To Boat. The exec order that you referenced is correct...but the silver notes were in direct competition with the federal reserve.

"With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver."

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote: unless you can make a solid connection between those assassins and a bank or federal reserve etc, it is just a conspiracy theory.

I agree with your statement here.

I don't know who killed JFK. But isn't it unusual that the Warren Commission has ruled the findings classied until the year 2038?

There are a lot of things that don't pass the smell test on the JFK assassination.

The biggest curve ball thrown to the executors of this crime was the Zabruder film.

Anyone with any knowledge of physics at all...knows that Oswald's bullet could not have been the only bullet.

actually i disagree, i think the Zapruder film was the nail in the coffin for any conspiracy. and i believe you mean, Oswald's bullets.

Glory Days wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote: unless you can make a solid connection between those assassins and a bank or federal reserve etc, it is just a conspiracy theory.

I agree with your statement here.

I don't know who killed JFK. But isn't it unusual that the Warren Commission has ruled the findings classied until the year 2038?

There are a lot of things that don't pass the smell test on the JFK assassination.

The biggest curve ball thrown to the executors of this crime was the Zabruder film.

Anyone with any knowledge of physics at all...knows that Oswald's bullet could not have been the only bullet.

actually i disagree, i think the Zapruder film was the nail in the coffin for any conspiracy. and i believe you mean, Oswald's bullets.

I'm sorry Glory...but you need to research the topic. The Zapruder film proved from a physics stand point that there has to be more than one shooter. A person's head that gets blown off from the rear, cannot snap backwards..towards the shooter. It defies every physics and mathematics laws out there.

If my memory serves me correctly, you are in your twenties and were not around in 1963.

You can start with googling Garrison...JFK assassination.

But I would like you...or anyone else for that matter in explaining to me why the case is closed and cannot be opened for review until the year 2038....when all the "players" in this event are dead.

watch the head go foward, then backwards. watch the brain matter and blood go out through the front of his head.

Glory Days wrote: unless you can make a solid connection between those assassins and a bank or federal reserve etc, it is just a conspiracy theory.

Like I said, regardless of what evidence is presented, you will continue to believe all of those were coincidences.

Every "conspiracy" that is proven correct was just a theory at one point. The evidence is what you need to base it off of.

JFK said secret groups were controlling this country. Would you ask him for the evidence also?

BoatShoes wrote: EO 12333 was an executive order signed by Ronald Reagan that demanded U.S. intelligence operations to co-operate fully with the CIA.

What I think Eers meant to refer was, EO, 11,110 which gave the authority to print silver certificates to the U.S. Treasury without having to bug the president. This was famously explained as reasoning for the Fed killing Kennedy in a book called Crossfire by an author named Jim Marrs. He claimed that this was intended to strip the power away from federal reserve notes because people could by things with treasury printed silver certificates.

Thanks, I was referring to EO 11110. For some reason, I always get the two numbers confused.

I will get on later and respond how the issuing of silver by the government removed a great deal of power from the Fed. In no way did that EO grant the Fed more power.

eersandbeers wrote: Like I said, regardless of what evidence is presented, you will continue to believe all of those were coincidences.

Every "conspiracy" that is proven correct was just a theory at one point. The evidence is what you need to base it off of.

JFK said secret groups were controlling this country. Would you ask him for the evidence also?

of course i will continue to believe they were coincidences, there is no proof i should think otherwise. its just like saying aliens conducted the assassinations because the jackson and garfield assassin and attempted assassin were mentally ill. its because the aliens messed with their brains so they could never reveal the real reason for the assassinations. thats about the same about of real evidence there is to back up most conspiracy theories.

just curious, what conspiracy theories have been proven true?

sure JFK said that, but someone had to have told him. someone else out there has the proof. JFK wasnt going around investigating all that by himself. someone gave him information which led him to believe secret groups were controlling the country.

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote: unless you can make a solid connection between those assassins and a bank or federal reserve etc, it is just a conspiracy theory.

Like I said, regardless of what evidence is presented, you will continue to believe all of those were coincidences.

Every "conspiracy" that is proven correct was just a theory at one point. The evidence is what you need to base it off of.

JFK said secret groups were controlling this country. Would you ask him for the evidence also?

BoatShoes wrote: EO 12333 was an executive order signed by Ronald Reagan that demanded U.S. intelligence operations to co-operate fully with the CIA.

What I think Eers meant to refer was, EO, 11,110 which gave the authority to print silver certificates to the U.S. Treasury without having to bug the president. This was famously explained as reasoning for the Fed killing Kennedy in a book called Crossfire by an author named Jim Marrs. He claimed that this was intended to strip the power away from federal reserve notes because people could by things with treasury printed silver certificates.

Thanks, I was referring to EO 11110. For some reason, I always get the two numbers confused.

I will get on later and respond how the issuing of silver by the government removed a great deal of power from the Fed. In no way did that EO grant the Fed more power.

Clarification is on post #76.

SQ_Crazies wrote: 2. Ron Paul. He's been labelled as the definition of crazy. He started talking about the Federal Reserve and the economy in the 80's and how it was bound for disaster with it's current setup. People called him a nut job. He predicted everything that our economy just went through 20 years ago--nut job?? Crazy??

I actually agree with a lot of what Paul advocates, but I was never inspired to vote for him, why? Well first, I thought it followers were crazy and annoying. But more importantly, he was BORING! I could not stand to listen to him for more than a few minutes. Why? Because he sounded like an economics/political science professor. We humans do not relate to rote discussions of facts, theories, and ideas--we relate to STORIES! Obama was the king story teller (and the most factually deficient in my opinion), and that is why he won. Some how storytelling gets a bad rap because most people embellish/BS (which is good to a certain extent), but the best stories are those that reveal the truth. Libertarians need a better story-teller.

Glory Days wrote:
of course i will continue to believe they were coincidences, there is no proof i should think otherwise. its just like saying aliens conducted the assassinations because the jackson and garfield assassin and attempted assassin were mentally ill. its because the aliens messed with their brains so they could never reveal the real reason for the assassinations. thats about the same about of real evidence there is to back up most conspiracy theories.

just curious, what conspiracy theories have been proven true?

sure JFK said that, but someone had to have told him. someone else out there has the proof. JFK wasnt going around investigating all that by himself. someone gave him information which led him to believe secret groups were controlling the country.

A coincidence is a chance happening 1 or 2 times. Not 5 times with no real explanation. Actually I laid out quite a bit of evidence to back up those theories and it was based soundly in history.

I think JFK was quite clear with his quote. You are trying to put words into his mouth that he never said.

alwaysafan wrote: I actually agree with a lot of what Paul advocates, but I was never inspired to vote for him, why? Well first, I thought it followers were crazy and annoying. But more importantly, he was BORING! I could not stand to listen to him for more than a few minutes. Why? Because he sounded like an economics/political science professor. We humans do not relate to rote discussions of facts, theories, and ideas--we relate to STORIES! Obama was the king story teller (and the most factually deficient in my opinion), and that is why he won. Some how storytelling gets a bad rap because most people embellish/BS (which is good to a certain extent), but the best stories are those that reveal the truth. Libertarians need a better story-teller.

Ron Paul didn't run as a libertarian, but I find it funny people are more concerned with the cult of personality than the actual policies of a candidate.

eersandbeers wrote: Ron Paul didn't run as a libertarian, but I find it funny people are more concerned with the cult of personality than the actual policies of a candidate.

Really? I had not noticed :-/ He is a Libertarian though, only moving over to the Republican ticket to increase his chances of winning.

And no President has ever won based on policies alone. People like personalities, that is a fact.

alwaysafan wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Ron Paul didn't run as a libertarian, but I find it funny people are more concerned with the cult of personality than the actual policies of a candidate.

Really? I had not noticed :-/ He is a Libertarian though, only moving over to the Republican ticket to increase his chances of winning.

And no President has ever won based on policies alone. People like personalities, that is a fact.

Policies should trump personality in my view. But, I'm a policy wonk. Personality is fine, but if the person has no real substance, then there are issues. It is true that no President has won without personality, but policies due matter.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

alwaysafan wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Ron Paul didn't run as a libertarian, but I find it funny people are more concerned with the cult of personality than the actual policies of a candidate.

Really? I had not noticed :-/ He is a Libertarian though, only moving over to the Republican ticket to increase his chances of winning.

And no President has ever won based on policies alone. People like personalities, that is a fact.

Policies should trump personality in my view. But, I'm a policy wonk. Personality is fine, but if the person has no real substance, then there are issues. It is true that no President has won without personality, but policies due matter.

Again, I am saying what does matter. That is personality and stories. Many (dare I say, most) people have no clue about the policies of the candidate they vote for, so policies are never going to matter as much as personality unless there is a shift in priorities among voters. This should be used to an advantage, not denied.