The American People Are Angry!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


hahaha. I am pretty sure universal rights are used to trump the constitution whenever it suits conservatives. They indeed want their cake after they eat it. But please do not be looney enough to accuse the left of wanting statuatory laws contained in the federal and state constitutions when the conservatives themselves love them.

There is nothing wrong with labels. Labels make life easier. If someone criticises you for what you are then chances are there is substance in those allegations.

reply to post by frazzle


So what would you say if the ninth amendment did NOT exist?

Would you then be for universal rights or the constitution?

I suspect many countries do not have the equivilancy of that amendment in their constitution. Maybe the people get royally screwed? Masons write the constitution and that in of itself can create a wide array of problems. If a constitution does not make sense......that means it should be changed.

A bad constitution does not prove the need for anarchy or libertarianism.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by frazzle

 

So what would you say if the ninth amendment did NOT exist?

Would you then be for universal rights or the constitution?

But it DOES exist. I gave up games of let's pretend half a century ago.

I suspect many countries do not have the equivilancy of that amendment in their constitution. Maybe they are royally screwed? Masons write the constitution and that in of itself creates a wide arena of problems. If a constitution does not make sense......that means it should be changed.

If other peoples in other countries want a ninth amendment of their own, I certainly wouldn't object to them copying ours. What would be really cool is if they could honor it better than Americans have done so far. But I get it now, what upsets you is who wrote it, not what it says. Do you know what it says? What specific parts don't make sense or seem bad to you? Lets break it down.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

hahaha. I am pretty sure universal rights are used to trump the constitution whenever it suits conservatives.

What is truly amusing is you say this only to turn around in your next post in a reply to frazzle and dismiss the importance of the Ninth Amendment. That Ninth Amendment is what proves that universal rights do not "trump" the Constitution, which is presumably why your so quick to dismiss it.

That Ninth Amendment, and all of the other Amendments within the Bill of Rights make it expressly clear that government is prohibited from denying or disparaging any rights of the People. Not "citizens" but People and it matters not where these People hail from, the federal government of the United States is expressly prohibited from trampling over their rights.

You keep insisting on the labels you know full well I refuse to take up, and let's be clear here, in my posts that I am replying to you, any accusations I make I make of you! I could care less if you're "left", "right", up or down, if you merit accusation I will make it of you.

Rights do not "trump" the Constitution. It is just that simple.

I agree.

Many upside down flags on Facebook.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by frazzle

 

So what would you say if the ninth amendment did NOT exist?

Would you then be for universal rights or the constitution?

I suspect many countries do not have the equivilancy of that amendment in their constitution. Maybe the people get royally screwed? Masons write the constitution and that in of itself can create a wide array of problems. If a constitution does not make sense......that means it should be changed.

A bad constitution does not prove the need for anarchy or libertarianism.

edit on 5/7/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

Frazzle question: "I get it now, what upsets you is who wrote it, not what it says. Do you know what it says? What specific parts don't make sense or seem bad to you? Lets break it down."

Crickets.

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by frazzle

 

So what would you say if the ninth amendment did NOT exist?

Would you then be for universal rights or the constitution?

I suspect many countries do not have the equivilancy of that amendment in their constitution. Maybe the people get royally screwed? Masons write the constitution and that in of itself can create a wide array of problems. If a constitution does not make sense......that means it should be changed.

A bad constitution does not prove the need for anarchy or libertarianism.

edit on 5/7/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

Frazzle question: "I get it now, what upsets you is who wrote it, not what it says. Do you know what it says? What specific parts don't make sense or seem bad to you? Lets break it down."

Crickets.

That is like taking a piece of # 40 year old oldsmobile to your friendly garage and telling the mechanic "I wanna spend no more than $500 repairing it. Just do basic stuff like changing the tires-oil-windshield washers-power steering fluid-spark plugs-and perhaps a few other minor stuff. ok?"

Mechanic says "whatever dude...I will try my best, but you would be better off selling it to me for $300 for spare parts and buying a 10 year old used car. It will cause you much fewer problems!"

For starters the first amendment and second amendment have been taken wwwwaaaaayyyy out of context, THEN add a few hundred thousand unnecessary commerce codes....and.......weeeeellll we are getting there.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

For starters the first amendment and second amendment have been taken wwwwaaaaayyyy out of context, THEN add a few hundred thousand unnecessary commerce codes....and.......weeeeellll we are getting there.

That's not the fault of the Constitution, its the fault of reams of legalese written by word twisters.

Lets take the second amendment. Word twisters don't want you to understand the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty clear, but you nod your head at the prognostications of the word twisters and then wonder why everything is upside down. There are currently over 20,000 infringements on that single provision. And you would probably like more of them.

"commerce between states" IF a trade dispute should arise. Now it means they can and do track your purchase of a soda from the local quick mart.

Word twisters love disputes and will go to any length to create them because it gives them power. Over you.

But if anyone was/is to blame, it is all of the generations of PEOPLE who allowed each additional bastardization of the rule of law to become "legal" simply because they wouldn't bother to read it or go to the trouble of learning the back story of why certain clauses were written as they were and what they meant.

Congress should have been dissolved at the first sign of rebellion against the Constitution. Maybe hung from lamp posts.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by TechUnique
Its about time for an overthrow no?

No! Who the hell would we be overthrowing? Ourselves? The problem isn't that this country has been usurped, of which it has, the real problem is that those who hold the inherent political power have abdicated that power.

It is not us against them we are them!

How many of us have been taught that we are free because we get to elect our leaders? How many of us have been taught that we live in a democracy? How many of us have been taught that all we can do is vote, and then the rest is up to them? We are them!

This is our nation! You as an individual, I as an individual, and ever single individual within the United States, of sound body, mind, and age, has a responsibility to do far more than vote. We are all endowed with unalienable rights and we cannot sit back and hope ambitious politicians and ambitious bureaucrats will protect those rights, we have to protect our own rights. We have to protect the rights of our loved ones, our friends and neighbors and we certainly cannot do that by voting.

We also, most certainly cannot do that by going along to get along. We have long since past the point of getting along, and those ambitious politicians, those ambitious bureaucrats have discovered that they can trample all over our rights just as long as they keep us divided. So, We the People have bought into Democrats and Republicans, Left and Right, we have taken our side and railed against the other side, but if we are all freedom loving individuals who cherish our rights then the only other side are the sycophants of tyranny, and we need not overthrow those sycophants and tyrants, we merely need to refuse to acquiesce to their tyranny.

The ambitious politicians and ambitious bureaucrats would love to see a violent revolution in this nation. That they could easily quell. What these petty tyrants and their sycophants cannot quell is peaceful revolution. They cannot quell non-acquiescence.

So, you can keep voting. You can keep getting licenses to make sure you've obtained permission from the petty tyrants to exercise a right, you can keep paying taxes for something your are most likely not even liable for to begin with, or you can stand tall and refuse to acquiesce to licensing schemes and tax schemes that are antithetical to freedom, and if you cannot find the temerity to do something as simple and peaceful as that, then what in God's name makes you think you could pull off an overthrow?

You said it well, and so does this:
Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us. ~P.J. O'Rourke

reply to post by frazzle


What did the french and russian revolution accomplish other than taking a few heads off the masonic hydra? You cut off one head and two more grow the next day. Unless people comprehend the full picture nothing of substance can ever be accomplished.

You are correct in that the corruption spans many, many generations with each generation arguably being more ignorant, lazy and pathetic than the previous. Everything is being done/passed in absense of any meaningful approval, much less comprehension of the problems facing society by appointed beaurocrats in lieu of the people.

It would be a true RE-public, except where is the public?

200,000 PAGES of USC means millions of codes? Damm that would drive a lawyer to the lunatic assylum if he had to memorise everything. Nevermind all the executive orders done IN SECRECY much like the national security act to prevent ufo and alien disclosure.

When it is infinently easier to break the law then it is to uphold it, then OBVIOUSLY there is tyranny! The ptb have so many weapons at their disposal they pick and choose which suits their case at any given point. That is why I said the constitution is overkill; ie too much redundancy!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

That is why I said the constitution is overkill; ie too much redundancy!

"too much redundancy" as opposed to just the right amount of redundancy? You make these bold sweeping generalizations about the Constitution, and in spite of frazzle asking you several times to get more specific about your complaints you just keep making these generalizations.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

That is why I said the constitution is overkill; ie too much redundancy!

"too much redundancy" as opposed to just the right amount of redundancy? You make these bold sweeping generalizations about the Constitution, and in spite of frazzle asking you several times to get more specific about your complaints you just keep making these generalizations.

YOU are the one making generalisations. I was quite specific and accurate in what I said. You should ask me "what is correct, rather than what is wrong". Asking the wrong questions equates to baiting and you seem an expert in baiting and strawman arguements.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

YOU are the one making generalisations. I was quite specific and accurate in what I said. You should ask me "what is correct, rather than what is wrong". Asking the wrong questions equates to baiting and you seem an expert in baiting and strawman arguements.

Uh-huh. Again, what specifically are your complaints with the Constitution? Do you think you can answer that, or are you going to keep deflecting?

Originally posted by frazzle

Lets take the second amendment. Word twisters don't want you to understand the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty clear, but you nod your head at the prognostications of the word twisters and then wonder why everything is upside down. There are currently over 20,000 infringements on that single provision. And you would probably like more of them.

So america back then is the same as america today.......after 250 years of evolution?

I prefer not seeing everyone carry automatic weapons or bazookas or tanks or howitzers.

Many countries allow people to be armed but with restrictions. The restrictions can change if feasible and with lobbying.

The second amendment has arguably outgrown itself and should be amended.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by frazzle

 

What did the french and russian revolution accomplish other than taking a few heads off the masonic hydra? You cut off one head and two more grow the next day. Unless people comprehend the full picture nothing of substance can ever be accomplished.

I was going to ask what France or Russia have to do with the Constitution, but they are actually pretty good examples of what happens after a revolution or war when people are distracted and exhausted from the fighting. And what that provides is an open invitation for opportunists to slip in unnoticed during the chaos and buy up the spoils for a tenth of their previous value which makes the reasons for revolting in the first place much worse. So the people suffer, sometimes for many generations.

France dropped the ball and has been in decline for hundreds of years. But fast forward to Putin's Russia and his bold expulsion and/or imprisonment of the oligarchs who had scooped up Russia's spoils for pennies on the dollar during the fall of the USSR. Russia has never been in better shape than it is today.

If America tossed out its own oligarchs, or threw them in prison where they belong, we might have a fighting chance to cut off the remaining heads of the hydra. Ron Paul would have been our Putin and the fact that he will not be allowed to take office and enact the measures needed to cut off those heads is proof that we are governed by oligarchs, not constitutional government.

The difficulties we face have nothing to do with founding documentary redundancy, its simply an overgrowth of oligarchy.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by frazzle

Lets take the second amendment. Word twisters don't want you to understand the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty clear, but you nod your head at the prognostications of the word twisters and then wonder why everything is upside down. There are currently over 20,000 infringements on that single provision. And you would probably like more of them.

I prefer not seeing everyone carry automatic weapons or bazookas or tanks or howitzers.

Many countries allow people to be armed but with restrictions. The restrictions can change if feasible and with lobbying.

The second amendment has arguably outgrown itself and should be amended.

Well there the truth is out, you just admitted your approval of lobbyists who've robbed us blind. Imagine my (lack of) surprise.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by frazzle

 

What did the french and russian revolution accomplish other than taking a few heads off the masonic hydra? You cut off one head and two more grow the next day. Unless people comprehend the full picture nothing of substance can ever be accomplished.

I was going to ask what France or Russia have to do with the Constitution, but they are actually pretty good examples of what happens after a revolution or war when people are distracted and exhausted from the fighting. And what that provides is an open invitation for opportunists to slip in unnoticed during the chaos and buy up the spoils for a tenth of their previous value which makes the reasons for revolting in the first place much worse. So the people suffer, sometimes for many generations.

France dropped the ball and has been in decline for hundreds of years. But fast forward to Putin's Russia and his bold expulsion and/or imprisonment of the oligarchs who had scooped up Russia's spoils for pennies on the dollar during the fall of the USSR. Russia has never been in better shape than it is today.

You got it backwards there. Russia with communism was arguably in better shape than the international investor/speculator VULTURES rampaging every resource in the elite private markets. France with socialism was also better before privatising to such extreme levels.

The story of the matter is that unless people know WHY they are revolting and have plans in motion to prevent NEW CORRUPTION it just sets back the masonic agenda for a while. Not much gets accomplished!.

If America tossed out its own oligarchs, or threw them in prison where they belong, we might have a fighting chance to cut off the remaining heads of the hydra. Ron Paul would have been our Putin and the fact that he will not be allowed to take office and enact the measures needed to cut off those heads is proof that we are governed by oligarchs, not constitutional government.

The difficulties we face have nothing to do with founding documentary redundancy, its simply an overgrowth of oligarchy.

And you are telling me we are all on the same page? I don't believe you.

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by frazzle

Lets take the second amendment. Word twisters don't want you to understand the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty clear, but you nod your head at the prognostications of the word twisters and then wonder why everything is upside down. There are currently over 20,000 infringements on that single provision. And you would probably like more of them.

I prefer not seeing everyone carry automatic weapons or bazookas or tanks or howitzers.

Many countries allow people to be armed but with restrictions. The restrictions can change if feasible and with lobbying.

The second amendment has arguably outgrown itself and should be amended.

Well there the truth is out, you just admitted your approval of lobbyists who've robbed us blind. Imagine my (lack of) surprise.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

The restrictions on firearms serve a purpose. Yes the government is tyrannical as we have established this as fact. Does this mean citizens would not use unrestricted warfare against each other when times get really rough?

What good is unrestricted hardware? You would really feel safe and secure in your everyday life knowing you could get shot by some out-of-control nut sporting an m-16 rather than a ar-15? Hint one is fully automatic and the other is semi-automatic. You keep the trigger depressed and 100 rounds get dispersed in less than a minute. Not really safe!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

And you are telling me we are all on the same page? I don't believe you.

Where in the hell did I say that? If a USSR Bolshovik type scorched earth policy is what you're hoping for we aren't even on the same planet. What are you smoking?

But the US military industrial complex profits so well from their scorched earth policies in the middle east that we don't even have the resources or equipment available to fight the fires on our own scorched chunk of earth or rebuild the infrastructure that is falling apart.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

The restrictions on firearms serve a purpose.

That purpose is to ensure the public cannot match the military might of the government that serves them. Since the time of Sun Tzu it has been a consistent military strategy that the first thing you do when confronting the enemy is to disarm them. When a government seeks to disarm the very public they serve, from a military stand point it should be obvious how they view this public, as the enemy.

Any restrictions on firearms should work both ways. Had FDR and the military industrial complex he helped build had the proper respect for the 2nd Amendment, they never would have developed nuclear weapons since a proper reading of that 2nd Amendment and its intent makes clear that nuclear weapons include "arms".