Ron Paul is doing it again.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

States did fine the first 100+ years without federal help.

Sure they did, money wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. There was no uniformity, every state had its own money. Know your history before saying something stupid like that.

When did states have their own currency? We started issuing the dollar in in 1792. And even so, why does that mean the states did not make due for the first 100+ years.

[Correction]

You said it very well, it is older than the constitution, and people have lived with it for hundreds of years, but all of a sudden its an issue.

It's been an issue since likely long before you were born, there's nothing 'sudden' about this desire for laws which grant equal status to gay couples. It's not expensive to give hospital visitation rights or the right to adopt.

Nobody's calling them slaves but fuck's sake man, quit being so dismissive.

[Avinor]

The law was designed to encourage families to be built in the US. Homosexual couples can not raise a family in the same way so I fail to see how thats one of the relevant arguments in a situation like this. They require outside sources, such as adoption, which you already receive a government benefit for.

So I assume you would support a constitutional ban on marriage for any infertile individual as well.

[*Shinzon*]

States did fine the first 100+ years without federal help.

Sure they did, money wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. There was no uniformity, every state had its own money. Know your history before saying something stupid like that.

When did states have their own currency? We started issuing the dollar in in 1792. And even so, why does that mean the states did not make due for the first 100+ years.

Do you not realize what you are saying? States had to have their own currency to function, its not brain surgery here. The PROBLEM was there WAS no unified currency. The fact the states were not able to survive was the whole reason the constitution and the unification of the states was put into effect. People didn't simply barter and trade. State's began to print money and each state was like its own different country. If you would pick up a decent history text you would know that. I mean seriously how could you imply that states had no currency. For instance New York Currency wouldn't be accepted in Virginia.

Avinor: Again I'm not implying I believe anything, I'm simply arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm trying to explain, obviously in a poor manner why I feel issues like these, granted should not be dismissed totally, but shouldn't take precedent over more serious situations. I shouldn't be using some of the examples that I have been and I see that its causing more harm than good to my arguing this point. I'm attempting to blame politician abuse regarding emotional topics such as this but not limited to the way public opinion attempts to modify the way the country runs. The media, being the main reason for that.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

[quote=*Shinzon*]

States did fine the first 100+ years without federal help.

Sure they did, money wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. There was no uniformity, every state had its own money. Know your history before saying something stupid like that.

When did states have their own currency? We started issuing the dollar in in 1792. And even so, why does that mean the states did not make due for the first 100+ years.

Do you not realize what you are saying? States had to have their own currency to function, its not brain surgery here. The PROBLEM was there WAS no unified currency. The fact the states were not able to survive was the whole reason the constitution and the unification of the states was put into effect. People didn't simply barter and trade. State's began to print money and each state was like its own different country. If you would pick up a decent history text you would know that. I mean seriously how could you imply that states had no currency. For instance New York Currency wouldn't be accepted in Virginia. [/quote:e62wq3kv]

I went to wikipedia and tried to look up each states currency and wasn't there, however I know wiki isn't the final source on things. Maybe you should check your history though because currency wasn't the whole reason the constitution and the unification of the states was put into effect. C'mon its not brain surgery.

[Eaglestrike]

I've never heard of each state having their own currency (or at least can't remember it). As a british colony wouldn't we have used their currency?

[Restrat]

Each state had their own currency until Congress passed a law to make a continent-wide currency.

[Khamsin]

pro tip: homosexuality is older than the US Constitution. Nobody 'changed' their lifestyle and is just now demanding equal treatment under the law.

and marriage is older than the constitution and the bible.

Homosexuality and marriage are both older than religion, itself. In the early days of human civilization before anyone had any concept religion, they had gay orgies and married each other all the time without religious connotation.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Each state had their own currency until Congress passed a law to make a continent-wide currency.

Regardless, its the whole reason the states were unified and the constitution was "put into effect."

[Fuuko]

If I recall correctly, after the idiocy of Jackson in killing the First Central bank banking became a sort of free for all. With all sorts of scams and such. However, during this time period state banks could issue their own paper money, and did so with great abandon. It was not until the Civil war did the US federal Government issue paper money. Another Central bank was formed, and issued paper money, so most state banks opted to us it. They also then Taxed the hell out of state banks paper money, thus killing it.

Though the US had always issued hard currency, in the form of coins through out US history.

I'm probably missing something or another~

[*Shinzon*]

Each state had their own currency until Congress passed a law to make a continent-wide currency.

Regardless, its the whole reason the states were unified and the constitution was "put into effect."

You really are ignorant aren't you? The Constitution was designed to replace the Articles of Confederation, which essentially created a very loose union of states. However, because each state went about setting its own laws entirely apart from another state and printing money that was useless in anywhere but that particular state, it was decided that giving the states power and leaving them to their own devices created a situation where every state was weak, unorganized, and broke.

Therefore it was decided that the Federal government be given more power and to reduce the states power, unifying them under the constitution and actually creating some form of an economy for the country.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Each state had their own currency until Congress passed a law to make a continent-wide currency.

Regardless, its the whole reason the states were unified and the constitution was "put into effect."

You really are ignorant aren't you? The Constitution was designed to replace the Articles of Confederation, which essentially created a very loose union of states. However, because each state went about setting its own laws entirely apart from another state and printing money that was useless in anywhere but that particular state, it was decided that giving the states power and leaving them to their own devices created a situation where every state was weak, unorganized, and broke.

Therefore it was decided that the Federal government be given more power and to reduce the states power, unifying them under the constitution and actually creating some form of an economy for the country.

I think were on the same page here, in your previous posts you said currency is the reason we came up with the constitution, as well as in this post. I don't disagree. Checks and balances has to do with currency and thats why we came up with the idea in the constitution.

[Beckwin]

Uh I'm pretty sure checks and balances have more to do with avoiding totalitarianism in view of the still King-wary nation more than it had to do with currency. The currency and economy problems (among others) motivated the creation of the Constitution (so in essence, the Constitution represents a forfeit of "state rights"...) but outside of balancing a ledger and writing checks having to do with currency...

[BRP]

I don't think I've heard Ron Paul talk about killing the banks and letting each state have their own currency...

[Beckwin]

And I don't think anyone has insinuated he would either. But try to keep up.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Uh I'm pretty sure checks and balances have more to do with avoiding totalitarianism in view of the still King-wary nation more than it had to do with currency. The currency and economy problems (among others) motivated the creation of the Constitution (so in essence, the Constitution represents a forfeit of "state rights"...) but outside of balancing a ledger and writing checks having to do with currency...

I suck at internet sarcasm.

[guartz]

That's right... Ron Paul never mentioned anything about state's issuing their own currency. He justs wants congress to issue money, versus a private bank that does it for profit.

[Beckwin]

Uh I'm pretty sure checks and balances have more to do with avoiding totalitarianism in view of the still King-wary nation more than it had to do with currency. The currency and economy problems (among others) motivated the creation of the Constitution (so in essence, the Constitution represents a forfeit of "state rights"...) but outside of balancing a ledger and writing checks having to do with currency...

I suck at internet sarcasm.

You know, with your previous lapses with history, I just couldn't be quite sure. I mean I saw the checks and balances pun right off but uh, yeah...

That's right... Ron Paul never mentioned anything about state's issuing their own currency. He justs wants congress to issue money, versus a private jew bank that does it for profit and world domination.

there we go