Republican Jewish Coalition Bars Ron Paul From Debate: ‘He’s misguided and extreme’

[Trader666]

Yet again you prove you're full of shit.

Your post that I responded to didn't have a question. I asked YOU one and you couldn't answer it so you asked me one, and now you're evading it again.

For the THIRD TIME, explain why there's NO mention of gold and silver other than in Section 10 which limits the states and why, if the Founders were so intent on forbidding Congress, they didn't put it in Section 9 which limits Congress as they did for example with the prohibition against granting titles of nobility which is in BOTH.

Section. 9.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States

Section. 10.

No State shall... grant any Title of Nobility.

Quote from rew:

Of course you have no answer to my question, so you dwell on titles of nobility.

 

[Trader666]

Oh please... doubling down on your ignorance only makes you look more foolish. Even if Iran had a few nukes we could wipe them off the face of the earth before they could respond. Which would not even be necessary if we had good enough intelligence. Anyone with nukes is not the former Soviet Union. And a few nukes does not a nuclear triad make. You're not simply opposed to war, you're a kook.

Quote from rew:

At least I'm not certifiably insane. Anybody who thinks we have the option of unilaterally nuking an nuclear armed country (i.e., nuking them without risk of getting nuked in return) is crazy.

Your neocon warmonger candidates have gotten much less than $37.7k in military donations -- combined. Yes, those contributions look small compared to the big bucks that come from Wall Street, K Street, or Hollywood. Ordinary soldiers don't get paid a lot.

"Isolationist" is used by the war mongers to label people opposed to war. I will carry that badge with pride.

 

[rew]

Quote from Trader666:

Yet again you prove you're full of shit.

Your post that I responded to didn't have a question. I asked YOU one and you couldn't answer it so you asked me one, and now you're evading it again.

For the THIRD TIME, explain why there's NO mention of gold and silver other than in Section 10 which limits the states and why, if the Founders were so intent on forbidding Congress, they didn't put it in Section 9 which limits Congress as they did for example with the prohibition against granting titles of nobility which is in BOTH.

Section. 9.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States

Section. 10.

No State shall... grant any Title of Nobility.

The question was, where does the Constitution have a clause that says congress can pass laws overriding Article 1, section 10?

Show it to me.

Forbidding states to grant titles of nobility does not imply that the federal government can not issue titles of nobility, so the Constitution spells it out that neither entity can issue titles of nobility.

Forbidding states to accept anything but gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debts does not force the federal government to only accept gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debts. BUT it does forbid the federal government from forcing <i>states</i> to accept anything but gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debts. So the federal government can issue paper money but the states can't use it -- which makes the paper money pretty useless.

 

[rew]

Quote from Ricter:

Yeah, I still want that leathern sack with gold nuggets in it. I wanna toss it on the bar and gruffly shout, "whiskey! and leave the bottle!"

There's something about gold that gets the gold skeptics saying stuff like this.

I figure the gold haters are just jealous of people like me who bought gold under $400. The message from the fiat currency mainstream has been something like this:

1999: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and only goes down. Don't buy it.

2000: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and only goes down. Don't buy it.

2001: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and only goes down. Don't buy it.

2002: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and only goes down. Don't buy it.

2003: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and only goes down. Don't buy it.

2004: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is now overpriced. Don't buy it.

2005: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is now overpriced. Don't buy it.

2006: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is in a bubble. Don't buy it.

2007: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is in a bubble. Don't buy it.

2008: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and has CRASHED! See, we told you! The bubble is over. Don't buy it.

2009: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is in a bubble. Don't buy it.

2010: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is in a bubble. Don't buy it.

Of course over this time gold went from under $300 to about $1700 today.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from rew:

...Of course over this time gold went from under $300 to about $1700 today.

Not a very good argument for paper currency backed only by hollow promises.

 

[denner]

Once again I've come to realize that the big anti-Obama-ites that I happened to agree with turn out to be frothing Neo-Cons...

 

[Ricter]

Quote from rew:

There's something about gold that gets the gold skeptics saying stuff like this.

I figure the gold haters are just jealous of people like me who bought gold under $400. The message from the fiat currency mainstream has been something like this:

1999: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and only goes down. Don't buy it.

2000: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and only goes down. Don't buy it.

2001: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and only goes down. Don't buy it.

2002: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and only goes down. Don't buy it.

2003: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and only goes down. Don't buy it.

2004: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is now overpriced. Don't buy it.

2005: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is now overpriced. Don't buy it.

2006: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is in a bubble. Don't buy it.

2007: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is in a bubble. Don't buy it.

2008: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and has CRASHED! See, we told you! The bubble is over. Don't buy it.

2009: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is in a bubble. Don't buy it.

2010: Gold is a barbaric relic that doesn't pay interest and is in a bubble. Don't buy it.

Of course over this time gold went from under $300 to about $1700 today.

I'm not a gold hater, I just see it mainly as a collectable. It has no more inherent value than paper, though. The joke I make is based on the fact that, going back on the gold standard, we'd either use, as a symbol of real wealth, pieces of gold for currency, or we'd use some kind of PAPER, representing gold, two levels of symbolism, and it would be PRINTED. Saying that it could all be "electronic" is coming from the kind of guy that put electric flush toilets in one of our buildings--the power goes out and nobody gets to shit.

 

[Trader666]

Wrong again. You're trying to distort this just as you've tried to distort my points. The operative word is make as in designate, NOT accept.

The states aren't forbidden to accept anything but gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debts, they're forbidden to "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

Forbidding states to designate does not imply that the federal government can't, as with titles of nobility as you've admitted.

Now admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote from rew:

The question was, where does the Constitution have a clause that says congress can pass laws overriding Article 1, section 10?

Show it to me.

Forbidding states to grant titles of nobility does not imply that the federal government can not issue titles of nobility, so the Constitution spells it out that neither entity can issue titles of nobility.

Forbidding states to accept anything but gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debts does not force the federal government to only accept gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debts. BUT it does forbid the federal government from forcing <i>states</i> to accept anything but gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debts. So the federal government can issue paper money but the states can't use it -- which makes the paper money pretty useless.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from denner:

Once again I've come to realize that the big anti-Obama-ites that I happened to agree with turn out to be frothing Neo-Cons...

In my study of history, I was surprised at how often the very hard left and the very hard right agree with each other. Both want maximum polarization.

Why?

Divide and conquer for the leaders. Whom, by the way, have no loyalty to any ideology besides wealth.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from achilles28:

Hows' the kool-aid, Murry?

The US war machine needs an Emmanuel Goldstein. And US allies enjoy their regional dominance underwritten by US body bags. What's so hard about that?

================
Achill;
some spell it '' cool''

Well peace on eath is the first choice;
but for those who declared war on US, Emmanuel is a good name.

A volunteer military is not a new idea.Like David said ''Thy servant slew both the lion & bear & that uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them''1st Samuel 17.