Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   US government freezing US citizen's bank accounts because they are paying down debt
wj
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 29 (292155)
03-04-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
03-04-2006 9:12 AM


Re: Why it is considered a problem.
Eeer, this is satire, isn't it? Couldn't potential terrorists be more readily identified by their purchases of large quantities of ammonium fertilizer, firearms, explosives etc?
Aren't terrorists aware of your government's watch on financial transactions and therefore able to transfer money in a pattern which doesn't raise suspicion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-04-2006 9:12 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 03-04-2006 6:24 PM wj has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 406 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 17 of 29 (292186)
03-04-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
03-03-2006 11:57 AM


Post-hoc, biblically speaking
We are not free citizens. Everything is being watched. Every day they give us more reasons to quit the electronic system, go cash whenever possible.
Someone knew about this almost 2000 years ago, strange.
Revelation 13:17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 03-03-2006 11:57 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 10:02 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 29 (292192)
03-04-2006 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by wj
03-04-2006 4:40 PM


Re: Why it is considered a problem.
Couldn't potential terrorists be more readily identified by their purchases of large quantities of ammonium fertilizer, firearms, explosives etc?
Well the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.
Aren't terrorists aware of your government's watch on financial transactions and therefore able to transfer money in a pattern which doesn't raise suspicion?
Well it was probably a good plan until Schraf let the secret out.
I didn't say any of this was either a good plan or an effective one. But there really are some pretty tough problems here in the US. First, we have absolutely no way to tell who should be in the country.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by wj, posted 03-04-2006 4:40 PM wj has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 29 (292325)
03-05-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
03-04-2006 6:17 PM


Re: Post-hoc, biblically speaking
Someone knew about this almost 2000 years ago, strange.
Revelation 13:17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
That's because this was occasionally the case, 2000 years ago. Two-ledger accounting was already in wide practice at the time of the writing of Revelations. This form of accounting formed a basis for trade that was "cashless"; instead, relying merely on accounting of credit and debt via "marks" in a ledger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 03-04-2006 6:17 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 03-05-2006 10:22 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 22 by riVeRraT, posted 03-06-2006 7:08 AM crashfrog has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 29 (292328)
03-05-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
03-05-2006 10:02 AM


double entry bookkeeping
I'll check later Crash, but I think you are out by about 1500 years. Double entry bookkeeping wasn't invented until something like 500 years ago IIRC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 10:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 10:57 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 29 (292340)
03-05-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
03-05-2006 10:22 AM


Re: double entry bookkeeping
I'll check later Crash, but I think you are out by about 1500 years. Double entry bookkeeping wasn't invented until something like 500 years ago IIRC.
That's what Wikipedia says, but I remember researching this claim in an argument with Buz and being flabbergasted to learn that we have archeological examples of very sophisticated bookkeeping from Biblical times.
(And I have no idea where "two-ledger bookkeeping" came from; I thought that's how I rememebered it but a quick look proves that that term comes from nowhere but my own imagination, apparently.)
Ah, here we go. The early European cites I think you're referring to, circa 500 years ago, themselves refer to a double-entry system in practice in Italy for the previous 200 years, if they can be believed. (They might simply be inflating the historicity of their techniques to advance their credibility.) Also, the Wiki on "accounting" throws this line out:
quote:
At the heart of modern financial accounting is the double-entry book-keeping system. This system involves making at least two entries for every transaction: a debit in one account, and a corresponding credit in another account. The sum of all debits should always equal the sum of all credits. This provides an easy way to check for errors. This system was first used in medieval Europe, although claims have been made that the system dates back to Ancient Greece.
They don't elaborate, unfortunately.
You're right that the historic consensus seems to be that D-E bookkeeping originates sometime in the Renaissance, but somebody's out there making the argument that it's considerably earlier, and given the language in the Bible and the sophistication of Greek society I don't think that's unreasonable. It's hard to look at something like the Antikythera Mechanism and not get the impression that Greek society might have developed a number of "modern" inventions long before we expect. (Actually it's hard not to look at the Antikythera clock and not get the impression of time travel.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 03-05-2006 10:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Wounded King, posted 03-06-2006 11:12 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 406 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 22 of 29 (292614)
03-06-2006 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
03-05-2006 10:02 AM


Re: Post-hoc, biblically speaking
This form of accounting formed a basis for trade that was "cashless"; instead, relying merely on accounting of credit and debt via "marks" in a ledger.
The mark in that verse they are refering to is to be worn on your right hand or forehead, not in a ledger. You needed the mark to buy or sell, not keep track.
Which is, btw, the only two acceptable places to put a chip in you. As far as I know.
It doesn't matter anyway, I don't get into all that end time stuff that much, that is not why I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 10:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 03-06-2006 10:48 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 25 by zephyr, posted 03-06-2006 11:13 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2006 12:10 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 23 of 29 (292691)
03-06-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by riVeRraT
03-06-2006 7:08 AM


Re: Post-hoc, biblically speaking
Which is, btw, the only two acceptable places to put a chip in you. As far as I know.
This sounds like made up nonsense. From memory none of the chips inserted have been put in either place.
From good sense putting a chip under the skin of the forehead where it would make a bump sounds stupid.
From logic there is no reason why the right hand would be prefered over the left. So there is at a mimimum a third place.
Since you have some reason for "knowing" this could you supply the source of the knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by riVeRraT, posted 03-06-2006 7:08 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by riVeRraT, posted 03-07-2006 7:16 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 24 of 29 (292706)
03-06-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
03-05-2006 10:57 AM


Re: double entry bookkeeping
I think "two-ledger bookkeeping" is what you do when you are cooking the books.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2006 10:57 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 25 of 29 (292708)
03-06-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by riVeRraT
03-06-2006 7:08 AM


Re: Post-hoc, biblically speaking
Personally I'd want it in my belly or buttocks, where it could sit among all the cushioning and avoid being jammed into bone or ligaments by an unexpected blow....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by riVeRraT, posted 03-06-2006 7:08 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 29 (292736)
03-06-2006 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by riVeRraT
03-06-2006 7:08 AM


Re: Post-hoc, biblically speaking
Which is, btw, the only two acceptable places to put a chip in you. As far as I know.
"Acceptable" to who? RFID works anywhere over about 6 feet. The current implantable tags go in the upper bicep. Nobody's put them in hands for foreheads, to my knowledge. The forehead would actually be an awful place for chip implantation because there's no adipose tissue or thick muscle to set the chip in; you'd wind up with it pressing against the bone of the skull. There's be a pretty obvious bump where the chip was. Plus the scalp and forehead have a lot of blood vessels so surgical implantation in those areas would result in the loss of much blood.
The hand is another inappropriate site because of all the nerve endings; the implantation would be physically painful. The upper arm is a much better place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by riVeRraT, posted 03-06-2006 7:08 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 406 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 27 of 29 (292905)
03-07-2006 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by NosyNed
03-06-2006 10:48 AM


Re: Post-hoc, biblically speaking
It would seem that it may be a rumor. I think I oririnally read it in a book called "Mark of the Beast" by John Hagee. John Hagee is an end of the world fanatic. I think he gets to carried away with it, and over the years his preaching has gone to over the top for me. To me if your preaching isn't focused on loving God, and loving others, I don't want to hear it really.
Again, I say whatever, my reasons for believing are not end of the world stuff. Jesus can come whenever he wants, I will try to be ready regardless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 03-06-2006 10:48 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 03-07-2006 7:50 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 29 (292910)
03-07-2006 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by riVeRraT
03-07-2006 7:16 AM


Re: Post-hoc, biblically speaking
quote:
I think I oririnally read it in a book called "Mark of the Beast" by John Hagee. John Hagee is an end of the world fanatic. I think he gets to carried away with it, and over the years his preaching has gone to over the top for me.
John Hagee?
Even when I was a believer I knew he was a wacko.
I hope you didn't actually pay money for the book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by riVeRraT, posted 03-07-2006 7:16 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by riVeRraT, posted 03-08-2006 9:31 AM nator has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 406 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 29 of 29 (293207)
03-08-2006 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
03-07-2006 7:50 AM


Re: Post-hoc, biblically speaking
John Hagee?
Even when I was a believer I knew he was a wacko.
I hope you didn't actually pay money for the book.
No, it was given to me. It was very entertaining book. I did not take any of it seriously, but I retain the information, and then compare it to real life, to see if it matches.
I enjoy reading Rick Joyner now. But there is contoversy about him too. The book I most enjoy reading is the bible, it shows me more than any book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 03-07-2006 7:50 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024