Fullhamish: Its great what you said, but irrelevant to the assertion we were discussing.

"Tyranny by bank was at the core of the American Revolution"

And he still hasn't. Show me a primary source (if you know what that IS), that shows that the colonists were rebellion on account of currency.

Because I've heard all kinds of hilarious theories about all kinds of history (you know, when I was getting my degree IN history)... but I've never heard of any serious historian backing up your claims.

But I'm open minded. If you can actually produce a scrap of evidence to support your claim, we can talk. But a single line from the Declaration of Independence, and then a paragraph on how you twist its meaning to mean what you want it to is not proof.

If it was such a big deal, then I'm sure there are no end to primary sources saying so. Produce at least a couple. Hell, at least ONE would be the start of the discussion. I'm not interested in any hack books you've read. I'm interested in primary sources. (If you need to, go to the bibliography of your hack book, and look up their sources. You may be amused to find out how much they're showboating)

Jack,

As my archives are being renovated at the moment, with most of my rarest items out on loan to the Smithsonian. I don't feel like taking a trip down the Library of Congress to gather primary sources for a WebDiplo debate, please forgive me for stooping to the level of using secondary source in which the author used primary sources.

Benjamin Franklin, in his auto-biography said, "The utility of this currency [Penn. colonial script] became by time and experience so evident as never afterwards to be much disputed." Further, Peter Cooper, founder of Cooper Union College, Vice-President of the New York Board of Currency, US Presidential Candidate in 1876, and one-time colleague of Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin said in his 1883 book "Ideas for a Science of Good Government": "After Franklin had explained…to the British Government as the real cause of prosperity, they immediately passed laws, forbidding the payment of taxes in that money. This produced such great inconvenience and misery to the people, that it was the principal cause of the Revolution. A far greater reason for a general uprising, than the Tea and Stamp Act, was the taking away of the paper money."

You have a very arrogant and angry tone to your posts, which befuddles me. You're interested in primary sources, but who has access to primary sources in everyday life?

Ok. Peter Cooper is not a primary source for the Revolution. So I'm not going to even address that.

And one quote from Benjamin Franklin saying he likes colonial currency does not an argument make.

And if you're going to say you're a student of history, you have to be familiar with primary sources. You don't have to read the fucking original, but you do have to actually.... you know. Read them.

But that's the difference between a serious student of history, and a dabbler.

I reiterate... if banking was a primary cause of the Revolution, you think there would be more of a reference made to it. You'd think it would be very common to find.

So since you haven't actually been able to justify your rantings, I'm going to assume they're just that.

You know, until you actually do some scholarship. For somebody who claims to be a student of history, you're very short on the actual studying part.

Honestly, I don't care enough about your thoughts to carry on this discussion with you further. I've studied enough for the both of us. Say whatever you want to say, it really makes no difference to me Jack. If it makes you feel like a winner, I concede. You're right and I'm wrong. Go tell your girlfriend that you just out debated someone on the internet -- she might finally give you that hand job she's been promising you.

Two things.

1) I know what I know; and 2) why do you care?

1. No, you think you know something, and your incompetence just makes you more annoying. Just because you've read some hack's idea of American history doesn't make it true. I could go on all day about how the Founding Fathers were radical Marxists. Doesn't make it true. I'm sure I could produce some idiotic text that somebody wrote supporting it. It, again, doesn't make it true.

2. You're making patently false statements to support your present day idea that banks are ebil ebil things inherently. So to support this, you butcher history around to support it. Its absurd, its intellectually bankrupt, and its personally quite dishonest.

So yeah. If you're going to call yourself a historian, I'm going to call you out on that, and demonstrate why you're not.

Which I think I have done rather neatly. Next time, try actually looking at the bibliography of those hack books you read, and see if the sources they cite actually say what they're claiming. Dollars to doughnuts you've been had.

I made you a tinfoil hat, btw. It'll keep the ebil bankers from hurting you anymore.

I'll add for the record that I'm no fan of much of what goes on in the banking industry. I think it needs much tighter regulation. But what I won't stand for is having a nearly conspiracy-theory level of axe-grinding going on, and then attempting to distort history to support said conspiracy theory.

By the way, we have a classic example of this here, I believe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

How'd this for neat...go fuck yourself cocksucker.

If I had a nickel for every jerk that refers to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Jack, you've offered nothing but snarky comment and refusals, no theories or evidence of your own. I offered what I could, counter or shut the fuck up.

No, I'm demanding you back up your radical reinterpretation of history with a shred of evidence.

You're the one making an assertion, so you are the one having to back it up with evidence.

Sorry for holding you to a standard.

I gave you evidence, you won't accept it. Again, why do you care so much?

Jack demands evidence because he has something to prove :P

Because you're distorting history to back up your present day axe to grind? And claiming to be a student of history when you don't seem to understand the very basics about studying history?

Its fine though. I'm fairly sure anybody reading this can realize the bankruptcy of your position. My work here is done. PM me if you want your hat.

"http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Fine, since you're too lazy to type in a google search, here is DOJ study that says 1.5 crimes are prevented by legal gun owners annually."

And the results of the exhibit you cite is refuted in the same report on the very next page.

In a legitimate shooting, the body has ways of sort of shutting down parts of the body to prevent any permanent damage from being caused.

@ Jack
''Fullhamish: Its great what you said, but irrelevant to the assertion we were discussing.''

So I take it that you agree with this then:

"This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."

I would call it a conspiracy, given these 5 definitions of the word from an internet dictionary:

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

2, 3 and 4 are probable either individually or in combination, while, given the evidence which you say you accept, 5 is a certainty.

Don't put any words in my mouth.

I'm not discussing any current events. I was taking exception to his twisting of history to support his current claims.

You can feel free to assume anything you like, but any time you start out with "I take ti you agree with X", you're attempting to put words in my mouth, probably to set up some kind of strawman.

And I've got no interest in it.

@ Jack
Fingers in your ears screaming ''I can't hear you, I can't hear you.......'' Trouble is a lot of people are starting to hear.