reply to post by Southern Guardian
All your doing here is putting words in his mouth. He laid out a broad oversight of what needs to change. What are you doing; going to extremes.
Picking out the worst case scenario and plugging it into ideals that this country was founded on. No welfare for 6 months, who said anything about
the sick or injured? Its about Constitutionalism.
What you don't understand is the more govt. has control, the less you are in control. For the people, by the people. What don't you understand
about that. No where does it say for the govt by the govt.
ATTENTION Patriots / Birthers / Teabaggers / Whomever - If you did get your Revolution, Then What?, page 22
reply posted on 9-1-2010 @ 09:29 PM by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
Z - What evades some, is that we are Americans, and we are not going to slide back to the wisdom of segregation under any name. I like that if I decide to move to Harlem, I may have to be more tolerant, and vigilant, because I'm different but I can count on the law of the land not the neighborhood. I like being Free to choose.
In the U.S. you describe, individual States would have the right to institute, unconstitutional laws designed to give comfort to an engineered majority.This would take away my current right to choose.
Today, if someone objects to my Jewish Wife breathing, I can do something about it. Wherever I happen to be. I may lose my life, and or Wife, but Freedom demands sacrifice, and sometimes death. But the all important law will be on my side.
E - Ziggy you must be misunderstanding me, not one time did I say people could infringe upon others (your example of someone not liking your Jewish wife breathing) or break constitutional laws. Just as you said that if you go to Harlem there are certain things you may have to be more tolerant of you are free to choose to go or not. What you said is exactly what I was saying about freedom.
Z - You ask me to trust that people are inherently benevolent, as a replacement for laws, I choose to keep the laws that limit my freedom to oppress you.
E - Now that my friend is tyranny. I do not wish to oppress you yet you don't give a second thought to assume what is best for the collective and put laws in place to ensure your way is the only way?
Z - Dennis would create a US that was divided by color, and National origin.
He then would treat "X's" any way he pleased in his protected area. But the next day he'd be at their Restaurant munching, and trying to do the chicks.
But this would not be allowed in his area. I'm not saying X's are better than whites, just better than Dennis. I'd rather see the X's happy than Dennis, any day. Does Dennis represent me? absolutely not. I take precedence over Dennis because he is a Constitutional scofflaw. Dennis has demonstrated that he can't be trusted not to step on others rights. It's only the law that prevents him from increasing the scope of his bigotry.
You and I pay a price for his bigotry. Let's get rid of his ideology, and then we can start to talk about trust in place of laws. Until then, I have to keep on trusting the instruments that work. The Constitution, The Pen, and unfortunately, The Sword. The Founders were a lot like me, 2nd 3rd gen immigrants. I believe I understand what they wanted to accomplish.
E - 'act locally, affect globally', the only reason you and I pay a price for his bigotry is that the people close to him who call him a friend but oppose his behavior enable him by doing nothing and expect someone else to do something about it. If his so called friends would call him out and exile him in some way he would either change his ways or move somewhere else and hopefully the people where he moved to would act the same way and pretty soon he would either be a total outcast or see the light, no new laws would be enacted and the only ones enforced would be if he infringed upon another's right, that is true liberty my friend.
Z - What about the rest of the world. How do we become Merlin, and cast a spell over them? I'm no Imperialist, but we need a presence overseas to survive today. Our enemies would destroy a Rubik cubed Jello version of America.
E - We cannot and should not be the world police, there are too many countries with different ideas far removed from the American ideal to try to go all preachy on them. Private organizations can go and do their humanitarian deeds with true voluntary passion all we can do is protect the people inside the US. I am for immigration done correctly.
Z - What evades some, is that we are Americans, and we are not going to slide back to the wisdom of segregation under any name. I like that if I decide to move to Harlem, I may have to be more tolerant, and vigilant, because I'm different but I can count on the law of the land not the neighborhood. I like being Free to choose.
In the U.S. you describe, individual States would have the right to institute, unconstitutional laws designed to give comfort to an engineered majority.This would take away my current right to choose.
Today, if someone objects to my Jewish Wife breathing, I can do something about it. Wherever I happen to be. I may lose my life, and or Wife, but Freedom demands sacrifice, and sometimes death. But the all important law will be on my side.
E - Ziggy you must be misunderstanding me, not one time did I say people could infringe upon others (your example of someone not liking your Jewish wife breathing) or break constitutional laws. Just as you said that if you go to Harlem there are certain things you may have to be more tolerant of you are free to choose to go or not. What you said is exactly what I was saying about freedom.
Z - You ask me to trust that people are inherently benevolent, as a replacement for laws, I choose to keep the laws that limit my freedom to oppress you.
E - Now that my friend is tyranny. I do not wish to oppress you yet you don't give a second thought to assume what is best for the collective and put laws in place to ensure your way is the only way?
Z - Dennis would create a US that was divided by color, and National origin.
He then would treat "X's" any way he pleased in his protected area. But the next day he'd be at their Restaurant munching, and trying to do the chicks.
But this would not be allowed in his area. I'm not saying X's are better than whites, just better than Dennis. I'd rather see the X's happy than Dennis, any day. Does Dennis represent me? absolutely not. I take precedence over Dennis because he is a Constitutional scofflaw. Dennis has demonstrated that he can't be trusted not to step on others rights. It's only the law that prevents him from increasing the scope of his bigotry.
You and I pay a price for his bigotry. Let's get rid of his ideology, and then we can start to talk about trust in place of laws. Until then, I have to keep on trusting the instruments that work. The Constitution, The Pen, and unfortunately, The Sword. The Founders were a lot like me, 2nd 3rd gen immigrants. I believe I understand what they wanted to accomplish.
E - 'act locally, affect globally', the only reason you and I pay a price for his bigotry is that the people close to him who call him a friend but oppose his behavior enable him by doing nothing and expect someone else to do something about it. If his so called friends would call him out and exile him in some way he would either change his ways or move somewhere else and hopefully the people where he moved to would act the same way and pretty soon he would either be a total outcast or see the light, no new laws would be enacted and the only ones enforced would be if he infringed upon another's right, that is true liberty my friend.
Z - What about the rest of the world. How do we become Merlin, and cast a spell over them? I'm no Imperialist, but we need a presence overseas to survive today. Our enemies would destroy a Rubik cubed Jello version of America.
E - We cannot and should not be the world police, there are too many countries with different ideas far removed from the American ideal to try to go all preachy on them. Private organizations can go and do their humanitarian deeds with true voluntary passion all we can do is protect the people inside the US. I am for immigration done correctly.
reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 10:17 PM by ziggystrange
Originally posted by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
Equistar,
E - Ziggy you must be misunderstanding me, not one time did I say people could infringe upon others (your example of someone not liking your Jewish wife breathing) or break constitutional laws. Just as you said that if you go to Harlem there are certain things you may have to be more tolerant of you are free to choose to go or not. What you said is exactly what I was saying about freedom.
Z - Perhaps, but would not your Harlem have special laws, or lack thereof to suit the comfort level of Harlem residents? This is what I understood from your post in this context.
I don't mean a local ordinance like a speed limit. That makes sense. If you drive at 80 mph though busy streets, or school zones, you are selfishly endangering the lives of others. I think we can agree on that. This is not about comfort, but common sense. Is not common sense that which is by it's "nature" agreed upon as, for the good of the collective?
If a guy wants to go to the salt flats and slam his vehicle into surrounding terrain at 3000 mph. I say go for it. No problem. Suicide? I don't like it, but there should not be a law. My not liking it, is as irrelevant as my Religion condemning it, which it does.
In Woodstock NY, if you paint your fence the wrong color, you have a problem, and there is a town hall meeting. "I was there for this one", the citizen lost, and had to repaint the fence. Only some colors are considered in bad form. I have no idea what the criteria was, or is.
What if Woodstock residents decide that, since most of them have purple fences, yours has to be purple also, and they pass an ordinance.
Do they have the right to decide the color of your fence?
It's your property. What is your opinion?
Now let's replace fence with a variable. Call it (x). The paint color with (y)
What if Woodstock residents decide that, since most of them have (y) (x)s, your (x) has to be (y) also, and they pass an ordinance?
Do they have the right to decide the (y) of your (x)?
Replace Woodstock with NY.
What if NY residents decide that, since most of them have (y) (x)s, your (x) has to be (y) also, and they pass an ordinance?
Do they have the right to decide the (y) of your (x)?
I know I have the option to move if my (x) is the wrong (y). But what if I want my (x) to be the (y) I like?, and I don't want to move to another state.
Is there recourse? and based on what? In your version.
This may not be the best suited example, but I think it works well enough to illustrate the difference in ideologies.
It's broad in scope so it can be indicted subjectively, but not objectively.
Now let's explore, and contextualize, my potential misunderstanding of your idea.
I understood that you felt, that it was good to see all the different ethnic groups residing in happy segregation, and you asked, Could we not expand this to the entire USA? Not a word for word quote but correct me if I'm wrong.
I responded by explaining that in NY there is no segregation, but there is ethnic flavor. All New Yorkers can live in any area they can afford.
No locality may pass ordinances that Contradict State law. The state law, can not contradict Federal law. Federal law can not contradict the Constitution.
The Constitution is a living document, and should not be perverted, which is why we can, and should amend it as needed.
An action, hinges on a wish by an individual, which is adjudicated by a local ordinance, that has to adhere to State Law, which must not contradict the law of the land. Is everybody happy? no, that's impossible in our world, so far.
All men are created equal. We know this includes women, but we had to fight for it to be put into practice.
Is it all men? or just American men? Do foreigners have rights? Do prisoners? Do illegals? I think they all have human rights.
I understand that there are, inalienable rights.
That is an absolute statement, vulnerable to subjective interpretation.
The point of conflict is what exactly are these inalienable rights interpreted to be.
Life, Easy one. You would think a person is either alive or not.
Liberty. Now it gets complicated, a dictionary will not suffice, since the literal meaning would preclude anything defining what it is. A circular argument, with no rational solution. A valve had to be put in place, if it was to exist at all. We made laws of the land to sustain the union of states, under one flag.
Pursuit of happiness. About as difficult to nail down but not a self contradicting statement, just limited by it's own definition. Pursuit does not mean attain. There is no guarantee of happiness, just the freedom to try.
A serial killer "may" be pursuing his happiness, but at the death of others. Easy one to decide. Serial killing that makes you happy is unconstitutional. We have to curtail the S K's right to pursue his happiness for the good of the collective. You may argue it's insanity, thus not pursuit of happiness ,but that is not the point. Please assume a SK that is made happy by killing for this example.
What it boils down to for me, is perception. I can be mistaken, as being human brings with it, that caveat.I err. Thus, it is within the realm of possibilities that I completely misconstrued your statements, and or your ideology.
If I did, I sincerely apologize for incorrectly characterizing your words.
On Dennis, I did everything I could to educate him. That failed. I did shun him, and, told him bigotry would not fly with me around. He got justice from me, and others, often. But I had no right to oust him from the neighborhood. He's an American Citizen. There were public places we both frequented.
He got better with time. He learned what his problem was. He was afraid people thought he was Hispanic because he had a Spanish surname, he is half Portuguese, half Ukrainian. Blond hair, blue eyes, white skin, with freckles. He married a Jewish girl. His kids would look Sephardi, but would be perceived as Ashkenazim. Personally, I could not care less.
Herein lies the problem.
We disagree as to what Liberty is, my friend, where does that leave us?
Who is advocating Tyranny? You? Me? Both of us? or Neither one?
How do we come to terms?
Ziggy
reply posted on 20-1-2010 @ 09:48 PM by Gregarious
reply to post by whatukno
Sir, what you want was formerly expounded by the USSR, and is now championed by China. Equal poverty, only two classes. The superior bureaucrats, and the inferior remainder. But the rulers can have all they desire, like Gory Al. This is a view that makes sense if you believe there is no right/wrong, no 'god', no rules. Just, might makes right. Incidentally, that was diametrically opposed by Americas' founding fathers. The big American 'experiment' in govt. is that we need LESS of government, including all the socialist/communist programs gradually adopted by America that we all so love now. America has the most corrupt, most evil government in the world, with the exception of all the rest.
Sir, what you want was formerly expounded by the USSR, and is now championed by China. Equal poverty, only two classes. The superior bureaucrats, and the inferior remainder. But the rulers can have all they desire, like Gory Al. This is a view that makes sense if you believe there is no right/wrong, no 'god', no rules. Just, might makes right. Incidentally, that was diametrically opposed by Americas' founding fathers. The big American 'experiment' in govt. is that we need LESS of government, including all the socialist/communist programs gradually adopted by America that we all so love now. America has the most corrupt, most evil government in the world, with the exception of all the rest.
reply posted on 20-1-2010 @ 10:09 PM by Gregarious
reply to post by endisnighe
If arguing with them gives you a headache, I suggest a book I heard about. It is 'Arguing with Idiots', and I am sure you can find it on the web. My own experience is if they are really as dumb as a rock, just don't argue. You can wrestle with a pig in mud, but the pig will enjoy it. Look for indications that the person is actually reasonably intelligent, and then offer up other facts or angles. That is what debate is for, not arguing with idiots. The latter does no good for them or you. You can also press 'ignore'...
If arguing with them gives you a headache, I suggest a book I heard about. It is 'Arguing with Idiots', and I am sure you can find it on the web. My own experience is if they are really as dumb as a rock, just don't argue. You can wrestle with a pig in mud, but the pig will enjoy it. Look for indications that the person is actually reasonably intelligent, and then offer up other facts or angles. That is what debate is for, not arguing with idiots. The latter does no good for them or you. You can also press 'ignore'...
reply posted on 20-1-2010 @ 10:14 PM by Gregarious
reply to post by mcguyvermanolo
A star for you. Also what needs to be done is the banksters need to be imprisoned for counterfeiting, or 'marginal banking'. They loan out money that did not exist, and once they do it is present forever. THIS has caused all, ALL of our recessions/depressions. IMHO, it is TREASONOUS.
A star for you. Also what needs to be done is the banksters need to be imprisoned for counterfeiting, or 'marginal banking'. They loan out money that did not exist, and once they do it is present forever. THIS has caused all, ALL of our recessions/depressions. IMHO, it is TREASONOUS.
reply posted on 27-1-2010 @ 10:48 PM by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
I am beginning to get a little bit frustrated with this conversation and your assumptions.
Quote:
E - I did not say you had the right to oust him from the neighborhood but as you said due to people around him not tolerating him he had to change.
Z - Not in so many words, but you infer that inherently he had the right to act that way, just not in my community. While he has the right to think that way, anywhere in a free country, he does not have the right to act that way anywhere in a free country.
Ziggy, he does have a right to act that way anywhere in a free country and if he infringes on another's civil liberties then they whether one person or class action are free to pursue legal avenues that will punish and/or make him pay for his trampling on another's right.
Z - One doesn't. I agree if it's mandatory, there is no choice for the whole US. By special laws I mean ones crafted to impose unconstitutional mandates by a plurality of complicit component ordinances. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Some are forcibly segregated if we revert to the "old" ways. In the realm of reason, the method is only evidential of the crime, not exculpatory of it. The specialties you mention are not plural, liberty is singular. Unfortunately it is special, but it should be the rule, not the exception.
E - I have already stated that I am against unconstitutional mandates. 'The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Subdivision covenants are much the same are organizations, will you rid the US of all organizations? NAACP, NOW, PETA, MADD, LA RAZA, WNBA, Boy Scouts, country clubs....the list goes on. If it is to be as you say all and any groups would be outlawed because they would in some way exclude someone, they would inevitably be 'hurting' their poor feelings, last time I checked we are still free to do that in this country without jail time.
Z - Tyranny is transparent, what you profess is not, it's not tyranny. When the law of the land is suplanted by rouge state and local legislation, according to the Constitution it's an abrogation of the 10th amendment.
E- In my above response I stated the 10th Amendment. There is not one word that I have said that tramples on that Amendment. Our founder's wanted State's to have sovereignty you apparently do not want that. Will I agree with what every state agrees upon, probably not but unless I am part of that particular states voting population I have no say unless it infringes upon another state's right to rule as the people of that state see fit.
Z-She married an Irish/Armenian guy and they both support Ron Paul. My Eldest has a half Polish half Hispanic girlfriend, another Son has a Thai/Chinese girlfriend. They both plan to marry the girl friends and have kids.
It might sound terrible to you, but not to me. It's the direction I want. It's the way of the future. There is inequity here, and malcontent, but not in the majority. Very few voice complaints, and thing are generally improving.
It's sustainable and natural. It's not a Police State, when there is crime, we see the police.
The changes you want to make would freak out most New Yorkers. Most don't have a clue about the ideology we are discussing.
See right there, why do you say these things? I have already stated that I am a carnivorous agnostic libertarian so why would you think I would be upset about Ron Paul? Why would you think I would want to implement any changes other than limit the central government? Why do you continue to paint people who do not have the same belief as you as bigots, racist and simple minded people. Please Ziggy open your mind.
I am beginning to get a little bit frustrated with this conversation and your assumptions.
Quote:
E - I did not say you had the right to oust him from the neighborhood but as you said due to people around him not tolerating him he had to change.
Z - Not in so many words, but you infer that inherently he had the right to act that way, just not in my community. While he has the right to think that way, anywhere in a free country, he does not have the right to act that way anywhere in a free country.
Ziggy, he does have a right to act that way anywhere in a free country and if he infringes on another's civil liberties then they whether one person or class action are free to pursue legal avenues that will punish and/or make him pay for his trampling on another's right.
Z - One doesn't. I agree if it's mandatory, there is no choice for the whole US. By special laws I mean ones crafted to impose unconstitutional mandates by a plurality of complicit component ordinances. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Some are forcibly segregated if we revert to the "old" ways. In the realm of reason, the method is only evidential of the crime, not exculpatory of it. The specialties you mention are not plural, liberty is singular. Unfortunately it is special, but it should be the rule, not the exception.
E - I have already stated that I am against unconstitutional mandates. 'The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Subdivision covenants are much the same are organizations, will you rid the US of all organizations? NAACP, NOW, PETA, MADD, LA RAZA, WNBA, Boy Scouts, country clubs....the list goes on. If it is to be as you say all and any groups would be outlawed because they would in some way exclude someone, they would inevitably be 'hurting' their poor feelings, last time I checked we are still free to do that in this country without jail time.
Z - Tyranny is transparent, what you profess is not, it's not tyranny. When the law of the land is suplanted by rouge state and local legislation, according to the Constitution it's an abrogation of the 10th amendment.
E- In my above response I stated the 10th Amendment. There is not one word that I have said that tramples on that Amendment. Our founder's wanted State's to have sovereignty you apparently do not want that. Will I agree with what every state agrees upon, probably not but unless I am part of that particular states voting population I have no say unless it infringes upon another state's right to rule as the people of that state see fit.
Z-She married an Irish/Armenian guy and they both support Ron Paul. My Eldest has a half Polish half Hispanic girlfriend, another Son has a Thai/Chinese girlfriend. They both plan to marry the girl friends and have kids.
It might sound terrible to you, but not to me. It's the direction I want. It's the way of the future. There is inequity here, and malcontent, but not in the majority. Very few voice complaints, and thing are generally improving.
It's sustainable and natural. It's not a Police State, when there is crime, we see the police.
The changes you want to make would freak out most New Yorkers. Most don't have a clue about the ideology we are discussing.
See right there, why do you say these things? I have already stated that I am a carnivorous agnostic libertarian so why would you think I would be upset about Ron Paul? Why would you think I would want to implement any changes other than limit the central government? Why do you continue to paint people who do not have the same belief as you as bigots, racist and simple minded people. Please Ziggy open your mind.
reply posted on 28-1-2010 @ 12:09 AM by ziggystrange
Originally posted by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
E - I am beginning to get a little bit frustrated with this conversation and your assumptions.
Z - But you keep coming back, which is great, but then you say things that make no sense at all, like your next statement. Which I will discuss with you below.
E - I did not say you had the right to oust him from the neighborhood but as you said due to people around him not tolerating him he had to change.
Z - Not in so many words, but you infer that inherently he had the right to act that way, just not in my community. While he has the right to think that way, anywhere in a free country, he does not have the right to act that way anywhere in a free country.
E - Ziggy, he does have a right to act that way anywhere in a free country and if he infringes on another's civil liberties then they whether one person or class action are free to pursue legal avenues that will punish and/or make him pay for his trampling on another's right.
Z - The non enforcement of laws, does not give license to libertines. Common sense dictates, when there is no law enforcement, you may make a Citizens arrest. I have done it several times. Never had a problem afterward.
Z - One doesn't. I agree if it's mandatory, there is no choice for the whole US. By special laws I mean ones crafted to impose unconstitutional mandates by a plurality of complicit component ordinances. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Some are forcibly segregated if we revert to the "old" ways. In the realm of reason, the method is only evidential of the crime, not exculpatory of it. The specialties you mention are not plural, liberty is singular. Unfortunately it is special, but it should be the rule, not the exception.
E - I have already stated that I am against unconstitutional mandates. 'The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Subdivision covenants are much the same are organizations, will you rid the US of all organizations? NAACP, NOW, PETA, MADD, LA RAZA, WNBA, Boy Scouts, country clubs....the list goes on. If it is to be as you say all and any groups would be outlawed because they would in some way exclude someone, they would inevitably be 'hurting' their poor feelings, last time I checked we are still free to do that in this country without jail time.
Z - Tyranny is transparent, what you profess is not, it's not tyranny. When the law of the land is suplanted by rouge state and local legislation, according to the Constitution it's an abrogation of the 10th amendment.
E- In my above response I stated the 10th Amendment. There is not one word that I have said that tramples on that Amendment. Our founder's wanted State's to have sovereignty you apparently do not want that. Will I agree with what every state agrees upon, probably not but unless I am part of that particular states voting population I have no say unless it infringes upon another state's right to rule as the people of that state see fit.
Z-She married an Irish/Armenian guy and they both support Ron Paul. My Eldest has a half Polish half Hispanic girlfriend, another Son has a Thai/Chinese girlfriend. They both plan to marry the girl friends and have kids.
It might sound terrible to you, but not to me. It's the direction I want. It's the way of the future. There is inequity here, and malcontent, but not in the majority. Very few voice complaints, and thing are generally improving.
It's sustainable and natural. It's not a Police State, when there is crime, we see the police.
The changes you want to make would freak out most New Yorkers. Most don't have a clue about the ideology we are discussing.
E See right there, why do you say these things? I have already stated that I am a carnivorous agnostic libertarian so why would you think I would be upset about Ron Paul?
Z - That's a huge assumption, but I think it's just a wise crack on your part.
You know what context Ron Paul was referenced in. If you really took it as me thinking you would have a problem with Ron Paul, then you need to do some thinking about your well...., your wellness.
E - Why would you think I would want to implement any changes other than limit the central government?
Z - Because throughout our conversation, your intentions have been made crystal clear by you. Not me.
E - Why do you continue to paint people who do not have the same belief as you as bigots, racist and simple minded people. Please Ziggy open your mind.
Z - I don't. I don't interfere when people paint themselves any way they want, you chose to come off like you did. A segregationist, and a bigot.
How did I paint you as a racist? Perhaps if you had answered my questions instead of skirting them you would not give the impression of being bigoted.
I don't think you're simple minded at all. I think you feel the way you feel from conviction. I just disagree with your ideology. But where we really clash is in the way you choose to defend it. You do it by being slippery, and witty, while you twist the facts to fit your story.
That is not cool. But you have the right to do it.
I have the right to call you on it.
Ziggy Strange
reply posted on 28-1-2010 @ 08:10 AM by equistar
reply to post by GovtFlu
Thank you Govt Flu, that is what the Founder's wanted. That is why the Amish can live in peace without government intervention. Other people in this land want the same respect.
The loons on both sides (left wing control freaks and tea party religious nuts) would be clearly visible and the average American will voluntarily separate themselves from them. If they crossed the lines on civil liberties not voted upon by their communities or tried to impose their local laws on others (all schools must be Baptist, no one can eat meat, for example), the Judicial branch of government on all levels (which would also include citizen's arrest) would be enforced.
With that in place (Constitutional law, which obviously is not in place now) then you could move about in the fifty states, would some be more tolerant of people than other yes. You can't call the Amish tolerant because they have very specific rules in their community but everyone allows them to live in peace, they are separatists, they are the perfect example of not voluntary separatism, you may join them if you wish but must abide by the local laws even if they are different from the laws of CA, everybody understands this and sgrees with this so let other do the same. If a group was such an extremist do you really think they would get business from nonextremists, do you really think they would get jobs from nonextremists?
Let local and State governments by way of vote work out social issues, if it works on that scale people will notice and either move there growing the economy or try to implement it in their area, if it doesn't the economy will collapse and people will try different solutions or move.
Gov't Flu said:
The united states land should be broken up and go through an 'american Balkanization'.. let people live where whatever their nutty values are most appreciated by the local govt.
So cal would turn into a sunny pacifist amsterdam where adults personal freedoms would rise to the level of chavez' venezuela (drugs / prostitution legal regulated).. bible thumpers who don't like it, leave. Go live with your tribe.. or feel free to stay and crusade for the flocks cause, if enough people dig on your message.. you could actually effect real change.. not obama change.
Same with those who want to support isreal.. go live where the masses have agreed to be happily heavily taxed taxed for that purpose... more better, donate your own damn cash so those of us who could care less if isreal withers on the vine can keep our money for drugs & hookers.
So Cal doesn't need you, we could live a peaceful stoney economic mecca where tan people driving electric cars get overly laid & provide for ourselves without any of you.. we don't need a meddling incompetent money bleeding fed govt, we dont care much about the bible belts opinion about anything or how the senator from thumpperville thinks we should live.... wars?, other peoples bummer.
This nation is just too big, too big for one "leader" so called, too big to be ruled by two political opinions... too big & powerful for it's own good. If we had a real choice here in so cal.. there would be nothing resembling the GOP or DNC representing us, no wars of just because.. none of that dumb waste of time.
We'd be much better off under the laws and rules of local citizen statesmen representatives... DC has become a human toilet that is overflowing with bs people who make bs rules and are always full of bs... it would be funny if they weren't so deadly violent.
DC needs to be flushed, and go down as a history LESSON in how to turn the best idea ever; the founding united states, into historys biggest epic humanity fail; the odumbabush/cheney regime united states...
Thank you Govt Flu, that is what the Founder's wanted. That is why the Amish can live in peace without government intervention. Other people in this land want the same respect.
The loons on both sides (left wing control freaks and tea party religious nuts) would be clearly visible and the average American will voluntarily separate themselves from them. If they crossed the lines on civil liberties not voted upon by their communities or tried to impose their local laws on others (all schools must be Baptist, no one can eat meat, for example), the Judicial branch of government on all levels (which would also include citizen's arrest) would be enforced.
With that in place (Constitutional law, which obviously is not in place now) then you could move about in the fifty states, would some be more tolerant of people than other yes. You can't call the Amish tolerant because they have very specific rules in their community but everyone allows them to live in peace, they are separatists, they are the perfect example of not voluntary separatism, you may join them if you wish but must abide by the local laws even if they are different from the laws of CA, everybody understands this and sgrees with this so let other do the same. If a group was such an extremist do you really think they would get business from nonextremists, do you really think they would get jobs from nonextremists?
Let local and State governments by way of vote work out social issues, if it works on that scale people will notice and either move there growing the economy or try to implement it in their area, if it doesn't the economy will collapse and people will try different solutions or move.
Gov't Flu said:
The united states land should be broken up and go through an 'american Balkanization'.. let people live where whatever their nutty values are most appreciated by the local govt.
So cal would turn into a sunny pacifist amsterdam where adults personal freedoms would rise to the level of chavez' venezuela (drugs / prostitution legal regulated).. bible thumpers who don't like it, leave. Go live with your tribe.. or feel free to stay and crusade for the flocks cause, if enough people dig on your message.. you could actually effect real change.. not obama change.
Same with those who want to support isreal.. go live where the masses have agreed to be happily heavily taxed taxed for that purpose... more better, donate your own damn cash so those of us who could care less if isreal withers on the vine can keep our money for drugs & hookers.
So Cal doesn't need you, we could live a peaceful stoney economic mecca where tan people driving electric cars get overly laid & provide for ourselves without any of you.. we don't need a meddling incompetent money bleeding fed govt, we dont care much about the bible belts opinion about anything or how the senator from thumpperville thinks we should live.... wars?, other peoples bummer.
This nation is just too big, too big for one "leader" so called, too big to be ruled by two political opinions... too big & powerful for it's own good. If we had a real choice here in so cal.. there would be nothing resembling the GOP or DNC representing us, no wars of just because.. none of that dumb waste of time.
We'd be much better off under the laws and rules of local citizen statesmen representatives... DC has become a human toilet that is overflowing with bs people who make bs rules and are always full of bs... it would be funny if they weren't so deadly violent.
DC needs to be flushed, and go down as a history LESSON in how to turn the best idea ever; the founding united states, into historys biggest epic humanity fail; the odumbabush/cheney regime united states...
reply posted on 28-1-2010 @ 08:18 AM by equistar
reply to post by minigunner
Great post Concise and to the point! Love your sig too!
Quote:
What you don't understand is the more govt. has control, the less you are in control. For the people, by the people. What don't you understand about that. No where does it say for the govt by the govt.
signature
Survive to Live, Don't Live to Survive.
Great post Concise and to the point! Love your sig too!
Quote:
What you don't understand is the more govt. has control, the less you are in control. For the people, by the people. What don't you understand about that. No where does it say for the govt by the govt.
signature
Survive to Live, Don't Live to Survive.
reply posted on 28-1-2010 @ 01:34 PM by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
biggovernment.com...
www.nytimes.com...
The second link is an article about the SC decision.
My husband has written about this elsewhere and stated it well so I will quote him:
'I have seen several posts alluding to this decision unfairly allowing Corporate free reign in election campaigns. After studying the actual case, I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly. This article explains the case and the ruling. You either favor the First Amendment rights for all citizens and groups of citizens, or you favor selective ... See Moregovernment suppression of free speech expression in political campaigns. The case involved not a corporate giant, but a small conservative film crew who were banned from airing a documentary about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Presidential campaign in a lawsuit brought by the Federal Election Commmision. The government cannot assume that people are not intelligent enough to hear endorsements to candidates by corporations and unions, and make there own mind up....The ruling had nothing to do with voting. Corporations are groups of people, are they not? And do groups of people, as well as individuals, not have the right to free speech? As Justice Stevens correctly pointed out, the court has long held that corporations do indeed enjoy the same first amendment rights as individuals. This case involved not "100... See More years of established law", but the 2002 McCain-Feingold decision that put restrictions an political advertising by corporations and unions within 30 days of an election.'
As he said Corporations do not vote, neither do Organizatios like ACLU, Green Peace, PETA, The Sierra Club, all have the right to free speech and only individuals have the right to vote and only once unless you were registered to vote by ACORN.
The second link show where the media, citizens and lawyers should be focused when it comes to campaign finances:
'...The Obama campaign received a substantial amount of money from countries that have an interest in seeing a weak American President: $366,708.22 from China; $25,259.00 from the United Arab Emirates; $7,062.60 from Russia; and $6,716.28 from Saudi Arabia. Obama also took in $6,350.00 from Indonesia; $5,000.00 from Kenya; and $1,750.00 from Egypt.
The FEC alleges that Obama also illegally took donations from Tamil Tiger leaders. The Tamil Tigers are, according to the FBI, the most successful terrorist group in the world. While the Hillary Clinton returned contributions from the Tamil Tigers, Obama kept them.
There are many other questions and mysteries regarding Obama’s campaign finances. The Puma P.A.C. blog notes: “Obama spent a record $744 million on his campaign but has disclosed donors for only $485 million of his windfall...'
The rest is in the article above. Gregarious, you are on to something about
questioning Mr. Obama's criminal activities.
How much did he weigh when he was born? Can I find a paper he wrote while he was the Harvard Pres of Law Review or was he a token black so Harvard wouldn't look racist, how do I have any proof he can write anything himself without the help of others? His intelligence needs to be verified by his college records showing his grades and papers written in order to pass certain classes, people blindly accept anything this man says and then wonder why there is dissent?
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...
biggovernment.com...
www.nytimes.com...
The second link is an article about the SC decision.
My husband has written about this elsewhere and stated it well so I will quote him:
'I have seen several posts alluding to this decision unfairly allowing Corporate free reign in election campaigns. After studying the actual case, I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly. This article explains the case and the ruling. You either favor the First Amendment rights for all citizens and groups of citizens, or you favor selective ... See Moregovernment suppression of free speech expression in political campaigns. The case involved not a corporate giant, but a small conservative film crew who were banned from airing a documentary about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Presidential campaign in a lawsuit brought by the Federal Election Commmision. The government cannot assume that people are not intelligent enough to hear endorsements to candidates by corporations and unions, and make there own mind up....The ruling had nothing to do with voting. Corporations are groups of people, are they not? And do groups of people, as well as individuals, not have the right to free speech? As Justice Stevens correctly pointed out, the court has long held that corporations do indeed enjoy the same first amendment rights as individuals. This case involved not "100... See More years of established law", but the 2002 McCain-Feingold decision that put restrictions an political advertising by corporations and unions within 30 days of an election.'
As he said Corporations do not vote, neither do Organizatios like ACLU, Green Peace, PETA, The Sierra Club, all have the right to free speech and only individuals have the right to vote and only once unless you were registered to vote by ACORN.
The second link show where the media, citizens and lawyers should be focused when it comes to campaign finances:
'...The Obama campaign received a substantial amount of money from countries that have an interest in seeing a weak American President: $366,708.22 from China; $25,259.00 from the United Arab Emirates; $7,062.60 from Russia; and $6,716.28 from Saudi Arabia. Obama also took in $6,350.00 from Indonesia; $5,000.00 from Kenya; and $1,750.00 from Egypt.
The FEC alleges that Obama also illegally took donations from Tamil Tiger leaders. The Tamil Tigers are, according to the FBI, the most successful terrorist group in the world. While the Hillary Clinton returned contributions from the Tamil Tigers, Obama kept them.
There are many other questions and mysteries regarding Obama’s campaign finances. The Puma P.A.C. blog notes: “Obama spent a record $744 million on his campaign but has disclosed donors for only $485 million of his windfall...'
The rest is in the article above. Gregarious, you are on to something about
questioning Mr. Obama's criminal activities.
How much did he weigh when he was born? Can I find a paper he wrote while he was the Harvard Pres of Law Review or was he a token black so Harvard wouldn't look racist, how do I have any proof he can write anything himself without the help of others? His intelligence needs to be verified by his college records showing his grades and papers written in order to pass certain classes, people blindly accept anything this man says and then wonder why there is dissent?
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...
reply posted on 28-1-2010 @ 02:48 PM by ziggystrange
Originally posted by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
biggovernment.com...
www.nytimes.com...
The second link is an article about the SC decision.
My husband has written about this elsewhere and stated it well so I will quote him:
'I have seen several posts alluding to this decision unfairly allowing Corporate free reign in election campaigns. After studying the actual case, I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly. This article explains the case and the ruling. You either favor the First Amendment rights for all citizens and groups of citizens, or you favor selective ... See Moregovernment suppression of free speech expression in political campaigns. The case involved not a corporate giant, but a small conservative film crew who were banned from airing a documentary about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Presidential campaign in a lawsuit brought by the Federal Election Commmision. The government cannot assume that people are not intelligent enough to hear endorsements to candidates by corporations and unions, and make there own mind up....The ruling had nothing to do with voting. Corporations are groups of people, are they not? And do groups of people, as well as individuals, not have the right to free speech? As Justice Stevens correctly pointed out, the court has long held that corporations do indeed enjoy the same first amendment rights as individuals. This case involved not "100... See More years of established law", but the 2002 McCain-Feingold decision that put restrictions an political advertising by corporations and unions within 30 days of an election.'
As he said Corporations do not vote, neither do Organizatios like ACLU, Green Peace, PETA, The Sierra Club, all have the right to free speech and only individuals have the right to vote and only once unless you were registered to vote by ACORN.
The second link show where the media, citizens and lawyers should be focused when it comes to campaign finances:
'...The Obama campaign received a substantial amount of money from countries that have an interest in seeing a weak American President: $366,708.22 from China; $25,259.00 from the United Arab Emirates; $7,062.60 from Russia; and $6,716.28 from Saudi Arabia. Obama also took in $6,350.00 from Indonesia; $5,000.00 from Kenya; and $1,750.00 from Egypt.
The FEC alleges that Obama also illegally took donations from Tamil Tiger leaders. The Tamil Tigers are, according to the FBI, the most successful terrorist group in the world. While the Hillary Clinton returned contributions from the Tamil Tigers, Obama kept them.
There are many other questions and mysteries regarding Obama’s campaign finances. The Puma P.A.C. blog notes: “Obama spent a record $744 million on his campaign but has disclosed donors for only $485 million of his windfall...'
The rest is in the article above. Gregarious, you are on to something about
questioning Mr. Obama's criminal activities.
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...
Equistar,
Article? - or you? - How much did he weigh when he was born? Can I find a paper he wrote while he was the Harvard Pres of Law Review or was he a token black so Harvard wouldn't look racist, how do I have any proof he can write anything himself without the help of others? His intelligence needs to be verified by his college records showing his grades and papers written in order to pass certain classes, people blindly accept anything this man says and then wonder why there is dissent?
Ziggy - And you say I paint you as a bigot?
Your post speaks for itself. Token black?
You confirm my suspicion.
Ziggy Strange
Mitt Romney Accidentally Confronts A Gay Veteran; Awesomeness Ensues
Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags
Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags
Coal miners say they were forced to attend Romney event and donate
Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags
Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags
The United States has collapsed economically, socially, politically, legally, constitutionally, and
Posted 15 days ago with 44 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 44 member flags
A Perfect Example Of How America Is Turning Into A Police State? Look At Tampa Bay
Posted 18 days ago with 41 member flags
Posted 18 days ago with 41 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
I was moved by an instance of masonic charity and wanted to share it
Secret Societies: 9 minutes ago
Secret Societies: 9 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
A Day in the life of a Boom Operator...Part 2- The PICS!!!
Aircraft Projects: 15 hours ago, 38 flags
Aircraft Projects: 15 hours ago, 38 flags
Armed DHS Guards Protect IRS From Tea Party Protesters...
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago, 20 flags
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago, 20 flags
FBI kills man during questioning over Boston marathon attack
Other Current Events: 12 hours ago, 19 flags
Other Current Events: 12 hours ago, 19 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Police respond to 'serious incident' in Woolwich
Breaking Alternative News: 9 hours ago, 794 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 9 hours ago, 794 replies
Armed DHS Guards Protect IRS From Tea Party Protesters...
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago, 79 replies
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago, 79 replies
Florida Cheerleader Denies Felony Charge for Lesbian Relationship
Other Current Events: 9 hours ago, 59 replies
Other Current Events: 9 hours ago, 59 replies
California Enacts New Handgun Ban, Christie Set To Sign Gun Bills
Breaking Political News: 9 hours ago, 49 replies
Breaking Political News: 9 hours ago, 49 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.729 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.729 seconds
