Rick Santorum says, "Vote for Ron Paul" to Limited Government question...

No, it will probably be a totally electronic currency.

 

then why did you bring up sdr's as a possibly being declared legal tender?

 

Don't get all freaky now. I am only telling you what James Madison and Rothchild had to say on the issue.

Rather than ask dumb questions you should spend some time trying to figure out what these fellows meant.

 

i know exactly what they meant, you should ask yourself why you post propaganda you don't understand

why do you think president james madison approved the issuance of $36 million of paper money to help finance the war of 1812 if he was against paper money

 

Becuase it's possible that they will be declared legal tender....

....

 

that's ridiculous, i don't think you understand what sdr's are or how they're used

 

Why? The SDR is already being geared up to replace the dollar as the international reserve currency. I suspect that the IMF and World Bank are aware of the fact that the dollar is on a slippery slope.

This part is nothing more than empty fluff and rhetoric that proves absolutely nothing about my knowledge of SDRs. Your say-so is not good enough. Your have to prove that I don't understand what SDRs are or how they are used, using logic and facts. Not just your emotionally faith-based feel-good opinions.

 

If you know exactly what they meant then why do you continue to ask dumb questions ?

Did Madison say he was against paper money in the quote I gave you ?

NO ! .. so why are you asking a question that assumes that Madison was against paper money.

 

sdr's are used by nations in foreign exchange, they were designed to overcome difficulties like the triffin paradox

to suggest that sdr's would be used by ordinary citizens to purchase goods and service in retail markets is extremely naive

you're projecting

but go ahead and keep posting quotes you don't understand, it's quite amusing

 

Good job, you sleuth. Want a cookie?

What's going to replace the Federal Reserve Note when it fails?

 

you should take an economics or finance class if you're going to discuss these subjects

i learned about sdr's in econ 101 (1976)

aren't you embarrassed to be posting nutty misinformation from propagandists like g edward griffin and alex jones?

i doubt it will be replaced

when do you think it will fail?

 

You don't know what economics classes I've taken. All you did was sprout off a random irrelevent fact about SDRs that didn't disprove anything I said. But you acted as if you disproved what I said. A typical strawman tactic.

Good for you.

Just becuase you're saying I posted misinformation doesn't actually mean I posted any misinformation. You're just trolling.

I've posted nothing from either of them. You're strawmanning again.

Good for you.

When the free market decides that it failed.

 

aren't you embarrassed to be posting nutty misinformation from propagandists like g edward griffin and alex jones?

that's just not true

 

You can spout ad hom all you want but this does not change the fact that you seem to be very confused.

You were given two quotes.

Both of the above quotes suggest that these fellows believed that "whomever controls the money supply has the power".

You respond to the Rothchild quote with nonsense

Your statement does not address the assertion "whomever controls the money supply has the power"

To the Madison quote you respond with more nonsense

What does your above statement have to do with the assertion,"whomever controls the money supply has the power"

After making nonsense statements that show your complete lack of understanding of the assertion in the quotes from Madison and Rothchild ...

..you then spew out some ad hom and accuse me of not understanding the posted quotes.

How do you wish me to respond ? .. How do you respond when confronted with such nonsense ?

 

it's you that's confused if you don't understand the irony of your madison quote when contrasted with his issuance of $36 dollars in unbacked paper money

 

Where have I ever posted something from Alex Jones?
I can see that you're still full of (*)(*)(*)(*). I am not surprised.

What does that have to do with this thread? What have I said from G Edward Griffin in this thread?
I can see that you're still full of (*)(*)(*)(*). I am not surprised.

 

do you understand what 'like' means?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0AJy4pJUE8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0AJy4pJUE8[/ame]

it has to do with you and your posting of misinformation

 

Another predictable dodge.

What does the irony of Madison have to do with Madision and Rothchild's assertion that "whomever controls the money has the power" ?

When your done wandering around sniffing roses in your dreamland garden and want to focus on the topic let me know.

 

what's next, are you going to start asking me to explain jokes to you

so the madison thing flew over your head, let's go back to the rothschild quote

do you think there's a person that currently controls this country's money, if so, who?

 

I see you're just resorting to your usual dodging troll tactics again. After you failed to provide me with proof that I've ever posted anything from Alex Jones. Now that you've been proven to be a liar again, I'll leave it up to others to decide about the integrity of your character. I know I've already made up my mind.

I've posted no misinformation, and you have failed to prove otherwise. You're just full of (*)(*)(*)(*). As is to be expected.

 

isn't that ironic considering that you said you've posted nothing from g edward griffin

then i produced one of your posts citing him as a source


oh yea, just curious, show me what you think proves that i'm a liar

 

I meant in this thread. The fact that you went to another thread of where I cited him as a source proves that you're engaging in nothing more than an ad hominem.

You said I cite from Alex Jones, which is a complete falsehood.

 

but you didn't say, "in this thread"

no i didn't say you cited from alex jones, i said:

"aren't you embarrassed to be posting nutty misinformation from propagandists like g edward griffin and alex jones?"

then i even asked you:

"do you understand what 'like' means?"

but of course you ignored that

like - having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to


if you were to get the straw out of you head and look at the alex jones video, you might see how much like alex jones many of your assertions are

 

Now that you've gotten that out of your system, perhaps we can get back onto the topic we were discussing before you derailed it with your ad hominems.

 

what happened to your proof?