack and wind up locking himself in a room on the ranch, naked, watching his movies for mistakes, and peeing in milk jugs.

HaHaHAHAHAHahah. Classic.


Kind of like the Simpsons when Burns got his casino. GL's sitting in bed, finger nails a mile long, beard down to his waist, Kevin Smith is there, picking GL's pubes out of his teeth, GL says "Look, I've designed a new tie-fighter. I call it the Spruce Moose. Get in, Kevin!" *shows him a tie-fighter model* "Uhhhhh, George, don't you think it's a little too small for us to fit in?" *GL pulls out a revolver and cocks it* "I said GET IN"
Post
#105813
Topic
Depressing but fairly intellligent blog...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105813/action/topic#105813
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
ROLF. That's terrible, Ric.


My personal favorite; A man wanted to commit suicide, so he took poison, got a gun and a rope and tied the rope around his neck. Then he threw himself over a cliff high above a lake. So he would be drowned, hung, shot, smashed, and/or poisoned.


He pulled the trigger on the gun before the rope caught, but his aim was off... so he missed his head and shot the rope! It broke and dropped him in the lake where he got cold and threw up, losing the poison. Then, instead of drowning, he was rescued by some fishermen and taken to a hospital...


Where he eventually died of hypothermia.


Kind of like when they tried to kill Rasputin. Poisoned him, stabbed him, shot him, then finally threw him into an icy river where he finally drowned.

Post
#105805
Topic
Born out of Boredom: Starkiller's thoughts on...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105805/action/topic#105805
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage

So long as the criminals and tyrannical governments of the world would remain armed, I too would choose to remain armed. Peace is good, but it's not man's natural state. If the last 15,000 years have taught us anything, it's that peace is only the name for time between wars, and that man is a killer.


I'm a man, and I'm not a killer. I'm pretty sure you're not a killer as well. Why can't all men be like that?


Your misinterpretation not withstanding, man as a species is a killer. So....there's no circumstance in which you'd kill? Even to defend your own life, if you had the means?

Under the right circumstances, everyone is capable of killing.

Post
#105804
Topic
Born out of Boredom: Starkiller's thoughts on...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105804/action/topic#105804
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSageYoda: What's the violent crime rate in UK now that almost all guns have been outlawed? The REAL rate, not the ones Labour was throwing around during the election...I'm genuinely curious, as I hear some pretty horrid stories. Do you feel that the criminals are more bold now?

Well, as far as I know guns were never legal in recent history in the UK, certainly not in the last 60 years, but in answer to your question, gun crime in England seems to be on the up. It's mostly gangs or drug dealers killing each other rather than innocent people on the street, and gun crime is still very low compared to other crime and other countries, but I have noticed an upward trend. However, I am not scared to walk unarmed in my home city of London, but I am a little worried in L.A (where my wife comes from and we visit often and are moving there in autumn). In England I have never known anyone, not even a friend of a friend of a friend who has been the victim of gun crime but in L.A I have many friends who either have been threatened at gunpoint or know someone who has been shot, etc. So, this is a really tough problem, and I see both arguments I guess, but personally I don't think more guns is the answer. I don't know what is though, unless somebody invents some kind of machine that makes every gun in the world evaporate and the knowledge and desire to build them vanish also.


That is interesting. Thanks for the info.

The problem in LA is that California has very stringent gun control laws, especially in LA, where it's very difficult for a law abiding citizen to get a gun legally. During the Rodney King riots the only stores that weren't looted were the ones where their owners defended them with guns. Same thing in NYC. They've outright stated many times that they don't want citizens owning guns. I wouldn't walk unarmed in MANY parts of NYC in the daytime, let alone at night.
Post
#105792
Topic
Enterprise Finale
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105792/action/topic#105792
Time
****Spoilers Ahead!!****







What did you think of it? I thought it was ok. It was nice to see some of the TNG sets recreated (I had tears in my eyes when I saw Ten-Forward). Frakes is getting older. Sirtis looked a tiny bit heavier, but I think she's still a very attractive woman.

The story itself was weak, but not terrible. The whole story line with T'Pol and Trip blew cheese since day one, so I wasn't impressed. I'll just be glad to be rid of Jolene Blalock, even though she was nice eye candy.

The ending was a VERY nice touch, with the voiceovers from the previous captains, and the non-pc version of the "These are the voyages" speech.
Post
#105787
Topic
Born out of Boredom: Starkiller's thoughts on...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105787/action/topic#105787
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
When we talk about the gun issue, there are two possible sides one can take: those who think the problem will be solved with more guns, those who think the problem will be solved with less guns. I belive the problem will be solved with LESS guns. I belive peace is the answer. If we arm everyone, the problem will NEVER go away, and therefore we are doomned to live in a world of chaos and violence forever. Violence is never the answer, NEVER. There is no need for wars if we chose to live in a cooperatively peace. If peace is an utopia, then we should all commit suicide right now, because it's pointles.

I totally agree. Unfortunately, this solution seems extremely unlikely to ever happen, but I still agree, and I will be the change I want to see.


So long as the criminals and tyrannical governments of the world would remain armed, I too would choose to remain armed. Peace is good, but it's not man's natural state. If the last 15,000 years have taught us anything, it's that peace is only the name for time between wars, and that man is a killer.

Yoda: What's the violent crime rate in UK now that almost all guns have been outlawed? The REAL rate, not the ones Labour was throwing around during the election...I'm genuinely curious, as I hear some pretty horrid stories. Do you feel that the criminals are more bold now?

There's been discussion about what to do in the event your home is broken into, including foolishly going for a wound instead of shooting to kill. Shooting to wound is almost laughable. Anyone who can hit a crook in the leg in a darkened room while still being half asleep themselves should get some type of medal. No, the rule is shoot the biggest thing you can see and keep shooting. As for the legal ramifications...where I live a law was passed a couple of years ago stating that a criminal breaking into someone's home is assuming the risk of being shot. Yes, for a while criminals shot in the act were actually suing the homeowners who shot them until this law was passed.

Does a person have the right to defend themselves? In Florida, people were actually required by law to either submit to their attacker, or run away. That is a joke, and it's a prime example of socialist thinking, ie: no value on individual lives. Thank God a few weeks ago a "stand your ground" law was passed, meaning a citizen could defend themselves with lethal force in public if required without fear of being arrested. The leftist media as always is predicting the rise of a new wild west in Florida, where the slightest provocation will lead to gun battles in the streets. As usual they'll be proven wrong.

The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is this: I will not cede the right to protect the lives or property of myself or my family to the state. They have proven time and time again that they are not willing or able to give us that protection. I will also not make it easier on them to sieze my firearms by cheerfuly cooperating with confiscation schemes or "buy backs" that never work. I have personally lobbied to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits that are being used to sue them out of existence, with tacit support from the US government.

While we're discussing legality: The law in the US used to be based on English Common Law, and English "Castle" Law, hearkening back to "a man's home is his castle". This has not been the case since the environmentalist movement began usurping our property rights ("You can't dig a hole there! There might be an environmental impact!!"). In it's never ending quest to garner more power, the Federal Government of the US has begun to assert itself more and more over property owners. In regards to gun control, the Clinton administration tried to make it mandatory that private gun owners store their weapons with trigger locks in their homes. My question is: Does a central government have the right to mandate how something is stored in my home?

Another issue was raised about whether or not regular citizens could actually succeed against a strong military. To this I say that history is repleat with examples of successful uprisings with help from other interested parties. For example: The uprising in Northern Ireland in the early part of the 1900's. They were given rifles by Germany (to strike at England) and they succeeded.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you..." Samuel Adams.
Post
#105585
Topic
Depressing but fairly intellligent blog...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105585/action/topic#105585
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
It's a dark blot on the industry that they want forgotten, I assume.


Yes. I also remember in the late 80's or early 90's a politician who shot himself in the middle of a press conference. To the credit of some reporters, I could hear them begging him not to do it, but to the detriment of others, they actually kept the cameras rolling during the whole thing.
Post
#105581
Topic
Born out of Boredom: Starkiller's thoughts on...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105581/action/topic#105581
Time
My take on this issue:

Who would be in charge disarming everyone?

Could you guarantee that all criminals, everywhere, would totally disarmed?

What guarantee would there be that governments wouldn't use the opportunity to move to tyrannical positions against their own people?

How do you explain the low murder rate in Switzerland, where it's mandatory for people to be armed (this has allowed them to maintain their neutrality)?

Do laws have any impact on those who are not willing to obey them?

Do people have a right to defend their lives, propterty, and family? If so, why would it be appropriate to dictate how?

The arguments you present are old ones...firearms are used over two million times a year in self defense. Should those people have not used them and allowed themselves to be mugged or killed?

Anyone who leaves a gun accessible to children should be locked up. I have two young children (4 & 6), I also own two rifles, both of which are locked in a safe, with trigger locks on them, the keys to which are carefully hidden.

They would have to come and take my guns, should they be outlawed.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson`s "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." -- An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
Post
#105580
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105580/action/topic#105580
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
I think that is technically incorrect (Ric and JediSage). The Fed may print money, but I believe they only do it on the orders of Congress.

I'd have to look into it though. I could be wrong.


The Fed is a private bank. The only thing it requires approval for is the appointment of the board chairman, thus giving the illusion it's under federal control. They can print money at will.

Ricar: The only thing the Fed needs to print money is a law stating they can, which was passed in 1913. Because we're no longer bound by a currency based on precious metals, the only limit on the amount of money that can be printed would be if we ran out of paper and ink.

Something else of note is that in tandem with the Fed Reserve Act the national income tax went through. An interesting tidbit: The law was never actually legally ratified. There is a growing movement of people who are legally challenging the law and winning.

Like Lenin said, the best way to crush the middle class is through taxes and inflation.
Post
#105519
Topic
ROTS: Gut Feeling
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105519/action/topic#105519
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Only people who've seen Doctor Strangelove will get this reference: But for some reason I can picture GL riding a big ol' bomb labeled Revenge of the Sith out the bottom of a WWII era bomber (CGI, of course), whipping it with his cowboy hat, going "Eeeeee haaawww! Eeeeee haaaaawww!!" as he falls to oblivion on an unsuspecting fan base.


LOL!!! ROTFL!!!

Dr. Strangelucas, or: how did I learn to stop worring and love the prequels


LOL...can picture him sitting there, talking to McCallum about the need to have Jar-Jar in the films in order to protect their "vital fluids".
Post
#105446
Topic
Jokes thread : Reloaded
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105446/action/topic#105446
Time
Originally posted by: oojason
A doctor of psychology was doing his normal morning rounds when he entered a patient's room. He found Patient #1 sitting on the floor, pretending to saw a piece of wood in half.

Patient #2 was hanging from the ceiling, by his feet.

The doctor asked patient #1 what he was doing. The patient replied,

"Can't you see I'm sawing this piece of wood in half?"

The doctor inquired of Patient #1 what Patient #2 was doing. Patient #1 replied,

"Oh. He's my friend, but he's a little crazy. He thinks he's a lightbulb."

The doctor looks up and notices Patient #2's face is going all red.

The doctor asks Patient #1, "If he's your friend, you should get him down from there before he hurts himself"

Patient #1 replies,

"What? And work in the dark?"



LOL!!
Post
#105497
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105497/action/topic#105497
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage

That is wierd.

Think about the companies of the world, or for that matter, the companies in the US. By their very nature they compete with eachother. What do they have to gain by fighting wars? Central banking has been at the heart of conflict since the beginning of time. The big European banks being some of the biggest culprits. The Rothschilds, the Warburgs. The Morgans and Rockerfellers in the US. It's an old story. I've done a lot of research on Napoleon. One of the reasons he was constantly fighting in Europe was because he had France almost totally debt free, which means the European banks lost one of their biggest customers. What's the answer? Squeeze the credit of his neighbors and force them to get involved.

There's a lot of thought that the US got involved in WWI because massive loans from central banks to England and France were in danger of default, so the Luisitania incident "occured".


I have always thought that in north america, as opposed to europe, banking institutions didn't gather so much power, mostly because of the economical stability of the dollar (although it has lost some value recently), and because banking institutions in the US are de-centralized. Also, because of financial issued far too complicated for me to talk about, north american banks are not reference for investments such as Cayman Islands or Switzerland...

I can think of thousands of north american companies, I can think of some who would profit from governmental decisions (Lockheed, Halliburton...), but I can't think of a north american bank with that same power...

BTW, what is the major bank in america?


The Federal Reserve, which is made to look like an instrument of government, but is really a cartel of private banks. This is a brief, rough summary of how it works:

The Fed was created in 1913 to serve as a "controller" for the US banking industry. Basically what they wanted to do was control how other banks (competitors) functioned, especially how much they could keep in reserve compared to their outstanding loans (lending ratio). It bothered them that many of their competitors were being fiscally responsible by keeping their lending ratio within reason, for example: they loaned out only 10 dollars for every 1 in the vault, whereas the big boys wanted to lend at a ratio of say, 1000 to 1 (the more money out in loans the more interest they could accumulate). However, due to the more pure, free-market economy at the time, this would not be doable without help. So, many of the power brokers at the time representing the huge central banks in Europe and the monied interests here (who still had family ties to "old money" in Europe) met at an island off the coast of Georgia called "Jekyl Island". This is where they decided to address the following needs:

1. How do they force their competitors to lend money at the same ratio as they do?
2. How do they make the rules even more favorable to them (ie: how do they control interest rates at which their own banks borrowed $$)?
3. How do they address "runs" on their cash supply that were damaging to their solvency (ability to meet short and long term debt)?
4. How do they break lose from a currency based on precious metals, that by definition forced them to be more conservative in their lending?
5. How do they eliminate or at least control new players in the game?
6. How do they keep the lower and middle classes under control in a society that was allowing them too much room for growth?
7. How do they create this animal without alarming the American public or the American government?

The answer was to create a private, central, controlling bank that did not look or feel like a central controlling bank. They did this by getting enough support in congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act, so named because it created an illusion of building a safety net to protect the American people from bank runs and currency drains that had hurt many people. Once the act was passed, that took care of item #7. They also made it look like the government exercises a modicum of control by allowing congress to appoint the Fed Board chairman.

The people behind this whole thing were avowed socialists, of the "Fabian Socialist" brotherhood, who basically wanted to create a banker's paradise by squashing the lower and middle classes and eventually nationalize private industry and property (the monetary and political scientists have always been in league) to exercise greater control over profits, lending, credit, interest, etc; The way to do this is via inflation, which the Fed creates in great measure every time they fire up the printing press (the result of breaking lose from a currency based on precious metals). If the people get too upity, they begin to prematurely call in loans, which forces the lending banks to do the same, while simultaneously forcing interest rates and inflation sky high. If the economy is in the doldrums, the politicians will get involved, giving the illusion that their actually doing something. This answers #6.

Numbers 1,2, & 5 are answered in the nature of the act itself. The rules and regs so heavily favored the Fed that new and existing banks either went under, or were forced to play by the rules. The Fed has the police power of the US government behind it.

Item #4: The Fed has been very good at talking about how an "elastic" money supply not bound by the rules of precious metals is good for the economy, but they've never been able to prove how it helps by creating inflation and runaway spending. The only value the dollar has is the amount of confidence people have in the US economy. No confidence = dead currency.

Now imagine what would happen if massive banks like Chase, Citi, and Bank of America all had loans to say...Iraq. And Iraq looked like it was going to default and write off the debt without repayment. The result for America would be disasterous, meaning that the banks mentioned would experience a massive run as people would have serious doubts about their solvency. This means one of two things: 1. The banks would go under because their lending habits have left almost no actual money in their depositors accounts. This would result in a near collapse of the American economy because of the domino effect it would have on the customers these banks services. Or, 2. The Fed steps in and prints more money. Which results in more inflation, which means the grip on the US economy is made even tighter anyway.

I know that was lengthy, but I think it's worth reading, even if you're not interested in banking.
Post
#105491
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105491/action/topic#105491
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
I think the companies do have influence. However, I believe the central banks have even more power. A good book on the subject of why wars happen, why the world is as terrible as it is, what we can look forward to in the future is "The Creature from Jekyl Island", which discusses the nature of the power central banks have. Yes, the companies have enormous amounts of money, but the central banks are the ones that hold it, or lend it, and collect interest on it, etc; There's a quote in the book, I forgot who said it and I know I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like "Allow me to control the issuance of a nation's currency and I care not who is in control". Very interesting, very scary stuff.


I've read some on the subject, but I think most of what is attributed to baking institutions is mere speculation, almost a conspiracy theory... I've seen theories about banks profiting from selling organs (I mean HUMAN organs, not the musical instrument), too bizarre.


That is wierd.

Think about the companies of the world, or for that matter, the companies in the US. By their very nature they compete with eachother. What do they have to gain by fighting wars? Central banking has been at the heart of conflict since the beginning of time. The big European banks being some of the biggest culprits. The Rothschilds, the Warburgs. The Morgans and Rockerfellers in the US. It's an old story. I've done a lot of research on Napoleon. One of the reasons he was constantly fighting in Europe was because he had France almost totally debt free, which means the European banks lost one of their biggest customers. What's the answer? Squeeze the credit of his neighbors and force them to get involved.

There's a lot of thought that the US got involved in WWI because massive loans from central banks to England and France were in danger of default, so the Luisitania incident "occured".
Post
#105481
Topic
ROTS: Gut Feeling
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105481/action/topic#105481
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one .45 caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing: antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair a nylon stockings. Shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.


LMAO!!!! Classic...
Post
#105445
Topic
Most Influential Person
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/105445/action/topic#105445
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I would sugest that the U.S government only intervene in foreign affairs if it is of some interest to them, be it security, financial, etc. It may not be an obvious interest, but they will have some interest, even if it's citizen's are unaware.


I agree, however it just never seems to work out that way. We could never make the case to invade anywhere there's a drop of oil, because everyone would scream about it. It is unfortunate, because I do believe the US can be a force for good, especially it's military. However, we're often in lose-lose situations because of the games our politicians play, and in the court of public opinion.


There's corporate interest as well, and that goes beyond the whole politics. The thing is, I belive it is wrong to intervere merely for financial interests. And if we consider how much money the belic industry makes for each war or military intervention, we must ask ourselves if these multi-billion dollar companies influence the political decision behind the killings and bombings... I must say, one should be very naivee if he thinks those companies don't influence the war industry at all.


I think the companies do have influence. However, I believe the central banks have even more power. A good book on the subject of why wars happen, why the world is as terrible as it is, what we can look forward to in the future is "The Creature from Jekyl Island", which discusses the nature of the power central banks have. Yes, the companies have enormous amounts of money, but the central banks are the ones that hold it, or lend it, and collect interest on it, etc; There's a quote in the book, I forgot who said it and I know I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like "Allow me to control the issuance of a nation's currency and I care not who is in control". Very interesting, very scary stuff.