Has Ron Paul reached you yet?

[Finnegan]

Didn't the US help Britain when they were enemies of japan?

And...

Britain was allied with America.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Proof? just look around you. Quasi-secret societies like bilderberg and the CFR , bohemian grove, trilateral commission, skull and bones etc.

Oh, yes, of course; the fact that such groups exist and at least some of them hold secret meetings proves that they're actually running the world.

Didn't the US help Britain when they were enemies of japan?

I assume that what you're trying to ask is, "Didn't the US aid Britain while Britain was at war with Japan, and the United States was neutral?" I asked you before to clarify whether or not you know when Japan went to war with Britain. The Japanese Invasion of Malaya^WP occurred shortly after midnight, December 8, 1941, local time (about 0630 December 7, 1941, Hawaii time).

The invasion force was spotted on both December 6 and 7 December by Lockheed Hudson aircraft and a PBY Catalina sea plane which was shot down while trying to shadow the fleet. Flying Officer Bedell, commanding the Catalina, and his crew became the first [western] Allied casualties in the war with Japan.

So the answer is no; the United States never aided Britain against Japan while Japan was at war with Britain but not at war with the United States

Let me ask you another question, RPIR. Some of your responses imply that you believe the United States was right to fight Germany. Ignoring the issue of Hitler's having declared war on the United States, is that what you believe? Was America right to intervene in the European war?

Look, there is prominent evidence that Roosevelt whose uncle was on the board that created the federal reserve, wanted to get into this war. They wanted pearl harbor to unfold. That is the argument being made.

This is a complete canard. The fact is that FDR's military advisors were begging him to delay entering the war as long as possible in order to give them more time to prepare. You made much of the quotation from Henry L. Stimson. Here's another one from his diary:

Nov. 6. [1941] I left for the White House and had about an hour's talk with the President—on the whole a good talk. . . . We talked about the Far Eastern situation and the approaching conference with the messenger who is coming from Japan. The President outlined what he thought he might say. He was trying to think of something which would give us further time. He suggested he might propose a truce in which there would be no movement or armament for six months. . . .

I told him I frankly saw two great objections: first, that it tied up our hands just at a time when it was vitally important that we should go on completing our reenforcement of the Philippines; and, second, that the Chinese would feel that any such arrangement was a desertion of them. [bolding mine]

Further:

Nov. 7. Cabinet meeting this afternoon. The President opened with telling the story of Lincoln and his Cabinet—how he polled the Cabinet and found them all polling NO and then he said, "The Ayes have it."

With that he started to have what he said was the first general poll of his Cabinet and it was on the question of the Far East—whether the people would back us up in case we struck at Japan down there and what the tactics should be.

He went around the table—first [Secretary of State Cordell] Hull and then myself, and then around through the whole number and it was unanimous in feeling the country would support us. He said that this time the vote IS unanimous, he feeling the same way. . . . [bolding mine]

And finally, the quotation you cited, in context:

Nov. 25. . . .

The President brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked, perhaps (as soon as) next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. . . . [bolding mine]

As for Lusitania, I meant exactly what I said educate the american civilians. In all aspects of the word. Educate the American civilians.

Educate them about what? That the Americans aboard the Lusitania were traveling at their own risk? That no one should have traveled aboard a belligerent's ship in time of war? Please be much more specific about what actions you feel the US government should have taken that might have avoided American involvement in World War I.

 

[Pinch]

There should be a "Hell No" option for that poll, as well as an option to vote as many times as one needed to in order to get the point across that Ron Paul is a lunatic.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There should be a "Hell No" option for that poll, as well as an option to vote as many times as one needed to in order to get the point across that Ron Paul is a lunatic.

I wonder how he has accomplished so much in his life whilst being a lunatic.



Are you making the argument that one needs to be crazy to live a productive happy life?

 

[UserGoogol]

The idea that the Federal Reserve's legitimized counterfeiting is somehow different from criminal counterfeiting, is as morally and intellectually bankrupt as the idea that state sanctioned murder under the auspices of war is any different than what the common murderer does.

There is nothing wrong with counterfeiting per se. All goods inevitably fluctuate in value, money is no different, whether or not counterfeiting is going on. If I were to counterfeit a thousand dollars, it would benefit me quite a bit and the impact on everyone else would be insignificant compared to the natural fluctuations of life. The only problem with counterfeiting is that if everyone was able to counterfeit whenever they wanted, there would be monetary chaos as more money is created whenever the hell people want stuff, which would create a complete failure of trust in the money and the money would quickly become worthless. But if the ability to counterfeit money is concentrated in a single accountable body, that's not a problem, since they can counterfeit money at a smooth predictable pace, allowing people to predict with a fair degree of precision what their money will be worth in the future.

[ETA: In a sense counterfeiting is theft, but there's nothing inherently wrong with theft either. One person benefits, one person loses, so it's a wash and then you can quantify how much the benefit was and how much the loss was and decide if it's a good thing or a bad thing. The main problem with theft is again, if people can steal indiscriminately, it would destroy the stability of the market and a lot of time would be wasted with people stealing stuff back and forth.]

 

[CptColumbo]

Let me ask you another question, RPIR. Some of your responses imply that you believe the United States was right to fight Germany. Ignoring the issue of Hitler's having declared war on the United States, is that what you believe? Was America right to intervene in the European war?

Its hard to ignore Hitler's declaration of war, considering that the US had no other reason to go to war with Germany.

It's one of those things that always baffles me about Pearl Harbor conspiracies; the FDR administration wanted to help Britain in the European part of the war. So they provoked a war with Japan? There was no guarantee that Germany and Italy would declare war on the US if Japan attacked us first.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

All goods inevitably fluctuate in value, money is no different, whether or not counterfeiting is going on.

Money is not a good. Money is a means of convenient transaction of goods.

 

[RandFan]

Money is not a good. Money is a means of convenient transaction of goods.

Actually, money is a good. It's a commodity. Traded like any other good.

“The commodity that functions as a measure of value, and, either in its own person or by a representative, as the medium of circulation, is money. Gold (or silver) is therefore money."
--Marx

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

You realize quoting Marx means Jerome's going to ignore your post, right?

 

[RandFan]

You realize quoting Marx means Jerome's going to ignore your post, right?

~Meh.

Don't get me wrong, I actually like Jerome but I don't really care if he ignores me or not. His statement is demonstrably false regardless of his thoughts on Marx.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Write in Ron Paul.

I can't, I'm too intelligent.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You realize quoting Marx means Jerome's going to ignore your post, right?

Why would I do that?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Actually, money is a good. It's a commodity. Traded like any other good.

“The commodity that functions as a measure of value, and, either in its own person or by a representative, as the medium of circulation, is money. Gold (or silver) is therefore money."
--Marx

Money being traded for other money does not make it a commodity.

Marx is wrong.

 

[RandFan]

Money being traded for other money does not make it a commodity.

Actually it does since that is the definition of commodity.

commodity

More generally, a product which trades on a commodity exchange; this would also include foreign currencies and financial instruments and indexes.

I'm not usually hip on arguing semantics since words are simply the means to convey information from one person to another. I don't care if you call a rose a bus so long as I know what you are talking about. However there are times when a word specifically defines something and there is zero controversy as to the meaning of the word. In this case every commodity trader in the world will tell you that money is a commodity.

Marx is wrong.

Because....?

 

[CptColumbo]

Because....?

Because he didn't know who "the Hammers" are. So he didn't win the lovely lounge suite.

or was it when Coventry City last won the English Football Cup?

 

[ronpaulisright]

Oh, yes, of course; the fact that such groups exist and at least some of them hold secret meetings proves that they're actually running the world.




I assume that what you're trying to ask is, "Didn't the US aid Britain while Britain was at war with Japan, and the United States was neutral?" I asked you before to clarify whether or not you know when Japan went to war with Britain. The Japanese Invasion of Malaya^WP occurred shortly after midnight, December 8, 1941, local time (about 0630 December 7, 1941, Hawaii time).




So the answer is no; the United States never aided Britain against Japan while Japan was at war with Britain but not at war with the United States

Let me ask you another question, RPIR. Some of your responses imply that you believe the United States was right to fight Germany. Ignoring the issue of Hitler's having declared war on the United States, is that what you believe? Was America right to intervene in the European war?




This is a complete canard. The fact is that FDR's military advisors were begging him to delay entering the war as long as possible in order to give them more time to prepare. You made much of the quotation from Henry L. Stimson. Here's another one from his diary:




Further:




And finally, the quotation you cited, in context:







Educate them about what? That the Americans aboard the Lusitania were traveling at their own risk? That no one should have traveled aboard a belligerent's ship in time of war? Please be much more specific about what actions you feel the US government should have taken that might have avoided American involvement in World War I.

I made myself perfectly clear on education. I will not Explain myself further if you are this dense.

Wilson should not have participated in the versailles treaty. Look, it's not that complex. We had to go to war because germany declared war on us and we were attacked by the japanese. The question for debate is, was pearl harbor wanted and/or provoked?

 

[ronpaulisright]

monetary chaos as more money is created whenever the hell people want stuff, which would create a complete failure of trust in the money and the money would quickly become worthless

And that's happening right now because they print money out of thin air!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because....?

Because a commodity is not by definition money.

Commodity: an economic good: as a: a product of agriculture or mining b: an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment c: a mass-produced unspecialized product


Money does not fit the definition.


Money: something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as a: officially coined or stamped metal currency


Money is the tool used to conveniently trade commodities.

Money has no value in itself, commodities do.

 

[RandFan]

Because a commodity is not by definition money.

You are being obtuse. I posted the definition.

By defintion it IS a commodity.

commodity

More generally, a product which trades on a commodity exchange; this would also include foreign currencies and financial instruments and indexes.

I know you don't like facts but that's life.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You are being obtuse. I posted the definition.

By defintion it IS a commodity.



I know you don't like facts but that's life.

Your definition is a definition used colloquially.

By this logic than it is a fact that a timber is a match.