Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[twostrokenut]

Why would this style manual have anything to do with the original text of the constitution?

"Capitalization is one of the facets of language that is more varied from language to language, and the rules defining capitalization are more liberal than other rules in American English. In some languages, such as German, all nouns are capitalized. In English the same practice was in place until around 1800."
http://linguistlist.org/issues/21/21-4355.html

"What capital-ist Tea Partiers fail to realize, however, is that their orthography imitates not Thomas Jefferson and James Madison but the far-less famous Timothy Matlack and Jacob Shallus—a couple of secretaries. No one played a larger role in crafting the Declaration and the Constitution than Jefferson and Madison, respectively, but it was Matlack and Shallus who hand wrote the official, signed versions of these documents and freely recapitalized them as they saw fit. By contrast, in Jefferson's drafts of the Declaration, there's a striking absence of caps—he writes "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness," for example. As H.L. Mencken noted, "nature and creator, and even god are in lower case."

In the century prior to 1765, nouns were generally capitalized. (The reason for this is now obscure; Benjamin Franklin hypothesized that earlier writers "imitated our Mother Tongue, the German.") By the Revolutionary War era, however, chaos was the rule. Everyone, it seems, had a different style, and individual authors vacillated from one sentence to the next. The old heavy-caps system still appealed to many writers, including some Founding Fathers: When Adams made a personal copy of Jefferson's draft, he wrote, "We hold these Truths to be Self evident; that all Men are created equal and independent.""
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2010/11/capital_embellishment.html

The second article is quite a bit longer and more thorough, so I highly suggest continuing it.

either of those statutory or otherwise lawful? Ok I won't bother then, thanks....also start signing your name on your business cards in all lowercase your customers will love it and think of you very competently.

 

[twostrokenut]

Exactly, that's why your argument is bunk. No one in 1900 could have taken their $1 coin and obtained $20 for it on the market. All they had was $1, with the silver in the coin worth substantially less than that. So how was a person earning $1 earning more than a nurse today? They weren't. The market price of silver had nothing to do with wealth then and today's market price has nothing to do with wealth then either.

Also I just noticed I was speaking in ratios and you are trying to balance them by only cross multiplying one side to balance........if the ppl then are obtaining market now for the coin then ppl now should obtain market then for paper to balance not your weird approach not known to any one but you.

 

[tokeprep]

Quote it then fucker to hell with your accusations it's really annoying.

Here you go:

Pure and complete speculation. Henry Ford farm? Wright Brothers farm? Ben Franklin farm? Oh wait you're a race baiter and those are white guys.

George Washington Carver a farmer?
Thomas L. Jennings?
Norbert Rillieux?
Benjamin Bradley?

Your fails have graduated to epic.

 

[tokeprep]

either of those statutory or otherwise lawful? Ok I won't bother then, thanks....also start signing your name on your business cards in all lowercase your customers will love it and think of you very competently.

You haven't shown a single statute or a single court case that says the capitalization in the constitution is significant. Not one. I said it was a remnant of German influence on the English language and you accused me of calling you an ignorant southerner. I'm merely showing you that it was not uncommon to capitalize nouns in English in the 1700s; that it was a matter of personal style totally variable between framers, even with literally the same sentence; and that the choices were made by the calligraphers who wrote the document, not necessarily the authors.

The Declaration of Independence, which you have repeatedly referred to, is the perfect example. Jefferson did not capitalize in his declaration, and yet the printer capitalized tons of words. The capitalization has no significance. Likewise, it has no significance on a business card other than looking "proper."

 

[tokeprep]

Also I just noticed I was speaking in ratios and you are trying to balance them by only cross multiplying one side to balance........if the ppl then are obtaining market now for the coin then ppl now should obtain market then for paper to balance not your weird approach not known to any one but you.

What are you talking about? I'm not trying to balance anything. All I'm saying is that $1 was worth $1; the price of silver was well below that $1. The person who got and spent that coin only had $1, and even less in silver value. That was their real wealth. Period.

A silver coin today is worth $20 because of the metal content and for no other reason. It makes no sense to apply current market values for metal to coins that were made out of it 100 years earlier and to pretend that that value represents the "real" wealth a person then had at their disposal.

 

[twostrokenut]

LOL your are reaching for anything as you drown.........here is the first instance of race in our conversation...........by you.....

Where original intent is still relevant, I think it's properly invoked. Where it's irrelevant--slavery, women's rights, and everything of that sort--it's meaningless.

You said something about not recognizing the accomplishments of white people and then listed off a bunch of accomplished black people, and I think you said something even more direct than that, actually. Apparently you thought this because of what I said about slavery and the constitution.

Why would I have a GPO style manual?

• What race card is it that you think I'm playing...?​

• So you're a hypocrite then. So you don't actually believe what you say. That's exactly my point. The fact that they promised men the blessings of liberty doesn't mean that they actually granted them those blessings; indeed, we know for a fact they didn't. The constitution did not end slavery, which means it must not have meant liberty for all as you're trying to suggest.​

• You are playing the race card because you brought up slavery in an attempt to detract from the economic points at hand rather than fail at defending your argument.​

• Most people farmed to survive. That's your answer. Work really hard all your life and still have little to show for it--that's been the reality for most people in human history. Hard money never knew the comfortable plenty that we know today. ​

Pure and complete speculation. Henry Ford farm? Wright Brothers farm? Ben Franklin farm? Oh wait you're a race baiter and those are white guys.

George Washington Carver a farmer?Thomas L. Jennings?
Norbert Rillieux?
Benjamin Bradley?

Your fails have graduated to epic.

• 
  
  ​
  
  

CiRCuLAR................bordering mental retardation now on your side.

 

[twostrokenut]

What are you talking about? I'm not trying to balance anything. All I'm saying is that $1 was worth $1; the price of silver was well below that $1. The person who got and spent that coin only had $1, and even less in silver value. That was their real wealth. Period.

A silver coin today is worth $20 because of the metal content and for no other reason. It makes no sense to apply current market values for metal to coins that were made out of it 100 years earlier and to pretend that that value represents the "real" wealth a person then had at their disposal.

Yup "$1 was worth $1" now you got it.....good job knew you could figure it out yourself.

 

[twostrokenut]

Enjoy the ride.......

 

[tokeprep]

LOL your are reaching for anything as you drown.........here is the first instance of race in our conversation...........by you.....

• 
  

CiRCuLAR................bordering mental retardation now on your side.

You told me to quote you saying what you said and I just did. I'm not reaching for anything.

 

[tokeprep]

Yup "$1 was worth $1" now you got it.....good job knew you could figure it out yourself.

You're the one telling me $1 at an earlier time was really worth $20 today and that they "made more money" than people today. It's your bullshit, not mine.

 

[tokeprep]

Enjoy the ride.......

I've given you reasoned replies and asked you to support your positions; you've reached the point where you no longer can. What does maritime jurisdiction have to do with currency redemption? You can't tell us. Where's a single statute or court case telling us that capitalization is important in the constitution? You've got none.

 

[twostrokenut]

You're the one telling me $1 at an earlier time was really worth $20 today and that they "made more money" than people today. It's your bullshit, not mine.

Ya for sure they did when a body corporate did not print the money of account.

 

[twostrokenut]

I've given you reasoned replies and asked you to support your positions; you've reached the point where you no longer can. What does maritime jurisdiction have to do with currency redemption? You can't tell us.

12usc341http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt

"General enumeration of powers


Upon the filing of the organization certificate with the
Comptroller of the Currency a Federal reserve bank shall become a
body corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such
organization certificate, shall have power -
First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.
Second. To have succession after February 25, 1927, until
dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for
violation of law.
Third. To make contracts.
Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of
law or equity."

Notice adjudication is fourth, after the contract is made........and can be defended in a court of law or equity......in a court of law or in a court of law and equity or in a court of just equity...........please list courts of equity smartypants

 

[twostrokenut]

12usc347ahttp://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt

-HEAD-
Sec. 347a. Advances to member bank groups; inadequate amounts of
eligible and acceptable assets; liability of individual banks in
group; distribution of loans among banks of group; rate of
interest; notes accepted for advances as collateral security for
Federal reserve notes; foreign obligations as security for
advances

No such note upon which
advances are made by a Federal reserve bank under this section
shall be eligible under section 412 of this title as collateral
security for Federal reserve notes.

No obligations of any foreign government, individual,
partnership, association, or corporation organized under the laws
thereof shall be eligible as collateral security for advances under
this section.
Member banks are authorized to obligate themselves in accordance
with the provisions of this section.

12 USC Sec. 412 1/15/2013
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt

The
collateral security thus offered shall be notes, drafts, bills of
exchange........In no event shall such collateral security be less than the amount of Federal Reserve
notes applied for.


1968 - Pub. L. 90-349 added Special Drawing Right certificates to
the types of allowable collateral security which may be tendered
for Federal Reserve notes.


UNITED STATES OBLIGATIONS AS COLLATERAL; EXTENSION OF PERIOD
The period within which direct obligations of the United States
could be accepted as collateral security under this section was
extended to Mar. 3, 1937, by Proclamation No. 2117, of Feb. 14,
1935, 49 Stat. 3437; extended to June 30, 1939, by act Mar. 1,
1937; extended to June 30, 1941, by act June 30, 1939; extended to
June 30, 1943, by act June 30, 1941; and extended to June 30, 1945,
by act May 25, 1943. Act June 12, 1945, amended section to remove
the time limitation.

 

[twostrokenut]

Given you have half a brain cell in your head and know that "notes accepted for advances as collateral security" are the backing for a "note upon which advances are made by the Federal reserve bank"........it is you that have really come to the end of your weird unlawful argument that Fed Notes themselves are collateral security.............which you have said they are over and over by asserting them as lawful money. FAIL.

But hey Remedy by redemption for your understanding is still available for you

UNDERSTANDING. In the law of contracts. An
agreement. Southern Ry. Co. v. Powell, 124 Va.
65, 97 S.E. 357, 358. An implied agreement resulting from the express terms of another agreement,
whether written or oral. United States v. United
Shoe Machinery Co., D.C.Mo., 234 F. 127, 148. An
informal agreement, or a concurrence as to its
terms. Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 507, 3 N.W. 16.

 

[tokeprep]

Ya for sure they did when a body corporate did not print the money of account.

Except we can compute the buying power of the average income, and it sucked.

 

[tokeprep]

12usc341http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt

"General enumeration of powers


Upon the filing of the organization certificate with the
Comptroller of the Currency a Federal reserve bank shall become a
body corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such
organization certificate, shall have power -
First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.
Second. To have succession after February 25, 1927, until
dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for
violation of law.
Third. To make contracts.
Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of
law or equity."

Notice adjudication is fourth, after the contract is made........and can be defended in a court of law or equity......in a court of law or in a court of law and equity or in a court of just equity...........please list courts of equity smartypants

Yeah, let's ignore history again in favor of an anachronism in the code. The Federal Reserve Act was originally written in 1913; the distinction between law and equity in federal courts was not abolished until 1938. Indeed, in the same paragraph we see a reference to "any court of law or equity," we see the year 1927.

 

[tokeprep]

12usc347ahttp://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt
-HEAD-
Sec. 347a. Advances to member bank groups; inadequate amounts of
eligible and acceptable assets; liability of individual banks in
group; distribution of loans among banks of group; rate of
interest; notes accepted for advances as collateral security for
Federal reserve notes; foreign obligations as security for
advances

No such note upon which
advances are made by a Federal reserve bank under this section
shall be eligible under section 412 of this title as collateral
security for Federal reserve notes.

No obligations of any foreign government, individual,
partnership, association, or corporation organized under the laws
thereof shall be eligible as collateral security for advances under
this section.
Member banks are authorized to obligate themselves in accordance
with the provisions of this section.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this section, you you clipped the part that actually describes the "advances" it's talking about: "Upon receiving the consent of not less than five members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any Federal reserve bank may make advances, in such amount as the board of directors of such Federal reserve bank may determine, to groups of five or more member banks within its district, a majority of them independently owned and controlled, upon their time or demand promissory notes, provided the bank or banks which receive the proceeds of such advances as herein provided have no adequate amounts of eligible and acceptable assets available to enable such bank or banks to obtain sufficient credit accommodations from the Federal reserve bank through rediscounts or advances other than as provided in section 347b of this title...No such note upon which advances are made by a Federal reserve bank under this section shall be eligible under section 412 of this title as collateral security for Federal reserve notes."

This provision enables banks to obtain advances from the reserve banks when their assets aren't sufficient to permit them normal credit operations. The text you started at says these advances cannot be used to obtain Federal Reserve Notes.

12 USC Sec. 412 1/15/2013
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt

The collateral security thus offered shall be notes, drafts, bills of
exchange........In no event shall such collateral security be less than the amount of Federal Reserve
notes applied for.


1968 - Pub. L. 90-349 added Special Drawing Right certificates to
the types of allowable collateral security which may be tendered
for Federal Reserve notes.


UNITED STATES OBLIGATIONS AS COLLATERAL; EXTENSION OF PERIOD
The period within which direct obligations of the United States
could be accepted as collateral security under this section was
extended to Mar. 3, 1937, by Proclamation No. 2117, of Feb. 14,
1935, 49 Stat. 3437; extended to June 30, 1939, by act Mar. 1,
1937; extended to June 30, 1941, by act June 30, 1939; extended to
June 30, 1943, by act June 30, 1941; and extended to June 30, 1945,
by act May 25, 1943. Act June 12, 1945, amended section to remove
the time limitation.

Right...

 

[tokeprep]

Given you have half a brain cell in your head and know that "notes accepted for advances as collateral security" are the backing for a "note upon which advances are made by the Federal reserve bank"........it is you that have really come to the end of your weird unlawful argument that Fed Notes themselves are collateral security.............which you have said they are over and over by asserting them as lawful money. FAIL.

Your statute doesn't say that "notes accepted for advances as collateral security" are anything. That text is part of the title--it refers to what banks can post as collateral security for emergency loans from the reserve banks. This is another example of taking statutes out of context. 12 USC 347a is a codification of Section 10A of the Federal Reserve Act, entitled "Emergency advances to groups of member banks." It has nothing to do with obtaining Federal Reserve Notes in the ordinary course, it merely specifies what collateral banks can use to obtain an emergency loan ("Notes accepted for advances as collateral security") and states that banks can't use emergency loans as collateral to obtain Federal Reserve Notes ("No such note upon which advances are made...shall be eligible under section 412 of this title as collateral security for Federal reserve notes.").

Further, I never suggested that Federal Reserve Notes could be collateral for themselves. Let's be logical about that. If a bank posts $1 million in Federal Reserve Notes as collateral and the statute requires the notes issued to be fully collateralized, the bank would only get $1 million in Federal Reserve Notes back. Federal Reserve Notes being lawful money is irrelevant to this.

But hey Remedy by redemption for your understanding is still available for you

UNDERSTANDING. In the law of contracts. An agreement. Southern Ry. Co. v. Powell, 124 Va. 65, 97 S.E. 357, 358.

An implied agreement resulting from the express terms of another agreement, whether written or oral. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., D.C.Mo., 234 F. 127, 148.

An informal agreement, or a concurrence as to its terms. Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 507, 3 N.W. 16.

If only your cases would explain what a maritime remedy in state court has to do with currency redemption.

 

[twostrokenut]

Except we can compute the buying power of the average income, and it sucked.

No you can't.....not enough data you have to rely on your elders words for it.....also have to look at the money supply contractions for when you claim it sucks....yeah there were some shitty times but usually cause of contractions in what ever money supply for whenever it was sucking....that's why ppl really wanted silver it wasnt really in bank or gov hands.