Arugmentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)
Russ Johnson
russj at dimstar.net
Wed Apr 3 05:08:56 UTC 2002
At 05:01 PM 4/2/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>You labor under the belief that Roosevelt did not exercise the War Powers
>Act and change the rules.
>
>He did, and it changed the rules. I am right, and you are wrong.
What war powers act, and how did it change the rules? Specifically, what
did he order that changed things so dramatically, 60 years later.
>Of course, you see everything through tthe lenses of your "no private
>property' glasses and like things better the way they are, and obviously
>have not researched what I'm telling people - that the US declared
>bankruptcy in 1933.
That sounds suspiciously like a personal attack. Where's the paperwork to
show the US declaring BK?
>>>>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?
>>He's not trivializing. He's making the point that you claim no President
>>has authorized the printing of notes since Kennedy, yet there are modern
>>pieces of currency that use the term "note".
>
>
>A US Note, I said no president but Lincoln and Kennedy printed US Notes.
>
>There is a difference, in the details. My statement still stands.
How? You haven't said anything except, "I'm right and you are wrong."
Every note that I have says "This note is legal tender for all debts,
public and private." It's issued by the US Treasury, and printed by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
>>I'd say it's a miracle because they don't exist.
>>Are you sure you're not thinking about the 1964 Kennedy half-dollar coins?
Well? What about this part that you ignored?
>The bankers did, Jeme. The same ones. The difference is again, in the
>details.
Give us the details. All I've seen is a bunch of statements, and no proof
or details.
>>Um, you can write an IOU for a debt, but that IOU is a new debt owed by
>>you (that's what IOU means).
>
>
>Gee, thanks for defining IOU for me Jeme... lol.
Jeme's comment is that paying with an IOU doesn't change anything.
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
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list