The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

a reply to: Krazysh0t

AND?

Thus the fiat currency was born.
In 1933, FDR began fiddling with gold reserve requirements. He suspended the gold standard except for foreign exchange, revoked it as the universal legal tender for debts, and banned private ownership of significant amounts of gold coins. These were all partial measures that set the trend in motion for separating our currency from gold. The final move to turn the US dollar into a complete fiat currency was made by President Nixon in 1971 when he canceled the direct convertibility of the US dollar into gold.

FDR doesn't sound guilty in that but Nixon does to You? You're completely delusional.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

A cowardly response. You stated that the Democrats have kept Black Americans oppressed with their policies. Black Americans are just as bright, just as educated and just as worldly as any demographic ... so please kindly explain how the the Democrats have managed to hoodwink Black Americans.

a reply to: CarlsBad

And you are wrong. FDR wasn't the first to implement fiat currency. He did implement it. Briefly, but he wasn't the first and he wasn't the most current one who did it. So don't move the goal posts and finally admit how you were wrong.

Also, I don't have a problem with the fiat currency. I don't consider any president "guilty" for having implemented it. I am just speaking matter of factly about our history. You are making the mistake of assuming that I agree with your absurd notion that a gold standard is somehow better than fiat currency. Both have their obvious flaws and neither is really better than the other. At least with fiat currency recessions and bank runs aren't as common.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

...hes the first to try to move the nation to it.

More irrelevant details, yes there was tender currency before FDR, but it was looked as positive and was locally operated. We're talking about FORCIBLY moving the NATION off gold.

I knew from the beginning you were completely delusional and only interested in being wrong for the sake of argument, so you can have a nice day and reply yourself into oblivion now. I never even said one system is better, 80% of what you say is talking to yourself and strawman, then you cry over this very feature of arguement. You're here to argue, not be correct.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

As I promised ... your post is partisan because you glorify one party and damn the other.

It is dishonest because you have made statements that I KNOW FROM OUR PAST CHATS you know are untrue, misleading, ridiculous and wrong.

originally posted by: CarlsBad
a reply to: Krazysh0t

...hes the first to try to move the nation to it.

More irrelevant details, yes there was tender currency before FDR, but it was looked as positive and was locally operated. We're talking about FORCIBLY moving the NATION off gold.

Moving the goal posts.

I knew from the beginning you were completely delusional and only interested in being wrong for the sake of argument, so you can have a nice day and reply yourself into oblivion now. I never even said one system is better, 80% of what you say is talking to yourself and strawman, then you cry over this very feature of arguement.

Ad hominem.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Rofl moving posts coming from you, the guy that says it was Nixon, who probably wasn't even alive at the conception of this plan. The only thing more sad about you disproving my argument is it makes yours look even worse each time

a reply to: CarlsBad

The argument that FDR was the first to implement fiat even though I just proved to you he wasn't? But that's ok because it was "good for the country?" No. That is moving the goal posts. Your argument is completely incoherent and shattered.

But I thought you were done talking to me?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Btw that "ad hom" has some facts behind me cursing you out for putting words in my mouth, and that's not an uncommon reaction for such either. You said I said something I never said, go back and read it all you want, that's what you did, and you were called out, and rather than addressing that you type "ad hom".

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A cowardly response.

Pfft.

You stated that the Democrats have kept Black Americans oppressed with their policies. Black Americans are just as bright, just as educated and just as worldly as any demographic ... so please kindly explain how the the Democrats have managed to hoodwink Black Americans.

More straw for your strawman.

I never said black Americans have an inferior intellect -- although the stats show there is still a disparity in our education system. I don't blame it on an inferior intellect though. That's something you apparently believe is some kind of legitimate debate. Not me, though, I find that abhorrent. So shame on you.

I blame the disparity on failures in our educational system.

AND I sure never claimed that white Americans aren't completely led by their noses to vote Democrat or Republican...so how you developed your strawman is beyond me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I never even use the word fiat you scrub, the argument is that he removed the gold standard, and he did. I posted a source quote for you to attack, because you're nothing without petty details of ripping apart my sentences that aren't intended to be jarring anyway, as much as they have been to laugh at you. You think my ad hom were the serious parts of the argument? LOL no way youre that dumb.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

As I promised ... your post is partisan because you glorify one party and damn the other.

It is dishonest because you have made statements that I KNOW FROM OUR PAST CHATS you know are untrue, misleading, ridiculous and wrong.

How did I glorify Republicans? I directly suggested they not be so foolish as to let Democrats pin their racist legacy on them. I think THEY are being hoodwinked, by Democrats. And you just suggested that me saying a group of people have been fooled and hoodwinked is tantamount to calling them intellectually inferior.

Glorified. Ha. I have only stated the Democratic party's legacy is their own, and NOT the Republican party's legacy.

But that's glorification to you. Got it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CarlsBad


But I thought you were done talking to me?

Talking to me? You do nothing but spin, you're currently trying to prove Nixon started something that existed before he was alive, good luck.

I blamed FDR out of responsibility, I knew you read this before because you called me "Captian caps". My goalposts haven't move dumbass, I know its not like he was personally the bank that pushed for it. I blame him because he allowed this to be the direction, your complete argument and goal posts is to just contradict my reasonable stance as much as you can to be a cock face on the internet, you think I take you seriously or care? I'm done talking to you when I please, you're the one teetering on your seat to push reply because your part in the conversation loses meaning without it, this is why you only reply to me.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Which party has the legacy of more states rights, less federal government, and less taxes?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Which party has the legacy of more states rights, less federal government, and less taxes?

The Libertarian Party.

Join us.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Which party has the legacy of more states rights, less federal government, and less taxes?

Historically, I would give it to Democrats.

Currently, I would give it to Libertarians, except they would put individual rights above states rights.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Currently, I would give it to Libertarians, except they would put individual rights above states rights.

Winning.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And which party has the legacy of less state rights, more federal government and more taxes?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
And which party has the legacy of less state rights, more federal government and more taxes?

I'll take, 'What is the Communist Party?' for $2,000 Alex.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Its common knowledge. In fact this is the first time ive ever seen anyone deny the nazis were eugenicists. Its so known it doesnt even require sources. Like arguing the sky isnt blue, you are.

Im stuck on crappy phone ibterface so youll have to manage the lack of my usual citation overkill. But if you go on tge google youll find endless materials im sure.