The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Absolutely not. You can't spatter in real facts that are only

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You Are the One who is Wrong here (see in situ)

Absolutely not. You can't spatter in real facts that are only

loosely related to the topic and then claim the original point holds up.

#1 - yes, United States Notes existed. I've held one. I never said they didn't exist.

#2 - he didn't put 4billion into circulation. He didn't put ANY into circulation. He re-authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to do so. And it was no where near 4 billion. The law didn't allow for anywhere near that amount to be in circulation. Here's a test question for you - what law am I referring to, when was it passed, when was it amended, and what does it have to do with this EO?

#3 - the other reasons are irrelevant to this one. Do not introduce extraneous matter to try to move the discussion off point. The topic is "was JFK killed because he tried to end the Fed, reduce their power, and/or increase the circulation of silver and/or interest free notes, and as a result, decrease the circulation of FRNs?" The answer is a resounding NO. And neither you or anyone else has offered one shred of proof he tried to do any of that. Here's your second test question - Have you read the EO for yourself?

#4 - He didn't piss off the banksters. They were his friends and friends of his family. He was essentially in bed with them. Get your history straight.

#5 - there you go again with RFK and JFK Jr. Stick to the topic please. Prove the original point first.

#6 - I've been awake. I first found out about this "myth" some 22 years ago. I bought into it just like you did. BUT, then I decided to check it out for myself. I decided to read the actual EO. Which then caused me to read the EO it amended, and so on, as well as the law it was issued under. I then studied what was going on at that time and the issue of the particular law in question that prompted the EO and what government policy - KENNEDY'S POLICY was at that time. And this led me to only one conclusion - the myth was false. There was no proof of it. Someone with little or no understanding of what was actually going on, saw something on the surface and made the illogical leap without proof.

I am awake. That's why I don't buy this nonsense.

Riddle me this - if JFK was trying to destroy the fed and decrease FRN circulation and increase US Note circulation - then why did he ALSO sign a bill that gave the Fed the authority to print and issue UNIT and TWO UNIT FRNs? (what we refer to as $1 and $2 bills) The smallest bill they could print before he signed that law was a FIVE. Yet Kennedy gave them the power to issues ONEs and TWOs. Does that sound like someone trying to DECREASE issuance of FRNs? (especially since US Notes came in those smaller denominations as well)

That was test question #3.

Here's question #4 - please explain your knowledge of the silver shortage and market prices for silver during the 1960s, which precipitated the Act that Kennedy signed that then precipitated the EO in question which the end result - under Kennedy's policy - was to REDUCE the amount of US Notes in circulation and to END silver coinage entirely. Please also explain, how in light of these facts, that anything you've said above, or that has been purported by this false myth stands any longer as legitimate.

Question #5 - Oswald is irrelevant here. The question isn't "who" but "why?" Sure, it was a conspiracy, no doubt. If it wasn't, there'd be no need for sealed files and a coverup. Someone has something to hide.

But that doesn't automatically mean whatever crackpot baseless theory someone repeats enough times on the internet is thus true.

Here's your 5th test question - please explain how repeating a false statement makes it magically true.

#6 addendum - I've done my research. I've read the EO and the one it amended and the law it was issued under and I studied the subject of why all of it was done.

You obviously have not. Heed your own advice. Until you read the EO, the one it amends, and the law it was passed under and begin to have a clue as to what was going on - then you honestly are babbling and do not know of what you are talking about.