Arugmentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)

[Russ Johnson]

At 03:58 PM 4/2/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Because they went off the gold standard.
>>When we were on the gold standard, the money supply with finite. We 
>>couldn't have more silver certificates or gold bonds than there was gold 
>>and silver in the Federal Reserve. The economy was a zero sum problem at 
>>that time. You couldn't get a dollar without depriving someone else of 
>>that dollar. i.e. If Bill Gates has a Billion Dollars, then someone else 
>>(or a lot of someone elses) don't have that money.
>
>
>This is absolutely not why the federal reserve system was set up.
>Furthermore, I have never heard anything more absurd.

Why was the FRS set up, and why is it absurd?

>>When we went off the gold standard, it became possible for one individual 
>>to make money that didn't deprive anyone else of making money. Bill can 
>>have his money, but the fact that he has it doesn't mean I can't make my 
>>own billion dollars too.
>
>
>Where in the hell did you come up with this?

US History, Churchill High School and Lane Community College.

>>>They used to be inscribed with "Lawful Monry" and the words were 
>>>replaced with "Legal Tender".
>>
>>They also used to claim to be redeemable in silver or gold. Now they aren't
>
>
>You aren't telling me anything new here,  you apparently haven't read any 
>of my cites;  I am aware of the fact that you cannot redeem them... did 
>you not catch that?  If so, why pray tell are you repeating this?  You are 
>agreeing with me.

On that point.

>>The sky isn't falling Chicken Little. My Grandfather used to think the 
>>same way.
>
>Says you.  Quite a simplistic way to discount a national emergency worthy 
>of institutiong the war powers act I should say.

Show me the money. I still haven't seen proof of ANY of your claims.



>>>Since no one seems to understand the significance of not being able to 
>>>pay off a debt with a note that says the US Govt promises to pay the 
>>>federal reserve a dollar, let me try to explain it:
>>
>>I understand it just fine.
>>
>>>The land you paid off with notes is not yours,  even after you "pay" for 
>>>it.  It is owed to the federal reserve; the federal reserve is in 
>>>receivership of all items paid for with FRN's (federal reserve notes)
>>
>>I don't see how this is different from before going off the gold 
>>standard. People still paid property taxes and other taxes to pay for 
>>government programs.
>
>
>Thhis has nothing to do with the gold standard,  it has to do with federal 
>bankruptcy and receivership.  Read the cites fully,  for a change.

Heh, the gold standard was what we had before the money changed, so it has 
EVERYTHING to do with it.

>>>This is one of the reasons you need permission to build on your own land.
>>
>>I think that's false logic.
>
>You just don't get it.  The land is held in receivership. You are a tenant.
>Call it whatver you want,  it is objective fact.

Show me proof.




>>>Another troublesome problem is that you can pay off a note with a 
>>>note;  I have said this before and I say it again.
>>>
>>>People have taken an IOU to the bank and paid off their home loans with 
>>>it;  it is "like kind of money" and fully legal to do.  The fiat money 
>>>scam only works for the banks when you don't know your rights.
>>
>>So me the money. Please provide a validated link to an example of this. 
>>If it's out there, you should have no problem proving your point. I'm not 
>>going to prove it for you.
>
>
>I offered a book as a reference twice.  I checked that book out of the 
>library back in 1993. I returned it,  so maybe you can get a copy.

What was that book? Who wrote it? What was his motivation? (Hint: To sell 
books!)

>A validated link?  Read up on debtor's prisons and the Magna Carta.

Debtor's prisons don't exist anymore. Of what relevance (link please) does 
that or the Magna Carta have to this?

>You mention chickens and cows, and other exceptions,  for what reason?

Do I really need to explain why we use money now instead of trading 
directly for goods and services?

>Our laws do not mention chickens,  do they.

No, but at one time, the blacksmith in town might trade a couple of 
chickens for shoeing a horse. For that matter, it might happen today. It's 
just more convenient with that paper stuff I have in my wallet.

>Do you not think it ok for me to drive home the point that the law does 
>not allow fiat money?

I've heard that argument all my life, and no one, to this day, has been 
able to prove that it's a bad thing, or that the law doesn't allow it. 
Please be specific.

>>>JFK was the last President to print US notes;  yes they can use paper as 
>>>LONG AS it is REDEEMABLE.
>>
>>Why does the 1996 $20 dollar note in my pocket say, "This *note* is legal 
>>tender for all debts, public and private" if it's not a note?
>
>This is simple,  simple stuff here.  One is backed by the US govt and 
>redeemable and once is privately owned and irredeemable,  for 
>starters.  That is a substantial difference I would say.  Why do you 
>trivialize it?

I don't understand how you can say that. How is it privately owned. How is 
it different. How is the note in my pocket NOT backed by the US Govt.




>>>He was killed for doing that and they printed the new one dollar bills 
>>>with his picture on them and released them on the anniversary of his murder.
>>
>>That's a conspiracy theory. Show us proof of these "Kennedy Dollar bills".
>
>
>Why, oh why, can I not prove things to people that are objective?

Because I've never seen one. It's not "objective" to me unless I've seen 
one. Until you told us that story, I'd never heard of a Kennedy dollar 
bill. I've seen plenty of Kennedy half dollars, but no dollar bills.

>   What will you say if you had a 1964 dollar bill in your hand?  That it 
> says "note" on it and therefore whatever the hell I'm saying is 
> unimportant?  I offer the date of the issue and the face on the bill as 
> subtle proofs of the conspiracy,  you won't get it because you don't 
> understand the US history surrounding our money.

No, you are mixing my statements. I was calling your statement of Kennedy 
being killed for printing notes a conspiracy theory. Show me a legitimate 
Kennedy Dollar Bill, and I'll think about it.

>Was there a "plot" to kill JFK?  Yes.  Were there two or more people in 
>the plot? Yes.

Not in dispute.

>That does constitute a conspiracy.
>Your use of the word is designed to trivialize,  discredit, or somehow 
>refute anything I say because I must be a "conspiracy theorist".

Don't take it as a personal attack, because it wasn't one.

>>>Abe Lincoln was the only other one who printed US notes,  he was killed 
>>>as well.
>>
>>Huh? You're losing me. What does this have to do with anything?
>
>It's called a pattern.  It is a point of reference to a pattern that shows 
>whenever a president bucks the federal reserve bankers...  if you can't 
>see the connection just sleep on it or something,  I don't think it is so 
>hard to see.

So a pattern of two killings, nearly 100 years apart... That's quite a pattern.

>>>97% of our money is currently CREDITS on a COMPUTER.
>>>
>>>In the case of a natural disaster we lose our banking system.
>>
>>You think they don't have it backed up on paper? Bet me. I've known too 
>>many people that were part of the banking system to lose that one.
>
>Flood,  fire, the point remains.  Gold doesn't disappear in either.
>"Stable"  would be my point.  Not subject to computer errors, power 
>failure,  fire, flood, earthquake.  Argue away  if you want.

Well, I'm sure I can destroy a gold bar if I wanted to. My point is that 
with redundant backups, and storage on a safe media in multiple locations, 
the chance of losing it becomes astronomically small.

>>>DOes anyone understand the mess it would create if we all paid off our 
>>>IOU's with IOU's?
>>
>>If I paid it with an IOU that I wrote, yes. I'm not. I'm paying with an 
>>IOU from the feds.
>
>But that is your choice.  I am not arguing about what YOU do. I'm pointing 
>out what the law allows,  in relationship to debts, in light of the 
>history of debtors prisons and the creation of the US Constitution which 
>was based on common law.

Maybe the problem is you have this macro overview, and we're not 
understanding it because we don't have the details. Start small, and work up.

>>>I do not provide a lot of cites because this is all PUBLIC RECORD.
>>>This is not "my belief" or "opinion" it is objective fact.
>>
>>Then it should be easy to prove your case. Do so.
>
>I already have,  I believe.  The constitution does not allow fiat currency.

Where? I'm not stupid, I just want you to prove it to me.

>Is that what you want me to prove?  Or what.  That you can pay off a debt 
>with like kind of money? Chickens for chickens,  is the common law.

Where is that law? Where is it written? Can I see a copy, or do I have to 
take your word for it?

>Land for IOU's is not.  If you were the grandson of a farmer who lost his 
>farm to the banks you would be more well-grounded in this concept.

Actually, I have many relatives that lost their land to the banks. They 
borrowed against it, and then it didn't produce. What was the bank supposed 
to do? Eat the loss?

>>Again,  you agree but trivialize.  To what end?  People have said I was 
>>wrong,  it is my "belief" etc., and I offered proof from the 
>>Congressional Record that the US is bankrupt.

You offer a statement, made by a man, to a group of citizens. That's not 
proof of anything except that he talked, and what words came out of his mouth.

>Then they trivialize it, and probably still don't believe it.

Oh, I believe that he talked, and I believe that those were the words that 
came out of his mouth. I'm not ready to believe what those words said.

Russ Johnson
Stargate Online

http://www.dimstar.net
telnet://telnet.dimstar.net
ICQ: 3739685


"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat
                 -- Lewis Carrol