Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich On Presidents War Power

[coadie]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Coadie actually makes sense sometimes!
At his worst, he still makes far more sense than some other posters!

That video should have been broken into 2 topics. Creation of currency and creation of war movements without Congress.

in 2007 Pres Bush moving without Congress for fighting was an impeachable offense for Biden and Obama. Today they call it good policy.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by coadie

That video should have been broken into 2 topics. Creation of currency and creation of war movements without Congress.

in 2007 Pres Bush moving without Congress for fighting was an impeachable offense for Biden and Obama. Today they call it good policy.

The war powers discussion was the original intent. Hence the title.

But it doesn't appear to have gone that way.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

The war powers discussion was the original intent. Hence the title.

But it doesn't appear to have gone that way.

I'm not sure I agree with the war in Libya.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'm not sure I agree with the war in Libya.

I do not agree with the war in Libya.

But I find the tendency over the last decade or so to go to war with countries completely outside the confines of the constitution very disturbing.

This country increasingly operates while barely giving lip service to it's founding document. We have reached a place that what feels right is the judge of our powers. The end of the constitution is the end of America as we know it.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Yep! I can understand Ron's perspective too. But that's part of what made it funny... that he sees counterfitting as printing non gold (or silver) backed money.

As did the Constitution.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by digging4truth

as did the constitution.

??? Where ??? Because I've sure not seen that!

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by jfrog

LOL. I can't spell it? I must be an idiot since someone done pointed out how to spell it to me. Nope, it's that I don't care about spelling it correctly. And then to see someone jump on my spelling as evidence that I shouldn't be discussing something due to lack of understanding... that is classic.

So moving on... I was going to drop the whole thing about Ron Paul saying what the federal reserve did was counterfitting because it really doesn't matter, but I've decided after you questioned my intelligence over that and spelling that it's worth defending myself. So here is my defense: At minute 10:28 in the video you posted Ron Paul says, "...But here we just casually accept, well the federal reserve we don't know who they are but they always do good things, we'll just let them counterfit."

So yes, I heard Ron Paul perfectly clear (apparently much clearer than you). He said the Federal Reserve counterfitted. Now, I understand that this doesn't answer the bigger question and that is whether he said that the Federal Reserve has always counterfitted. So in defense of that statement: At minute 10:13 Ron Paul said, "Printing money is literally counterfit and if you equate it to counterfit the founders hated counterfit and in the coins acts of 1792 they said that if you counterfit the currency of the nation you deserve the death penatly. But here we just casually accept, well the federal reserve we don't know who they are but they always do good things, we'll just let them counterfit."

So what does all this mean together? Well it means that printing money is counterfitting and if you equate that to adding zeroes to bank accounts like the federal reserve did this time then that is counterfitting too. So how does this show he said the Federal Reserve has always been counterfitting? Well, the Federal Reserve has always been either printing money (which he called counterfitting) or adding zeroes to accounts (which he also called counterfitting)... so I think I've let him speak for himself when I claimed he said the Federal Reserve has always been counterfitting.

Now if there is a better way to understand his words I am open to it. But don't call me an idiot or imply that I am one just because I understood what he said differently than you.

I am going to respond to this post as to not leave it unanswered. I also hope to respond in a manner that does not leave a challenge to you so that we can, hopefully, get this thread back on course to it's intended subject.

My point was that Ron Paul was talking about 3+ trillion dollars printed for foreign countries by a non government entity and without the permission or knowledge of the United States Government.

But... to answer what you are saying...

Yes... Ron Paul does... in the broader sense... consider the printing of fiat money backed by nothing by a non government entity tantamount to counterfeiting.

I do too.

I was attempting to discuss his words in the context of the video and the actions of the Federal Reserve that were being discussed. But our money supply is fiat. It is empty. It is backed by nothing but belief that we will be able to pay our debts. That is it's only worth.

In this sense... The Federal Reserve is little more than a counterfeiter with license to operate.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I do not agree with the war in Libya.

But I find the tendency over the last decade or so to go to war with countries completely outside the confines of the constitution very disturbing.

This country increasingly operates while barely giving lip service to it's founding document. We have reached a place that what feels right is the judge of our powers. The end of the constitution is the end of America as we know it.

The end of the constitution as we know it? ....that happened with the Louisiana Purchase!

But otherwise we do go to war and are the aggressors quite a bit. If China was doing what we are doing we would have done demonized them and tried to blow them off the map.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The end of the constitut/ion as we know it? ....that happened with the Louisiana Purchase!

But otherwise we do go to war and are the aggressors quite a bit. If China was doing what we are doing we would have done demonized them and tried to blow them off the map.

Right.

I completely disagree with the United States "police of the world" or "global big daddy" method of operation since 9/11 and the Bush era. Of course many of those in charge in the Bush era were members of The Project For A New American Century which stated in their article titled Rebuilding Americas Defenses that this is what they wanted to do. But they also noted that it would take a long time to accomplish absent another "Pearl Harbor type event". About a year later... 9/11. And here we are.

But... purely coincidence. Nothing to see here.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by jfrog

??? Where ??? Because I've sure not seen that!

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures etc etc etc...

I must go ahead and explain this because it takes more than a cursory reading of these things to understand what is being said.

The original Articles of Confederation allowed congress to "Coin money" and "emit bills of credit". The paper we have in our pockets are bills of credit. Or... more accurately... bills of debt.

When the Constitutional Convention convened to replace the Articles of Confederation much heated discussion took place on whether to include or remove the statement "Emit bills of credit". It was decided that Congress would be given the power to coin money but their power to emit bills of credit would be removed.

We use terms like "money" so loosely these days that when we read something like this we say... see... they can print money. They can... per the Constitution... print money backed by intrinsic value. That is money.

But they were not given the power to emit bills of credit. Better said... the power was removed that they should be able to print bills of credit.

ALL Federal Reserve Notes are bills of credit and are unconstitutional. One might call them... counterfeit.