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