If you guys have an issue with each other from another website, transaction, or other dealings, take it elsewhere or I lock you out.
Democrats: Traitors or Stupid?
Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.
Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.
It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.
Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."
On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."
This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.
Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."
The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.
We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.
But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)
Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.
The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.
They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."
Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.
At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."
About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.
In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."
Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:
"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.
"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"
If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.
And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.
Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.
OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.
Ann Coulter.
Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.
It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.
Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."
On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."
This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.
Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."
The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.
We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.
But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)
Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.
The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.
They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."
Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.
At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."
About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.
In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."
Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:
"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.
"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"
If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.
And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.
Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.
OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.
Ann Coulter.
81 - 100 of 103 Posts
Thank you, Sir
I came here because of the expectation of civility in discussing current events, and I fear that my observations of the neocon war machine bear that out. I applaud Ron Paul who demands that Constitution be followed in foreign and domestic affairs. That is why I think he and Mike Huckabee are the only rational GOP choices.
I came here because of the expectation of civility in discussing current events, and I fear that my observations of the neocon war machine bear that out. I applaud Ron Paul who demands that Constitution be followed in foreign and domestic affairs. That is why I think he and Mike Huckabee are the only rational GOP choices.
Wes, those tax protester folks who got arrested in NH thought THEY and their supporters were the only ones following the Constitution. Ron Paul marches to the same off tune sort of beat, ignoring the parts of the Constitution that he disagrees with in the same way the ACLU ignores the 2nd Amendment and the tax protestors ignore the 16th Amendment.
I must agree that Mike Huckabee seems a sensible and decent fellow and do not understand why he isn't doing better. Maybe its because one former governor of Arkansas was enough in the White House. I'm writing Huckabee suggesting that the name of his state be changed to "West Mississippi" . Maybe that'll help his campaign.
I must agree that Mike Huckabee seems a sensible and decent fellow and do not understand why he isn't doing better. Maybe its because one former governor of Arkansas was enough in the White House. I'm writing Huckabee suggesting that the name of his state be changed to "West Mississippi" . Maybe that'll help his campaign.
Name one example. I dare you, name one where you can clearly document that Ron Paul ignores.Wes, those tax protester folks who got arrested in NH thought THEY and their supporters were the only ones following the Constitution. Ron Paul marches to the same off tune sort of beat, ignoring the parts of the Constitution that he disagrees with
Ron Paul:
......the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to:
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof*, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
....To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
* In 1791 the Treasury began issuing banknotes. In the late 1800's the Supreme Court ruled that the United States could make paper money legal tender. "The power [to emit paper money], as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing." ( Nathaniel Gorham (May 27, 1738 – June 11, 1796), eighth President of the United States in Congress assembled, under the Articles of Confederation). In other words, the power to emit paper money (e.g. bank notes) has been derived from the Necessary-and-proper clause in combination with the power to borrow money.
In 1791, the original Bank of the United States, sometimes referred to as "The First Bank of the United States", was proposed and brought into being under the aegis of the first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. The First Bank of the United States was a bank chartered by Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was for 20 years. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States, which had previously been thirteen individual colonies with their own banks, currencies, and financial institutions and policies.
Along with establishing a mint and an excise tax, the purpose of Hamilton's proposed bank was to:
Establish financial order, clarity and precedence in and of the newly formed United States.
Establish credit—both in country and overseas—for the new nation.
To resolve the issue of the fiat currency, issued by the Continental Congress immediately prior to and during the United States Revolutionary War—the "Continental".
A student of both the French finance minister Jacques Necker and his British counterpart Chancellor of the Exchequer Robert Walpole (in addition to his own extensive reading), Hamilton devised a bank for the whole of the country, not for just sections or states.
According to the plan put before the first session of the First Congress, Hamilton proposed establishing the initial funding for the Bank of the United States through the sale of $10 million in stock of which the United States government would purchase the first $2 million in shares. Hamilton, foreseeing the objection that this could not be done since the U.S. government didn't have $2 million, proposed that the government make the stock purchase using money loaned to it by the Bank; the loan to be paid back in ten equal annual installments.
The remaining $8 million of stock would be available to the public, both in the United States and overseas. The chief requirement of these non-government purchases was that one-quarter of the purchase price had to be paid in gold or silver; the remaining balance could be paid in bonds, acceptable script, etc.
By insisting on these conditions the Bank of the United States might technically possess $500 thousand in "real" money that it could, and would, make loans up to its capitalized limit of $10 million. However, unlike the Bank of England from where Hamilton drew much of his inspiration, the primary function of the Bank would be commercial and private interests. The business it would be involved in on behalf of the federal government—a depository for collected taxes, making short term loans to the government to cover real or potential temporary income gaps, serving as a holding site for both incoming and outgoing monies—was considered highly important but still secondary in nature.
There were other, nonnegotiable conditions for the establishment of the Bank of the United States. Among these were:
That the Bank was to be a private company.
That the Bank would have a twenty year charter running from 1791 to 1811, after which time it would be up to the Congress to renew or deny renewal of the bank and its charter; however, during that time no other federal bank would be authorized; states, for their part, would be free to charter however many intrastate banks they wished.
That the Bank, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, would:
be forbidden to buy government bonds.
have a mandatory rotation of directors.
neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization.
The Second Bank of the United States was a bank chartered in 1816, five years after the expiration of the First Bank of the United States. It was founded during the administration of U.S. President James Madison out of desperation to stabilize the currency.
The Bank served as the depository for Federal funds until 1833, when President Andrew Jackson instructed his Secretaries of the Treasury to cease depositing the funds. Two refused to obey, so he fired them, one after the other, until he got one who obeyed: Roger B. Taney, his former Attorney General and the future Supreme Court Chief Justice. This decision was an aspect of Jackson's famous dispute with the Bank's president, Nicholas Biddle. The Bank, always a privately owned institution, lost its Federal charter in 1836. It became defunct in 1841.
The end of the Bank as the federal depository resulted in massive losses, a call in of loans and a major depression in the United States. Fortunately for Jackson most of the voters blamed the bank president, Nicholas Biddle, but the anti-jacksonians started the Whig Party, later absorbed into the Republicans.
......the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to:
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof*, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
....To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
* In 1791 the Treasury began issuing banknotes. In the late 1800's the Supreme Court ruled that the United States could make paper money legal tender. "The power [to emit paper money], as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing." ( Nathaniel Gorham (May 27, 1738 – June 11, 1796), eighth President of the United States in Congress assembled, under the Articles of Confederation). In other words, the power to emit paper money (e.g. bank notes) has been derived from the Necessary-and-proper clause in combination with the power to borrow money.
In 1791, the original Bank of the United States, sometimes referred to as "The First Bank of the United States", was proposed and brought into being under the aegis of the first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. The First Bank of the United States was a bank chartered by Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was for 20 years. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States, which had previously been thirteen individual colonies with their own banks, currencies, and financial institutions and policies.
Along with establishing a mint and an excise tax, the purpose of Hamilton's proposed bank was to:
Establish financial order, clarity and precedence in and of the newly formed United States.
Establish credit—both in country and overseas—for the new nation.
To resolve the issue of the fiat currency, issued by the Continental Congress immediately prior to and during the United States Revolutionary War—the "Continental".
A student of both the French finance minister Jacques Necker and his British counterpart Chancellor of the Exchequer Robert Walpole (in addition to his own extensive reading), Hamilton devised a bank for the whole of the country, not for just sections or states.
According to the plan put before the first session of the First Congress, Hamilton proposed establishing the initial funding for the Bank of the United States through the sale of $10 million in stock of which the United States government would purchase the first $2 million in shares. Hamilton, foreseeing the objection that this could not be done since the U.S. government didn't have $2 million, proposed that the government make the stock purchase using money loaned to it by the Bank; the loan to be paid back in ten equal annual installments.
The remaining $8 million of stock would be available to the public, both in the United States and overseas. The chief requirement of these non-government purchases was that one-quarter of the purchase price had to be paid in gold or silver; the remaining balance could be paid in bonds, acceptable script, etc.
By insisting on these conditions the Bank of the United States might technically possess $500 thousand in "real" money that it could, and would, make loans up to its capitalized limit of $10 million. However, unlike the Bank of England from where Hamilton drew much of his inspiration, the primary function of the Bank would be commercial and private interests. The business it would be involved in on behalf of the federal government—a depository for collected taxes, making short term loans to the government to cover real or potential temporary income gaps, serving as a holding site for both incoming and outgoing monies—was considered highly important but still secondary in nature.
There were other, nonnegotiable conditions for the establishment of the Bank of the United States. Among these were:
That the Bank was to be a private company.
That the Bank would have a twenty year charter running from 1791 to 1811, after which time it would be up to the Congress to renew or deny renewal of the bank and its charter; however, during that time no other federal bank would be authorized; states, for their part, would be free to charter however many intrastate banks they wished.
That the Bank, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, would:
be forbidden to buy government bonds.
have a mandatory rotation of directors.
neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization.
The Second Bank of the United States was a bank chartered in 1816, five years after the expiration of the First Bank of the United States. It was founded during the administration of U.S. President James Madison out of desperation to stabilize the currency.
The Bank served as the depository for Federal funds until 1833, when President Andrew Jackson instructed his Secretaries of the Treasury to cease depositing the funds. Two refused to obey, so he fired them, one after the other, until he got one who obeyed: Roger B. Taney, his former Attorney General and the future Supreme Court Chief Justice. This decision was an aspect of Jackson's famous dispute with the Bank's president, Nicholas Biddle. The Bank, always a privately owned institution, lost its Federal charter in 1836. It became defunct in 1841.
The end of the Bank as the federal depository resulted in massive losses, a call in of loans and a major depression in the United States. Fortunately for Jackson most of the voters blamed the bank president, Nicholas Biddle, but the anti-jacksonians started the Whig Party, later absorbed into the Republicans.
See you obviously didn't read what you copy and pasted.
He's not ignoring it stupid. He's saying its detrimental to the economy.
"......the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
What he said shows no indication of him wanting to ignore it. If anything he cares enough to see that there is a problem. The Fed allows the government to spend more money. Simply put, it allows government to grow. Having the dollar backed by gold limits the amount of money a government can spend thus making it a "limited government". If they don't have it they either have to borrow it or tax it. This was done in the past before the Fed was created.
""If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."-Thomas Jefferson"
"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States." -- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)
"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford
"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." -- Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982
"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it." -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)
"By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." -- British Lord John Maynard Keynes (the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures) in his book "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE" (1920).
"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." -- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913
"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." -- Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
"The [Federal Reserve Act] as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency... I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency." -- Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., 1913
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.
"If Congress has the right [it doesn't] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations." -- President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." -- James Madison
"Should government refrain from regulation (taxation), the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the FRAUD can no longer be concealed." -- British Lord John Maynard Keynes (the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures) in his book "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE" (1920).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
He's not ignoring it stupid. He's saying its detrimental to the economy.
"......the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
What he said shows no indication of him wanting to ignore it. If anything he cares enough to see that there is a problem. The Fed allows the government to spend more money. Simply put, it allows government to grow. Having the dollar backed by gold limits the amount of money a government can spend thus making it a "limited government". If they don't have it they either have to borrow it or tax it. This was done in the past before the Fed was created.
Yes paper money was allowed to be legal tender, but it was backed by gold. Money today has NO value. It is printed out of thin air at the request of politicians. The dollar today compared to the dollar of 1913 is worth about 4 cents.The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof*, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures
""If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."-Thomas Jefferson"
"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States." -- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)
"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford
"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." -- Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982
"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it." -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)
"By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." -- British Lord John Maynard Keynes (the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures) in his book "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE" (1920).
"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." -- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913
"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." -- Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
"The [Federal Reserve Act] as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency... I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency." -- Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., 1913
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.
"If Congress has the right [it doesn't] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations." -- President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." -- James Madison
"Should government refrain from regulation (taxation), the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the FRAUD can no longer be concealed." -- British Lord John Maynard Keynes (the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures) in his book "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE" (1920).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
And giving direct control of our money and financial institutions to the politicians WOULDN'T be detrimental to the economy?
Get real. It'd be a total disaster. central banking is hard enough, requiring decisions made months ahead of the occurances they are designed to head off, on changeable and indistinct data. Give it to a politician or political appointee who only looks as far as the next election, will turn on the money creating faucets to keep the electorate happy unrtil he gets their votes and it would be a complete disaster.
Heed Santayana and study history:
Get real. It'd be a total disaster. central banking is hard enough, requiring decisions made months ahead of the occurances they are designed to head off, on changeable and indistinct data. Give it to a politician or political appointee who only looks as far as the next election, will turn on the money creating faucets to keep the electorate happy unrtil he gets their votes and it would be a complete disaster.
Heed Santayana and study history:
Then why would you hand over the wealth of the United States to a group of international bankers that is not audited by Congress? Guess the last time we audited the gold in fort knox...not since we went off the gold standard.And giving direct control of our money and financial institutions to the politicians WOULDN'T be detrimental to the economy?
The way the system is set up, it allows politicians to spend money they don't have and it gives the wealth of the United States to elitist bankers.
You do realize that when we borrow money from the Fed they charge us interest...on our own money.
Why do you think the Founders didn't want a central banking system? It gives bankers control of the US MONEY SUPPLY!
Since you have an answer for everything and find fault with all of the Republican politicians, why don't you run for office, MB?
Finding Fault with Politicians?
Simple empirical observation is not finding fault. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air compared to the other cynical insiders. He refuses to take a federal pension, he refuses to support unconstitutional wars and recognizes we are not culturally or economically suited to maintain an empire (his words). He is for free markets (as opposed to managed mercantilist ones); he wants to end agricultural subsidies, not regulate or tax the internet and he is smart enough not to try to terminate all welfare programs cold turkey, but wean Americans away from dependence on government. He also realizes that most Americans don't trust the govt. He would be better for organized labor because he opposes government favoritism of corporations in its policies.
And he thinks the more complex a problem (such as abortion), the more local its solution ought to be. He was on PBS McNeill-Lehrer news hour last night and had a fabulous interview.
This is one GOPer I have no problem with.
The US is turning away from the NeoCon nightmare age either to the left or right, but it is turning away.
Simple empirical observation is not finding fault. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air compared to the other cynical insiders. He refuses to take a federal pension, he refuses to support unconstitutional wars and recognizes we are not culturally or economically suited to maintain an empire (his words). He is for free markets (as opposed to managed mercantilist ones); he wants to end agricultural subsidies, not regulate or tax the internet and he is smart enough not to try to terminate all welfare programs cold turkey, but wean Americans away from dependence on government. He also realizes that most Americans don't trust the govt. He would be better for organized labor because he opposes government favoritism of corporations in its policies.
And he thinks the more complex a problem (such as abortion), the more local its solution ought to be. He was on PBS McNeill-Lehrer news hour last night and had a fabulous interview.
This is one GOPer I have no problem with.
The US is turning away from the NeoCon nightmare age either to the left or right, but it is turning away.
Ron may have been a decent twat doctor before he became a politician, but he obviously knows little about organized labor. It should be treated as what it was under the common law - a unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade and to commit extortion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Ron may have been a decent twat doctor before he became a politician, but he obviously knows little about organized labor. It should be treated as what it was under the common law - a unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade and to commit extortion.
Unions have done some good. Today they are merely a drain on the economy. But child labor laws and safe working conditions didn't come from the caring hearts of corporate CEOs...
A strike (often coupled with attacks on people who don't care to honor the picket lines) isn't an assembly to petition the government. First Amendment involves the rights of the people as related to relations with teh government - not relations between private parties. Which is why the owners of this board can ban people who offend them. If the First Amendment applied to relations between private parties, they couldn't.
People should have the right to organize. But I think labor laws should be regulate by the states. However the right to unionize should be the right of all workers in the country. There should be a secret ballot and people should not feel obligated to join unions either.A strike (often coupled with attacks on people who don't care to honor the picket lines) isn't an assembly to petition the government. First Amendment involves the rights of the people as related to relations with teh government - not relations between private parties. Which is why the owners of this board can ban people who offend them. If the First Amendment applied to relations between private parties, they couldn't.
Gee what surprise. More shallow thinking from an Ann Coulter reader....Ghandi?
Wasn't he the dude that wore only a diaper?
That drank his own urine?
That slept each night between two female followers, in order to "test" his vow of chastity?
That was eventually assasinated by one of his own followers?
Now there's a role model for the Losertarians.
I don't just read Ann, i love her.
Actually, if you REALLY need a reason to be suspicious of Gandhi - he was a lawyer....
And so were you....???Actually, if you REALLY need a reason to be suspicious of Gandhi - he was a lawyer....
Wow this is really pathetic. "lets attack an old peaceful man because we can't organize and articulate counter-arugments to 'boy'"
For an ex-lawyer clyde, you formulate some really crappy arguments.
81 - 100 of 103 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Gunboards Forums
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, makes, models, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
