You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Republican Jewish Coalition Bars Ron Paul From Debate: âHeâs misguided and extremeâ
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
Quote from a_person:
What kind of gibberish is that? The article says States can't make money (other than gold/silver coins), it does not say states can't use money. They can and they must use money produced by the federal government.
Right...
I want to add that in the sentence, "States shall not make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in the payment of debts" the word "make" does not refer to the manufacture of money (which states aren't allowed to do -- the federal government must mint the coins) rather "make" refers to the designation of what a debt is to be paid in. A state can not say, "Your taxes are a debt payable in Bernanke bills." It must, under the Constitution, say the the debt is payable in gold or silver coin. Really, I'm supposed to believe that after going through all the trouble of saying that states have to use hard money the Constitution is going to allow the federal government to impose a pure fiat currency on them?
Equating Iran with the U.S. shows how flawed and naive your "thinking" is.
You're a kook to use that as a basis for "thinking" the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world can be trusted with nukes.
You're a kook to use that as a basis for "thinking" the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world can be trusted with nukes.
Quote from rew:
You are a kook if you think that Iran, even if it had nuclear weapons, would give them to terrorists. Did the U.S. give nukes to the Contras?
If Hezbollah fires off a nuke the entire world will treat it exactly as if Iran had set it off -- and Iran would be turned into radioactive glass. The leadership of Iran knows this, so they're not going to be stupid enough to hand out nukes to hotheads.
Regardless of what you believe, Section 10 is the ONLY section of the Constitution containing the words "gold" or "silver" and it imposes no limit or constraint whatsoever on congress.
Quote from rew:
Really, I'm supposed to believe that after going through all the trouble of saying that states have to use hard money the Constitution is going to allow the federal government to impose a pure fiat currency on them?
Quote from Trader666:
Equating Iran with the U.S. shows how flawed and naive your "thinking" is.
You're a kook to use that as a basis for "thinking" the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world can be trusted with nukes.
When was the last time a nuclear power fired a nuke at another nuclear power? It seems clear that IF Iran wants a nuke, it would be to ensure other nuclear powers (i.e.: Israel, US, et al) stop trying to dictate policy to them. Let's face the facts, Iran is a sovereign nation that has never invaded another country. Are they a state sponsor of terrorism? Yes. So is Israel, and so is America. We conduct kidnappings, assassination, bombings, and those are considered terrorist operations.
Now, I realize that is a hard pill to swallow but make no mistake, the United States both supports and commits acts of terrorism. As an example, you should research the Jundallah, a Sunni "terrorist" group operating in Iran.
Here are a couple links to get you started, but I encourage you to do your own research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah#United_States
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/04/abc_news_exclus/
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/25/top-jundallah-figure-says-us-ordered-attacks/
It is well established that the Mossad commits acts of terrorism all over the world:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...o-time-to-crack-down-on-mossad-terrorism.html
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kkO-fV5YORc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/Mossad/index.html
Also, let's clarify something here. The word "terrorist" is nothing but a label. It is a label we, the United States of America, apply to any pig farmer or goat herder who has the temerity to stand up against our armed invasions. We apply this label in order to demonize someone defending their homeland. Our foreign policy literally creates these people.
Ask yourself this question, and please answer honestly, if China had its military operating inside the United States, and they launched a drone attack that mistakenly blew up your entire family (except you), how long would it be before you picked up a weapon and started shooting at Chinese soldiers?
For me, it would not be long at all. Now, if you are one of those types of people that only believes it's terrorism when the evil brown people do it, then I'd ask you to examine why you hold that illogical belief.
Quote from Trader666:
Regardless of what you believe, Section 10 is the ONLY section of the Constitution containing the words "gold" or "silver" and it imposes no limit or constraint whatsoever on congress.
Regardless of what you say, here's what Article 1 Section 10 actually states:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing 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.
The bold part would, in fact, be a limitation imposed. Fiat money is unconstitutional, as per Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution.
Gold is fiat money if declared "currency".Quote from DAS Trader:
Regardless of what you say, here's what Article 1 Section 10 actually states:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing 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.
The bold part would, in fact, be a limitation imposed. Fiat money is unconstitutional, as per Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution.
Quote from DAS Trader:
When was the last time a nuclear power fired a nuke at another nuclear power? It seems clear that IF Iran wants a nuke, it would be to ensure other nuclear powers (i.e.: Israel, US, et al) stop trying to dictate policy to them. Let's face the facts, Iran is a sovereign nation that has never invaded another country. Are they a state sponsor of terrorism? Yes. So is Israel, and so is America. We conduct kidnappings, assassination, bombings, and those are considered terrorist operations.
Now, I realize that is a hard pill to swallow but make no mistake, the United States both supports and commits acts of terrorism. As an example, you should research the Jundallah, a Sunni "terrorist" group operating in Iran.
Here are a couple links to get you started, but I encourage you to do your own research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah#United_States
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/04/abc_news_exclus/
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/25/top-jundallah-figure-says-us-ordered-attacks/
It is well established that the Mossad commits acts of terrorism all over the world:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...o-time-to-crack-down-on-mossad-terrorism.html
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kkO-fV5YORc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/Mossad/index.html
Also, let's clarify something here. The word "terrorist" is nothing but a label. It is a label we, the United States of America, apply to any pig farmer or goat herder who has the temerity to stand up against our armed invasions. We apply this label in order to demonize someone defending their homeland. Our foreign policy literally creates these people.
Ask yourself this question, and please answer honestly, if China had its military operating inside the United States, and they launched a drone attack that mistakenly blew up your entire family (except you), how long would it be before you picked up a weapon and started shooting at Chinese soldiers?
For me, it would not be long at all. Now, if you are one of those types of people that only believes it's terrorism when the evil brown people do it, then I'd ask you to examine why you hold that illogical belief.
Here is your answer:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UaS2bRGS86c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from Trader666:
Equating Iran with the U.S. shows how flawed and naive your "thinking" is.
You're a kook to use that as a basis for "thinking" the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world can be trusted with nukes.
So you seriously think the Iranian leadership is going to commit suicide? Because that's what handing nukes out to some rogue element amounts to.
I don't trust anybody with nukes. I do not trust Pakistan. I do not trust India. I do not trust Russia. I do not trust Israel. I do not trust China. I do not trust France or Great Britain. I don't trust my own country with nukes. But we're stuck with them. And no country has ever nuked another country that had nukes, a fact that has not escaped the attention of the Iranians. Yes, Iran owning nukes would take away America's or Israel's option of unilaterally nuking Iran some day, just as Israel having 300 nukes takes away Iran's option of unilaterally nuking Israel. America and Israel would have to live with that.
Quote from RCG Trader:
Here is your answer:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UaS2bRGS86c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Although Carlin was both hilarious and insightful, I prefer the words of actual war fighters on the subject. Please join me in welcoming one of only two US Marines to win 2 congressional medals of honor, MajGen Smedley Darlington Butler:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F3_EXqJ8f-0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
"War is a racket"~Smedley Butler