Despising the New Deal & hating FDR while your immediate family benefited...

[Oddball]

My word ???


Hey ******* liar, I prooved they could have gotten another precious metal instead of what you call fiat currency.

You gave nothing but story

Irrelevant to the fact that gold was outlawed, birdbrain.

The Roosevelt Gold Confiscation Order Of April 3 1933.

 

[Truthmatters]

It was NOT outlawed you ******* idiot , you could own up to 5 troy ounces

 

[Dante]

Fannie Mae: such a new deal!

Fannie Mae, helped more families with home purchases throughout the years than any program I know of. Just because FF got caught up in the decades of greed is good, and lost site of a few things is no reason to -- oh wait -- you're objection is one based on ideology, not facts.

never mind

 

[Oddball]

It was NOT outlawed you ******* idiot , you could own up to 5 troy ounces

Cold comfort, when your entire bank savings was in gold coin of the realm.

But I guess any excuse you need to let your overdressed hoodlum of a demigod president off the hook for being a flat out thief.

 

[Truthmatters]

oddball arent you a mailman?

 

[Truthmatters]

It was NOT outlawed you ******* idiot , you could own up to 5 troy ounces

Cold comfort, when your entire bank savings was in coin of the realm.

But I guess any excuse you need to let your overdressed hoodlum of a demigod president off the hook for being a flat out thief.

Are you now just going to pretend they could not have gotten silver bullion in trade for the gold?

You are lying about your family and anyone who has followed this thread now knows it.

 

[Oddball]

Irrelevant.

Silver isn't gold.

FDR robbed the people of their constitutional money...Period.

 

[Truthmatters]

Bullshit.

robbing means not getting anything in return.

They could get a number of choices in return for the gold.

You lied about them losing their investment or lied entirely about them even having any to loswe

 

[Oddball]

OK...Let me come and steal your nice flat screen teevee and leave an old B&W set in its place.

After all, you can still watch the football game.

You controlling my "choices" means that I in fact have no choice.

Thief.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

your premise: to the detriment. bad

if crops were subject to supply and demand an farmers went out of business and the farm economy collapsed. more people would be hurt for longer. and the US would lose big r=time.

the fact that people go without and the destroyed crops could be used (oh wait they are in some cases -- government surplus food... my bad, and yours). ...............

you are mixing issues. the national government has a duty to protect the union.

Your notion that the national government has no duty here is wrongheaded. The federal government's responsibility is to keeping the union from being dissolved by 'angry vindictive persons.'. -Jefferson's buddy Justice Johnson

So the farm economy would have collapsed, because as prices went down and their products became more affordable people wouldn't have bought them?

Destroyed crops could be used? Keyword being destroyed.

No, the federal government has a duty to protect liberty.

Like Jefferson, you live in a dream world were agrarianism is some kind of mythical utopia -- it's not and it never was.

The federal government has a duty to only protect liberty?

And this thread has nothing to do with liberty.

We fought your ideas long ago. With Jefferson/Madison and Marshall and with the traitorous insurrection commonly know as the Confederate rebellion.

Well I don't know about agrarianism being a mythical utopia, but it's basic economics to know that as prices go down demand goes up. So if the price of corn goes down more people are going to buy it.

Maybe in your mind it has nothing to do with liberty. But I bet the people who lived through the Depression wish their government hadn't forced them to suffer on behalf of farmers.

Yes, the battle between liberty and statism has been going on a long time.

 

[The Infidel]

Bullshit.

robbing means not getting anything in return.

They could get a number of choices in return for the gold.

You lied about them losing their investment or lied entirely about them even having any to loswe

Its robbery when you are threatened with a gun to do it or else....and dont tell me they were'nt threatening with guns, b/c you know damn well that if they refused to fork over what was theirs.... they would go to jail or worse case scenario... die at the hands of law enforcement.

Plain and simple.... ROBBERY!

Gawd damn you are stupid!

 

[Truthmatters]

Bullshit.

robbing means not getting anything in return.

They could get a number of choices in return for the gold.

You lied about them losing their investment or lied entirely about them even having any to loswe

Its robbery when you are threatened with a gun to do it or else....and dont tell me they were'nt threatening with guns, b/c you know damn well that if they refused to fork over what was theirs.... they would go to jail or worse case scenario... die at the hands of law enforcement.

Plain and simple.... ROBBERY!

Gawd damn you are stupid!

No it was American law at the time.

BTW
the next year gold was worth 35 a troy ounce so the plan worked

 

[The Infidel]

Bullshit.

robbing means not getting anything in return.

They could get a number of choices in return for the gold.

You lied about them losing their investment or lied entirely about them even having any to loswe

Its robbery when you are threatened with a gun to do it or else....and dont tell me they were'nt threatening with guns, b/c you know damn well that if they refused to fork over what was theirs.... they would go to jail or worse case scenario... die at the hands of law enforcement.

Plain and simple.... ROBBERY!

Gawd damn you are stupid!

No it was American law at the time.

BTW
the next year gold was worth 35 a troy ounce so the plan worked

The ends justify the means.... right?




**** off.... I dont think so Mertyl.

 

[Oddball]

Bullshit.

robbing means not getting anything in return.

They could get a number of choices in return for the gold.

You lied about them losing their investment or lied entirely about them even having any to loswe

Its robbery when you are threatened with a gun to do it or else....and dont tell me they were'nt threatening with guns, b/c you know damn well that if they refused to fork over what was theirs.... they would go to jail or worse case scenario... die at the hands of law enforcement.

Plain and simple.... ROBBERY!

Gawd damn you are stupid!

No it was American law at the time.

BTW
the next year gold was worth 35 a troy ounce so the plan worked

So, American law was used to rob the people.

Something you have no problem with, as long as the thief has that (D) by his name.

 

[Truthmatters]

awww the facts hurt your little feelings.

so be it

 

[johnrocks]

If government in any way limits my options then it is not a real option, if I can only have five troy ounces and the rest has to be replaced, it kills the argument that it is choice, it goes against what liberty is.

 

[Dante]

If government in any way limits my options then it is not a real option, if I can only have five troy ounces and the rest has to be replaced, it kills the argument that it is choice, it goes against what liberty is.

jesus, you're a dolt.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If government in any way limits my options then it is not a real option, if I can only have five troy ounces and the rest has to be replaced, it kills the argument that it is choice, it goes against what liberty is.

jesus, you're a dolt.

No, he's right.

 

[Truthmatters]

Would you feel the same about needed metals for the war effort?

This was the worst period in history and they could not effect the currency market without controlling the gold.

It was bring things under control or watch the country fail.

You do realise it could have gone into freefall and ended the Union right?

 

[Dante]

So the farm economy would have collapsed, because as prices went down and their products became more affordable people wouldn't have bought them?

Destroyed crops could be used? Keyword being destroyed.

No, the federal government has a duty to protect liberty.

Like Jefferson, you live in a dream world were agrarianism is some kind of mythical utopia -- it's not and it never was.

The federal government has a duty to only protect liberty?

And this thread has nothing to do with liberty.

We fought your ideas long ago. With Jefferson/Madison and Marshall and with the traitorous insurrection commonly know as the Confederate rebellion.

Well I don't know about agrarianism being a mythical utopia, but it's basic economics to know that as prices go down demand goes up. So if the price of corn goes down more people are going to buy it.

Maybe in your mind it has nothing to do with liberty. But I bet the people who lived through the Depression wish their government hadn't forced them to suffer on behalf of farmers.

Yes, the battle between liberty and statism has been going on a long time.

Basic economic principles have failed us time and time again. Most economic models are a step above voodoo. Use them, sure, but believe they hold the key? crazy.


take things out of context all you want. you always need to in order to validate flawed premises.

The government forced people to suffer on behalf of farmers? Wow! those farmers must have had a strong lobby, lots of money and millions of votes.