• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
0
And yet we Americans tried to ban it nonetheless.

On Saturday, March 19, 2011 10:37:39 PM UTC-4, Jonathan Ashley wrote:
Giving is not the same as theft. Stealing from me (taxation) to provide for someone else's benefit (welfare, social security, etc.) is not the same as me giving to that someone.

On 03/19/2011 07:32 PM, the daily search wrote:
p.s. ever hear of the native american ceremony of potlatch???

it's interesting that we couldn't get the tribes to cease it. we had to forcefully ban them from performing the ceremony.

check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Jonathan Ashley isn't pro civil liberties nor pro free enterprise.
So, like I first assumed, he is a socialist-communist bent on tearing
down this country rather than saving it. He should be railroaded out
of the USA! — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 18, 5:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Wanna-Be-Dictator John A. Armistead has spoken once again!
>
> He wants to close down all news networks and outlaw political parties.
>
> He also thinks world government proponent Newt Gingrich has "the smarts
> and the temperament to be President."
>
> On 03/18/2011 02:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill O'Reilly and Chris Wallace get hot-under-the-collar if a "guest",
> > like Sarah Palin, avoids answering questions that tie her hands on
> > issues that are in flux.  Those two Fox jerks suppose that since they
> > are high paid and elitist, that people must do exactly like they say
> > or face ridicule.  Within one week after my New Constitution is
> > ratified, the entire Fox News Network will likely be closed down for
> > not being in the best interest of the country.  But not to worry!  The
> > other News Networks will be shuttered as well.  The "problem" is that
> > NEWS, and commentary on that news, cannot occur on the same network.
> > Of course that is only for news relating to elections or "politics".
> > I put that word in quotes, because political parties will be
> > outlawed!  Socialism will become a non issue, because any "politician"
> > proposing anything like socialism will be hanged for TREASON!  Believe
> > me, people, I can straighten out this country faster than any yellow-
> > livered politician.  Newt Gingrich has the smarts and the temperament
> > to be President. But he is too much in love with our FAILED system of
> > government to save the country from economic doom.  The Donald has a
> > good idea to make IRAQ pay for all we have done for those people.  We
> > should do those things AND tell China they will get back ONLY the
> > principle on their loans to the USA.  ï¿½Walk tall and carry a big
> > stick!�  Only tough-love can save this country... NOT more God-damned
> > politics and wasted campaign money... as usual.  After Barack Obama
> > has been hanged and has rotted to the ground for TREASON, this country
> > will be on the path to economic recovery!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead �
> > Patriot
>
> > On Mar 16, 3:38 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> As usual, "no specifics are open for discussion." What an ego this guy
> >> has. Mustn't let anyone ask any questions. His head might explode.
>
> >> On 03/16/2011 11:53 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Folks:  The vast majority of the still apt portions of our original
> >>> Constitution remains within my New Constitution.  Issues relating to
> >>> having government be deferential to the people, and placing reasonable
> >>> limits of the type and scope of the laws that may be passed, is the
> >>> subject of much that I have expanded on in my New Constitution.  I've
> >>> placed great importance on seeing to it that the corruption in
> >>> government�state, local and federal�which I have observed first hand,
> >>> shall never again negatively impact any law-abiding citizen.
> >>> There are dozens of well-defined, unconstitutional acts by government
> >>> employees or elected officials that will either get the persons fired
> >>> or sent to prison.  Working for government, even for the President, is
> >>> not a license to violate laws, or to have privileges that good
> >>> citizens don't have.  Other than my eliminating the unconstitutional
> >>> (in the SPIRIT) US Senate, and excluding 'career politicians',
> >>> lobbyists and elitist media from ever setting foot in the Capital, the
> >>> changes in the daily operation of government won�t be too obvious to
> >>> most Americans.
> >>> Not specifically written into the New Constitution, I am personally
> >>> recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment
> >>> Insurance ALL be privatized�while continuing to "cover" only those
> >>> older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of
> >>> getting first rate care.  When most taxes and restrictions on the FAIR
> >>> operation of businesses in this country have been removed, the US
> >>> economy will experience a BOOM so large, that most people will be
> >>> making enough money (Prosperity!) to provide for their own futures
> >>> without needing to look to government for any handouts.
> >>> The next sentence will assure that socialism�now closely associated
> >>> with the Democratic Party�will never again influence any future action
> >>> taken by government: "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in
> >>> the USA!"  Those in government employment must swear, on penalty of
> >>> death, to agree with that one sentence and to act accordingly.
> >>> Democrats, who consistently want better things without requiring any
> >>> work on their part, must learn that they will get no more free lunches
> >>> or free medical care.  It is my sincere hope that the hard-core 40% of
> >>> socialist democrats in this country will realize that they will be far
> >>> better off working in an efficient capitalist economy than from
> >>> continuing to seek government-doled, socialist mediocrity.
> >>> I invite the readers to comment on the general people-oriented-tone of
> >>> my document.  *** However, no specifics are open for discussion. ***
> >>> � John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>> On Mar 15, 9:36 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>    wrote:
> >>>> Folks:  I've now presented over 50% of my New Constitution.  That,
> >>>> plus the following, should give you a good idea of the love and
> >>>> devotion I've put into this long project.  My efforts, aided by
> >>>> computer, exceed the combined total time spent by the actual
> >>>> contributers to writing the original Constitution by a factor of ten.
> >>>> At each step, I asked myself what the Founding Fathers would say.  I'd
> >>>> bet they are happy people!
> >>>> "Article VI:
> >>>> Section 1, 2, 3, 4&    5:  Laws in effect at the time of the adoption of
> >>>> this New Constitution shall remain in effect while such are
> >>>> systematically reviewed, debated and revoted in the House.  Whether
> >>>> for the revoting of existing laws and regulations or for new bills,
> >>>> early and conspicuous public notice in the media shall invite Public
> >>>> input.  Bills passing without broad and substantiated Public input,
> >>>> especially by those law-abiding Citizens most affected by the
> >>>> legislation, shall not become laws.  The House shall make new laws and
> >>>> define procedures for implementing this New Constitution.  Federal
> >>>> functions to be returned to local or state governments shall be phased
> >>>> out gradually and considerately for those to be displaced or relo-
> >>>> cated.  Under this New Constitution the future state taxes of Citizens
> >>>> or businesses, typically, shall not exceed their com-bined former
> >>>> total of state and federal taxes.  At any level of services provided,
> >>>> streamlining government and minimizing bureaucracy via wise laws shall
> >>>> always be primary goals.
> >>>>        Local, state and federal law enforcement, the courts, or any
> >>>> branch or branches of the military or their respective parts shall at
> >>>> no time be used in support of corruption in government by any public
> >>>> official(s) at any level.  Legal authority of law enforcement or the
> >>>> courts over the Citizens is voided if used in support of corruption.
> >>>> Local, state and federal law en-forcement agencies shall not be
> >>>> organizationally affiliated, and persons or groups, therein, shall not
> >>>> be presumed by law enforcement to be acting lawfully solely because of
> >>>> such auspices.
> >>>>        All local, state and federal officer holders and employees�upon
> >>>> taking office or assuming employment�shall take the following oath:
> >>>> �I, (Name), promise to serve and be deferential to the People, and to
> >>>> be unbiased toward any group with a pro democracy, pro fairness
> >>>> ideology.  I swear to honor and uphold the full civil rights of the
> >>>> citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and I shall expect my
> >>>> coworkers and superiors to do the same.   I understand that my
> >>>> employment in or by government is conditional upon my adherence to
> >>>> this oath.�   No employee nor office holder shall be sanctioned for
> >>>> making complaints against another office holder, employee or
> >>>> superior.  No government employee nor office holder shall be coerced
> >>>> into wrongdoing, immoral action or non action, or illegality by a real
> >>>> or implied threat of the loss of one�s job, promotion or benefits, nor
> >>>> by any bribe or promise of promotion or benefits.   Making such a
> >>>> threat, bribe or promise is a felony carrying a minimum ten year
> >>>> prison sentence�and if part of a pattern�making such threats, bribes
> >>>> or promises is treason.  Acqui-escing to such is a felony.  Government
> >>>> officials, agents or employees who become aware of corruption in
> >>>> government or in any of its departments shall notify the Executive
> >>>> Branch and the courts; willful failure to do so is a felony.  With
> >>>> impunity, a government officer(s) or employee(s) shall enforce no law
> >>>> nor perform any order or directive which violates their personal moral
> >>>> conscience or their oath.
> >>>>        Local governments shall have 10 or more councilmen or a direct
> >>>> vote of the People is required to pass ordinances or raise taxes.
> >>>> Upon request by the Executive or 1/5 of the larger governing body,
> >>>> federal, state or local law making authority shall defer to the People
> >>>> on controversial issues where the Will of the People is in doubt.  No
> >>>> law nor previous or subsequent vote on any issue shall usurp the right
> >>>> of an informed Public to decide controversial issues in direct
> >>>> referenda; the vote for passage shall be 60%.  The apt macro-Will of
> >>>> the People in elections or referenda, as manifested by their votes,
> >>>> shall take precedence over any contrary existing or subsequent law,
> >>>> governmental hierarchy or judicial ruling.  Because conditions change,
> >>>> older laws aren�t necessarily the Will of the People.
> >>>>        Laws shall be concise and well defined.  If�due to brevity,
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

0
Giving is not the same as theft. Stealing from me (taxation) to provide for someone else's benefit (welfare, social security, etc.) is not the same as me giving to that someone.

On 03/19/2011 07:32 PM, the daily search wrote:
p.s. ever hear of the native american ceremony of potlatch???

it's interesting that we couldn't get the tribes to cease it. we had to forcefully ban them from performing the ceremony.

check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

0
p.s. ever hear of the native american ceremony of potlatch???

it's interesting that we couldn't get the tribes to cease it. we had to forcefully ban them from performing the ceremony.

check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0
LMAO...you're just pissed that you lost. . I always get to them.

You should be crying on your pillow right about now. But just because you lost please don't do anything rash. I'm not kidding and I sincerely mean this. I know how I can really break people down but it's not the end of the world at all. I still respect you as a human being. You're not evil. Just mistaken. Believe me, over time now you'll start to make more and more connections and life will seem a lot less stressful and you'll be more at peace with others. And someday you WILL stop wanting to kill me.

Have a nice day and don't mention it. :D

On Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:45:07 PM UTC-4, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
All of this anger and hatred simply because YOU can't function ?? I knew you'd come back with the "Lioness" thing.... your kind can only live off the sweat of a "bitch" or the work of others and always want more for doing less.....sucker....(it was far too easy)  Move your ass make something of YOURSELF you pitiful excuse for a man. 

I have NEVER taken anything by force... I have earned it with my brain, my sweat and my sacrifice...That YOU can't do the same is a personal problem... very personal. If I lived like you and thought every owed ME but ME... I'd just shoot myself.

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:10 PM, the daily search <thedail...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, Bruce. You own everything. Just you and your ilk get to own shit because you really get it and people like me don't. Go ahead. Let's see where your "I earned it so it's all mine" philosophy takes you. You think I fear that? I welcome it because I know it can't work in practice.

And btw, the male lion, the so-called "king of the jungle",  doesn't even eat unless the females do the hunting. Also notice that within a pride of lions, not every member hunts yet all partake, dick face. Also notice it's a "pride" of lions, a group species. If lions failed to cooperate on food they would devolve into a solitary species like bears who can't or refuse to cooperate in regards to territory or food which is what you and your ilk would have us devolve into. Put simply: Lions fucking share and maintain group cohesiveness and increased group survival chances. Bears don't fucking share, have little to no group cohesiveness and lower individual and species survival chances.

So save your little ego-infused rebuttals for someone of your own debating skills. You don't even understand that contained in your own words "I keep what I kill" is the philosophy of the very parasite you despise. You admit you need to be a parasite to survive. Taking wealth by force that you didn't earn and have no right to take. And yet you want others to afford you some kind of special treatment.

It is very easy for me to win this debate with you. In fact, I already have. But you are so dumb it is practically impossible to get you to see you've lost.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fila Coffee

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Unfortunately, your response appears to be a 'knee jerk' effort based upon the Subject rather than the content Riggenbach presented.

Regard$,
--MJ

You can't reason somebody out of something they weren't reasoned into. -- L. Neil Smith

At 12:45 PM 3/18/2011, you wrote:
MJ, is the Tea Party Revolution Serious? Well let me make this
statement. Is what we we believe and the principles that this nation
was founded on real, if we answer yes than the movement is serious and
no one is going to stop it. God Bless The Tea Par tiers each and
everyone.

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:53 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
> "Lepore also finds anecdotal evidence of historical ignorance among the
> contemporary tea partiers. She talks with a Midwesterner named Patrick
> Humphries, for example, who tells her he "was born in Indiana and grew up in
> Iowa." Humphries believes, like most of his fellow tea partiers, that the
> policies of the Obama administration represent a "radical change" -- a
> "government takeover of the economy." But of course Obama's actual policies
> are merely the policies all presidential administrations, both Republican
> and Democratic, have pursued for nearly 80 years. They are virtually
> indistinguishable from the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Much
> of the tea party talk about the supposed evil of the Obama administration is
> really just empty rhetorical excess."
>
> Is the Tea Party's Revolution Serious?
> Friday, March 18, 2011
> by Jeff Riggenbach
>
> [Transcribed from the Libertarian Tradition podcast episode "The Tea Party's
> Revolution"]
>
> Jill Lepore is a professor of history at Harvard and a journalist whose work
> appears in the major mainstream media. The New York Times and the Los
> Angeles Times are on the list of publications to which she contributes, as
> is The New Yorker, where she's listed on the masthead as a "staff writer."
> Her latest book, which was published back in September by Princeton
> University Press, is called The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's
> Revolution and the Battle over American History. Unsurprisingly, it reads
> rather like a long magazine article.
>
> It meanders here and there in a leisurely fashion; it includes tidbits from
> Lepore's reading in American history and other tidbits from interviews she
> conducted with members of the contemporary tea-party movement, but it seems
> never to really reach any particular point. In the end, it doesn't really
> end; it just stops. She raises some big questions ­ "What was the Revolution
> about? What is history for? Who are we?" ­ but never really answers them.
>
> If there is any overarching argument to The Whites of Their Eyes it would
> seem to be this: the members of the contemporary tea-party movement believe,
> according to Lepore, in a version of American history that she dismisses as
> "a fantasy," an 18th century with
>
> no slavery, poverty, ignorance, insanity, sickness, or misery … only the
> Founding Fathers with their white wigs, wearing their three-cornered hats,
> in their Christian nation, revolting against taxes, and defending their
> right to bear arms.
>
> This outright "fiction," Lepore argues, may, for example, be accused of
> having "compressed a quarter century of political contest into 'the
> founding,' as if ideas worked out, over decades of debate and fierce
> disagreement, were held by everyone, from the start." She quotes an exchange
> between Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. "Who's your favorite Founder?" Beck asks
> Palin. "Um, you know, well," she replies. "All of them."
>
> It is not, of course, clear whether Mrs. Palin actually knows the names of
> any of these Founders Beck was asking her about, as it is not clear whether
> she knows anything else at all about them either. It is relatively certain,
> however, that Glenn Beck does know both who the Founders were and at least
> something about what they said and did. He has claimed, for example, that
> Thomas Paine, "was the Glenn Beck of the American Revolution," a not
> entirely implausible interpretation of the facts.
>
> The problem, however, at least as Lepore sees it, is that Beck is a devotee
> of the tea-party movement's version of American history, which she calls not
> "just kooky history [but] antihistory." Then she decides that perhaps a
> better term for it is "historical fundamentalism." And for the rest of the
> book, that's the term she goes with. "Historical fundamentalism … is to
> history," she writes, "what astrology is to astronomy, what alchemy is to
> chemistry, what creationism is to evolution."
>
> More specifically,
>
> historical fundamentalism is marked by the belief that a particular and
> quite narrowly defined past ­ "the founding" ­ is ageless and sacred and to
> be worshipped; that certain historical texts ­ "the founding documents" ­
> are to be read in the same spirit with which religious fundamentalists read,
> for instance, the Ten Commandments; that the Founding Fathers were divinely
> inspired; that the academic study of history (whose standards of evidence
> and methods of analysis are based on skepticism) is a conspiracy and,
> furthermore, blasphemy; and that political arguments grounded in appeals to
> the founding documents, as sacred texts, and to the Founding Fathers, as
> prophets, are therefore incontrovertible.
>
> As Lepore points out, the Founding Fathers "weren't even called the Founding
> Fathers until Warren G. Harding coined that phrase in his keynote address at
> the Republican National Convention in 1916." He used the phrase again a few
> years later, "during his inauguration in 1921," in an inaugural address
> written in what H.L. Mencken described as
>
> the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of
> wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of
> stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through
> endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
>
> It was in that very same speech that Harding attested his "belief in the
> divine inspiration of the founding fathers."
>
> Lepore provides inconclusive anecdotal evidence, which I nevertheless find
> persuasive, that the tea-party movement is mainly just a bunch of
> disaffected Republicans who really care nothing for small government or
> individual liberty but merely want to see the GOP back in the White House
> and back in control of Congress. For example, she cites a 2010 New York
> Times/CBS News poll as revealing that "63 percent of self-described tea
> party supporters gain most of their television news from Fox, compared with
> 23 percent of all adult Americans," and Fox News is, of course, little more
> than the outsourced publicity arm of the Republican Party.
>
> She also presents such evidence from her own interviews with members of the
> tea-party movement. She found that
>
> Tea partiers liked to describe their movement as a catchall ­ Austin Hess
> identified himself as a libertarian, Christen Varley described herself as a
> social and fiscal conservative ­ but it didn't catch everything. Opposition
> to military power didn't have a place in the twenty-first century tea party.
> It did, however, have a place in the Revolution.
>
> Moreover, the commitment to individual liberty exhibited by many of those
> Lepore talked with was rather scant, to say the least. She interviews one
> tea partier, Christen Varley, who is working "to try to get a ban on
> same-sex marriage on the ballot." Lepore "asked her whether that didn't
> amount to more government interference, but the problem, she said, was that
> the government had interfered so much already that it had nearly destroyed
> the family, and the only thing for it was to use the government to repair
> the damage." In other words, "I oppose large, intrusive government, except
> when I don't." Where could you find a better definition of conservatism?
>
> At another point in her period of interaction with the tea partiers, mostly
> in Boston, Lepore asked a self-proclaimed libertarian, Austin Hess, "if he
> was troubled by Christen Varley's work with the Coalition for Marriage and
> the Family. 'We do not discuss social issues and foreign policy issues,' he
> said." Later,
>
> I asked Austin Hess whether he was worried Sarah Palin was hijacking the tea
> party. He shrugged. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," he said. "I don't
> agree with her about a whole lot of things, but we're not conducting purity
> tests. We're building coalitions."
>
> Lepore also finds anecdotal evidence of historical ignorance among the
> contemporary tea partiers. She talks with a Midwesterner named Patrick
> Humphries, for example, who tells her he "was born in Indiana and grew up in
> Iowa." Humphries believes, like most of his fellow tea partiers, that the
> policies of the Obama administration represent a "radical change" -- a
> "government takeover of the economy." But of course Obama's actual policies
> are merely the policies all presidential administrations, both Republican
> and Democratic, have pursued for nearly 80 years. They are virtually
> indistinguishable from the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Much
> of the tea party talk about the supposed evil of the Obama administration is
> really just empty rhetorical excess.
>
> And Lepore does have a tendency to take the contemporary tea partiers'
> somewhat overheated rhetoric a bit too literally. She seems to think, for
> example, that they really want to return to the 18th century -- or, to be
> more exact, to the way government was conducted back then. And that is
> something Lepore herself does not want.
>
> She tells the sad story of Peter Franklin Mecom, Benjamin Franklin's nephew,
> the son of his sister Jane. When Jane's husband, Edward Mecom, died, Lepore
> writes, he
>
> left his wife with nothing but debts, not least because, long before he
> died, he had lost his mind. Whatever ailed him, it was heritable. When
> Jane's son Peter fell prey to the Mecom madness, Benjamin Franklin paid a
> farmer's wife to take care of him.
>
> The care she provided did not, however, meet Jill Lepore's standards.
> "Whenever I hear people … talk about getting back to what the founders had,"
> she writes, "a government that won't give money to people who don't work, I
> think about Peter Franklin Mecom: he was tied up in a barn, like an animal,
> for the rest of his life." Nor does Mecom's case represent the full extent
> of Lepore's dissatisfaction with the politics of the late 18th century. "In
> eighteenth-century America," she writes, "I wouldn't have been able to vote.
> I wouldn't have been able to own property, either." And her rejection of
> that prospect is flat and final. She writes, "I don't want to go back to
> that."
>
> She approvingly quotes Thurgood Marshall's 1987 remark in which he mocked
> what he called the "complacent belief that the vision of those who debated
> and compromised in Philadelphia yielded the 'more perfect union' it is said
> we now enjoy." Marshall expressed a certain skepticism about "the wisdom,
> foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers" and noted that
> "the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several
> amendments, a civil war, and major social transformations to attain the
> system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and
> individual rights … we hold as fundamental today."
>
> There is merit in this statement -- though a historically literate
> libertarian would remonstrate a bit about Marshall's wording. It's doubtful,
> for example, that a civil war was actually "required" to get rid of slavery,
> and not all of those constitutional amendments Marshall seemed to hold in
> such high regard were "required" either, not if the end you had in view was
> the protection of individual rights.
>
> The one in 1920 that permitted women to vote was doubtless "required" for
> that objective to be achieved. But what about the provisions of the
> Reconstruction Amendments that effectively turned over to a monstrously
> enlarged federal government all the matters that had previously been
> concerns of the various states? Did this have the effect of better
> protecting the individual rights of Americans? The matter is, at the very
> least, debatable.
>
> The important point, however, is that no tea partiers I know of are asking
> that the government policies of the late 18th century be adopted anew --
> that slavery be reinstituted, that women be denied the right to vote and the
> right to own property. What the tea partiers are asking is rather that our
> current government be run according to the principles that underlay the
> American Revolution. But there's the rub. For what are those principles?
>
> The Founding Fathers didn't agree with each other about everything. In fact,
> the more you read their letters and other writings, the more it seems that
> they agreed with each other about virtually nothing except the desirability
> of breaking with England and establishing a new government for what had been
> 13 separate English colonies. This is presumably why Glenn Beck asked Sarah
> Palin to name her favorite Founder, and it was her ignorant belief -- or so,
> at least, it seems to me -- that the founders all agreed that made her
> unable to answer his question.
>
> If you think of the American Revolution as most modern libertarians do, as
> having been a major event in the libertarian tradition, as having been
> underlain by essentially libertarian ideas, if what at least some tea
> partiers want is that our current government be run according to libertarian
> principles -- well, then, what they want is a federal government that
> scarcely exists, a federal government closer to the one that operated under
> the Articles of Confederation than to any US federal government that has
> existed since adoption of the Constitution. If, like most tea partiers,
> however, you're a conservative, then the principles you probably believe
> underlay the American Revolution were "no taxation without representation,"
> the right to bear arms, and, of course, the doctrine that the United States
> was to be a "Christian nation."
>
> It is a skewed understanding of the Revolution that permits such a view as
> this, of course, which is Lepore's point. What today's tea partiers think
> they know about the American Revolution is partial and selective when it
> isn't absolute bunkum.
>
> Jill Lepore believes, and I agree with her, that it would be better if the
> tea partiers got their facts right, so that their understanding of the
> meaning of the American Revolution was more nuanced and closer to the actual
> truth.
>
> She is inclined to blame her own profession for the problem. Academic
> historians stopped writing for the general reader decades ago, she argues,
> and began turning out highly specialized scholarship that frankly didn't
> expect any readers other than fellow professors.
>
> She has a point, but I myself am a firm believer in the view that you can
> lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. The horse has to want a
> drink. The American electorate has to want the truth about American history.
> Too many Americans really don't want truth -- any truth. What they want is
> mythology that will confirm their prejudices.
>
> Those of us who communicate with the public about history do have to get out
> the word about what American history really is. But just doing that won't
> guarantee a change in public attitudes toward the American Revolution. We
> still need a thirsty horse.
>
>
> Jeff Riggenbach is a journalist, author, editor, broadcaster, and educator.
> A member of the Organization of American Historians and a Senior Fellow at
> the Randolph Bourne Institute, he has written for such newspapers as The New
> York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco
> Chronicle; such magazines as Reason, Inquiry, and Liberty; and such websites
> as LewRockwell.com, AntiWar.com, and RationalReview.com. Drawing on vocal
> skills he honed in classical and all-news radio in Los Angeles, San
> Francisco, and Houston, Riggenbach has also narrated the audiobook versions
> of numerous libertarian works, many of them available in Mises Media.
>
> http://mises.org/daily/5107/Is-the-Tea-Partys-Revolution-Serious
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Bananas are yellow.

Regard$,
--MJ

I am for relying, for internal defense, on our militia solely, till actual invasion, and for such naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment; not for a navy, which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burdens, and sink us under them. I am for free commerce with all nations; political connection with none; and little or no diplomatic establishment.  -- Thomas Jefferson



At 06:56 PM 3/18/2011, you wrote:
The constitutional mandate to raise and maintain a military was long
before the Bill of Rights was even a thought

On Mar 18, 1:19 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> The Bill of Rights: Antipathy to MilitarismbyJacob G. Hornberger, Posted December 3, 2004This article was originally published in the September 2004 edition of Freedom Daily.The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "no Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
> Obviously, the Third Amendment has little relevance today. But what is relevant for us today is the mindset that underlay the passage of that amendment a mindset of deep antipathy toward militarism and standing armies. Our ancestors' fierce opposition to a powerful military force was consistent with their overall philosophy that guided the formation of the Constitution and the passage of the Bill of Rights.
> While the Framers understood the need for a federal government, what concerned them was the possibility that such a government would become a worse menace than no government at all. Their recent experience with the British government which of course had been their government and against which they had taken up arms had reinforced what they had learned through their study of history: that the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of a people was their own government.
> Thus, after several years operating under the Articles of Confederation, the challenge the Framers faced was how to bring a federal government into existence that would be sufficiently powerful to protect their rights and liberties but that would not also become omnipotent and tyrannical.
> Their solution was the Constitution, a document that would call the federal government into existence but limit its powers to those expressly enumerated in the document itself. Thus, a close examination of the Constitution shows that the powers of the U.S. government originate in it. The idea was that if a power wasn't enumerated, federal officials were precluded from exercising it.
> Even that, however, was not good enough for our American ancestors. They wanted an express restriction on the abridgement of what had become historically recognized as fundamental and inherent rights of the people. In other words, they wanted what could be considered an express insurance policy for the protection of their rights. While government officials could not lawfully exercise powers that were not enumerated in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights would make the point even more emphatically that federal officials had no authority to abridge the fundamental rights of the people.
> The Constitution provided other measures to protect against the rise of omnipotent and tyrannical government. One was the division of government into three separate branches, with the aim of establishing a system of "checks and balances" that would prevent the rise of powerful centralized government. Another was the Second Amendment, which ensured that the people would retain the means of resisting tyranny or even violently overthrowing a tyrannical government should the need arise.
> Given their view that the federal government they were bringing into existence constituted the biggest threat to their freedom and well-being, constantly on the minds of our ancestors was the primary means by which governments had historically subjected their people to tyranny through the use of the government's military forces. That is the primary reason for the deep antipathy that the Founders had for an enormous standing military force in their midst. They understood fully that if such a force existed, their own government would possess the primary means by which governments have always imposed tyranny on their own people.Using armies for tyrannyHistorically, governments had misused standing armies in two ways, both of which ultimately subjected the citizenry to tyranny. One was to engage in faraway wars, which inevitably entailed enormous expenditures, enabling the government to place ever-increasing tax burdens on the people. Such wars also inevitably entailed "patriotic" calls for blind allegiance to the government so long as the war was being waged. Consider, for example, the immortal words of James Madison, who is commonly referred to as "the father of the Constitution":Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.The second way to use a standing army to impose tyranny was the direct one the use of troops to establish order and obedience among the citizenry. Ordinarily, if a government has no huge standing army at its disposal, many people will choose to violate immoral laws that always come with a tyrannical regime; that is, they engage in what is commonly known as "civil disobedience" the disobedience to immoral laws. But as the Chinese people discovered at Tiananmen Square, when the government has a standing army to enforce its will, civil disobedience becomes much more problematic.
> Consider again the words of Madison:A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.The idea is that governments use their armies to produce the enemies, then scare the people with cries that the barbarians are at the gates, and then claim that war is necessary to put down the barbarians. With all this, needless to say, comes increased governmental power over the people.
> Sound familiar?The Founding FathersHere is how Henry St. George Tucker put it in Blackstone's 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England:Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.Virginian Patrick Henry pointed out the difficulty associated with violent resistance to tyranny when a standing army is enforcing the orders of the government:A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?When the Commonwealth of Virginia ratified the Constitution in 1788, its concern over standing armies mirrored that of Patrick Henry:... that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.Virginia's concern was expressed by North Carolina, which stated in its Declaration of Rights in 1776,that the people have a Right to bear Arms for the Defence of the State, and as Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.The Pennsylvania Convention repeated that principle:... as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.The U.S. State Department's own website describes the convictions of the Founding Fathers regarding standing armies:Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth.In fact, as Roy G. Weatherup pointed out in his excellent article, "Standing Armies and Armed Citizens: A Historical Analysis of the Second Amendment" ( www.saf.org/journal/ 1_stand.html), the abuses of their government's standing army was one of the primary reasons that the British colonists took up arms against that army in 1776:[The Declaration of Independence] listed the colonists' grievances, including the presence of standing armies, subordination of civil to military power, use of foreign mercenary soldiers, quartering of troops, and the use of the royal prerogative to suspend laws and charters. All of these legal actions resulted from reliance on standing armies in place of the militia.Moreover, as William S. Fields and David T. Hardy point out in their excellent article, "The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History" ( www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAnd Hardy2.html), the deep antipathy that the Founders had toward standing armies followed a long tradition among the British people of opposing the standing armies of their king:The experience of the early Middle Ages had instilled in the English people a deep aversion to the professional army, which they came to associate with oppressive taxes, and physical abuses of their persons and property (and corresponding fondness for their traditional institution the militia). This development was to have a profound effect on the development of civil rights in both England and the American colonies.... During the seventeenth century, problems associated with the involuntary quartering of soldiers and the maintenance of standing armies became crucial issues propelling the English nation toward civil war.Did the antipathy against standing armies mean that our ancestors were pacifists? On the contrary! After all, don't forget that they had only recently won a violent war against their own government and its enormous and powerful standing army.
> In their minds, the military bedrock of a free society lay not in an enormous standing army but rather in the concept of the citizen-soldier the person in ordinary life in civil society who is well-armed and well-trained in the use of weapons and who is always ready in times of deepest peril to come to the aid of his country but only to defend against invasion and not to go overseas to wage wars of aggression or wars of "liberation." As John Quincy Adams put it in his July 4, 1821, address to Congress, America "does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."U.S. foreign policyAre the ideas and principles of the Founding Fathers relevant today? They couldn't be more relevant. Many decades ago, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the growing power of the military-industrial complex in American life. Unfortunately, the American people failed to heed his warning. The result has been an ever-growing military cancer that is bringing death, ruin, shame, and economic disaster to our nation just as our Founding Fathers said it would.
> More and more people are finally recognizing that the anger and hatred that foreigners have for the United States is rooted in morally bankrupt, deadly, and destructive foreign policies policies that have been enforced by America's enormous standing military force. The resulting blow-back in terms of terrorist attacks, such as those on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001, have been used as the excuse for waging more wars thousands of miles away, and those wars have produced even more anger and hatred, with the concomitant threat of even more terrorist counter-responses. All that, in turn, has provided the excuse for more foreign interventions, ever-increasing military budgets, consolidation of power, increasing taxes, and massive infringements on the civil liberties of the American people.
> It is not a coincidence that the president's indefinite detention and punishment of American citizens for suspected terrorist crimes without according them due process, habeas corpus, right to counsel, jury trials, freedom of speech, or other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are being enforced by the standing army that our ancestors warned us against. And make no mistake about it: Given orders of their commander in chief, especially in a "national security crisis," to establish "order" in America, U.S. soldiers will do the same thing that soldiers throughout history have done they will obey the orders given to them. Just ask the survivors of the massacre at the Branch Davidian compound at Waco or the victims of rape and sex abuse at Abu Graib prison in Iraq or Jose Padilla, an American citizen who is currently in Pentagon custody, where he has been denied due process, habeas corpus, and other rights accorded by the U.S. Constitution.
> In determining the future direction of our nation, the choice is clear: Do we continue down the road of empire, standing armies, foreign wars and occupations, and sanctions and embargoes, along with the taxes, regulations, and loss of liberty that inevitably come with them? Do we continue a foreign policy, enforced by the U.S. military, that engenders ever-increasing anger and hatred among the people of the world, which then engenders violent "blowback" against Americans, which is in turn used to justify more of the same policies?
> Or do we change direction and move our nation in the direction of the vision of our Founding Fathers toward liberty and the restoration of a republic to our nation toward a society in which the government is limited to protecting the nation from invasion and barred from invading or attacking foreign nations a world in which the United States is once again the model society for freedom, prosperity, peace, and harmony a nation in which the Statue of Liberty once again becomes a shining beacon for those striving to escape the tyranny and oppression of their own governments?
> Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

It is my understanding that I am a member (in good standing?) of this Group (PoliticalForum@GoogleGroups.com).
I never claimed to be a moderator.

I did not request a 'discussion'.

I did, however, ask for YOU to support YOUR assertion and explain:

  What 'constitutional rights' do you imagine 'run counter' when you claim, "sometimes runs counter to the Constitutional rights of both patients and their families"

Apparently you cannot support your claim(s) which is why you resort to spewing fallacy when anyone responds to your posts.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." -- Samuel Adams, November 20, 1772




At 05:42 PM 3/18/2011, you wrote:
Dear MJ:  You are a rude party crasher, not a moderator.  I am not
interested in having a discussion with anyone regarding the specifics
of my New Constitution.  As for science, I am the King of the Hill of
patriotic Americans!  — J. A. Armistead —
>
On Mar 17, 8:45 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >In medical facilities all across the country, "medical protocol"
> >sometimes runs counter to the Constitutional rights of both patients
> >and their families.
>
> What 'constitutional rights' do you imagine to have 'run counter'?
> Please cite some examples.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it
> cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on
> the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not
> prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the
> government -- that it is not a charter _for_ government power, but a
> charter of the citizen's protection _against_ the government. --
> Alyssa Rosenbaum

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0
All of this anger and hatred simply because YOU can't function ?? I knew you'd come back with the "Lioness" thing.... your kind can only live off the sweat of a "bitch" or the work of others and always want more for doing less.....sucker....(it was far too easy)  Move your ass make something of YOURSELF you pitiful excuse for a man. 

I have NEVER taken anything by force... I have earned it with my brain, my sweat and my sacrifice...That YOU can't do the same is a personal problem... very personal. If I lived like you and thought every owed ME but ME... I'd just shoot myself.

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 7:10 PM, the daily search <thedailysearch@gmail.com> wrote:
No, Bruce. You own everything. Just you and your ilk get to own shit because you really get it and people like me don't. Go ahead. Let's see where your "I earned it so it's all mine" philosophy takes you. You think I fear that? I welcome it because I know it can't work in practice.

And btw, the male lion, the so-called "king of the jungle",  doesn't even eat unless the females do the hunting. Also notice that within a pride of lions, not every member hunts yet all partake, dick face. Also notice it's a "pride" of lions, a group species. If lions failed to cooperate on food they would devolve into a solitary species like bears who can't or refuse to cooperate in regards to territory or food which is what you and your ilk would have us devolve into. Put simply: Lions fucking share and maintain group cohesiveness and increased group survival chances. Bears don't fucking share, have little to no group cohesiveness and lower individual and species survival chances.

So save your little ego-infused rebuttals for someone of your own debating skills. You don't even understand that contained in your own words "I keep what I kill" is the philosophy of the very parasite you despise. You admit you need to be a parasite to survive. Taking wealth by force that you didn't earn and have no right to take. And yet you want others to afford you some kind of special treatment.

It is very easy for me to win this debate with you. In fact, I already have. But you are so dumb it is practically impossible to get you to see you've lost.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fila Coffee

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

'Let's Impeach the President…'
Posted by Daniel McAdams on March 19, 2011 07:30 PM

According to media reports, today the US fired some 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya, a country that has neither attacked nor threatened the US. That is fifty million dollars. Fifty million of our dollars.
Not only has the president not asked Congress for a declaration of war, as federal law, in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution demands, he has not even lowered himself to ask for the mere Congressional "authorization" that his criminal predecessor sought before his attack on Iraq, which also did not attack nor threaten the US. One does not need to suffer from an excess of anti-interventionist zeal to recognize that this is a blatantly criminal act that, if we are anything more than a banana republic, should be punished according to the methods outlined in the Constitution to deal with rogue and criminal presidents. If we have any rule of law left in this country, this should be over.
0
Okay, you own everything. Just you and your ilk get to own shit because you really get it and people like me don't. Go ahead. Let's see where your "I earned it so it's all mine" philosophy takes you. You think I fear that? I welcome it because I know it can't work in practice.

And btw, the male lion, the so-called "king of the jungle",  doesn't even eat unless the females do the hunting. Also notice that within a pride of lions, not every member hunts yet all partake, dick face. Also notice it's a "pride" of lions, a group species. If lions failed to cooperate on food they would devolve into a solitary species like bears who can't or refuse to cooperate in regards to territory or food which is what you and your ilk would have us devolve into. Put simply: Lions fucking share and maintain group cohesiveness and increased group survival chances. Bears don't fucking share, have little to no group cohesiveness and lower individual and species survival chances.

So save your little ego-infused rebuttals for someone of your own debating skills. You don't even understand that contained in your own words "I keep what I kill" is the philosophy of the very parasite you despise. You admit you need to be a parasite to survive. Taking wealth by force that you didn't earn and have no right to take. And yet you want others to afford you some kind of special treatment.

It is very easy for me to win this debate with you. In fact, I already have. But you are so dumb it is practically impossible to get you to see you've lost.

On Saturday, March 19, 2011 8:19:37 PM UTC-4, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
Your kind of help ?? I think not... I keep what I kill and decide who gets some and how much. As to following you... well I prefer ALWAYS having everything I need and being able to give that which I feel is correct to whom I feel it is correct to receive it.

As to aww, too bad... not really. As to the Platypus; it is a PERFECT creation if you discount adaptability. As to humans being a Solitary Species... indeed it is, there is NO proof that other than defense (of something) do people join together on a permanent basis and no proof that it is even possible.

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM, the daily search <thedail...@gmail.com> wrote:
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT A SOLITARY SPECIES, ASSFACE!!!!!!!  Try to keep up with the evolution of humanity, platypus.

Can't follow me???? Aww, too bad!!!! Wish I could help you.


On Saturday, March 19, 2011 7:21:54 PM UTC-4, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
Thats right ...... I, me, myself, yo, Ich, mi mismo, moved them around..... if that is how you want to think about it.

Why should YOU get a piece of what ......I, me, myself, yo, Ich, mi mismo.... did. 

Why are YOU on your fat ass looking to.....I, me, myself, yo, Ich, mi mismo....for a reward from MY labor and looking for a job with ME.

MY idea, MY labor, MY sacrifice... why do you deserve anything from I make happen ??

When can I move into OUR house and start doing OUR wife and daughters ?? Its just a slight movement of resources that belong to no one according to you.  We have equal rights to all...and everything...regardless of thought, labor or love...  

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:11 PM, the daily search <theda...@gmail.com> wrote:
Because you didn't earn anything!!! You just moved resources around!!!

Try to wrap your brain around that one, cretin! You'll never get it, though.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fila Coffee

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fila Coffee

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0
No, Bruce. You own everything. Just you and your ilk get to own shit because you really get it and people like me don't. Go ahead. Let's see where your "I earned it so it's all mine" philosophy takes you. You think I fear that? I welcome it because I know it can't work in practice.

And btw, the male lion, the so-called "king of the jungle",  doesn't even eat unless the females do the hunting. Also notice that within a pride of lions, not every member hunts yet all partake, dick face. Also notice it's a "pride" of lions, a group species. If lions failed to cooperate on food they would devolve into a solitary species like bears who can't or refuse to cooperate in regards to territory or food which is what you and your ilk would have us devolve into. Put simply: Lions fucking share and maintain group cohesiveness and increased group survival chances. Bears don't fucking share, have little to no group cohesiveness and lower individual and species survival chances.

So save your little ego-infused rebuttals for someone of your own debating skills. You don't even understand that contained in your own words "I keep what I kill" is the philosophy of the very parasite you despise. You admit you need to be a parasite to survive. Taking wealth by force that you didn't earn and have no right to take. And yet you want others to afford you some kind of special treatment.

It is very easy for me to win this debate with you. In fact, I already have. But you are so dumb it is practically impossible to get you to see you've lost.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0
Bruce,

We OWE him because we are successful. Everyone owns everything according to him.

Yet he refuses to ask me to permanently stay in his home drive his car and share his women with me... I guess HE gets to draw the line. 

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
more proof that you are envious evil smear of slime you cowardly nameless whore

you imagine that you have contributed something to the planet and that people who invent things and find natural resources etc etc should be your slaves

you are a parasite and should be exiled from human society like the lame diseased  dog you are


On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM, the daily search <thedailysearch@gmail.com> wrote:
No. The rich posses most of the wealth. Nobody said anything about them making their wealth. They don't make shit. They just move around the earth's resources, that were already there to begin with, people being one of them. They'd have nothing, nothing without other people.


On Saturday, March 19, 2011 11:47:27 AM UTC-4, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
Kinda like the "Favorite Bill Maher" clip that you have posted......
yes the rich make most of the money... they also invest most of the
money, pay the most taxes and employ the most people... yet these
"minor" items seem to escape both you and Maher. How many people have
applied for jobs with broke companies and or broke individuals ?? Only
Government can hire when its broke and all that does is put MORE
burden on everybody.

On Mar 19, 6:35 am, the daily search <thedail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, duh, Bruce. Lies are much more entertaining than the truth. And
> perhaps, like the purveyors of these emails, you'd rather be ignorant but
> entertained. We already know that, buddy.
>
> Yes, I could entertain you and everyone reading by telling you to "EAT SHIT
> AND *DIE*" in a foam-flecked response. But I *want* people like you, with a
> low tolerance for dry, reasoned political discussion, to be bored out of
> existence.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fila Coffee

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



Campaign For Liberty member and Ron Paul supporter Kerry Roberts has won a special election for the State Senate in Tennessee's 18th District which encompasses Robertson and Sumner Counties just north of Nashville.


He won by a 2:1 land slide!


PIC - Kerry Gets               Sworn In
Kerry gets sworn the day after the election!

Pic - Kerry and family


Relevant news articles:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110309/ROBERTSON01/110309033/Senator-Kerry-Roberts-takes-oath-office

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14214039/kerry-roberts-elected-district-18-state-senator

http://www.wkrn.com/story/14214033/kerry-roberts-elected-to-state-senate-in-special-election

http://www.wsmv.com/news/27102939/detail.html

http://www.knoxviews.com/node/15862

http://nashvillepost.com/blogs/postpolitics/2011/3/9/roberts_defeats_opponent

Official results:
http://tnsos.net/Elections/20110308/TNSenate18General.htm

His official Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kerry-Roberts/149263825121202


http://tncampaignforliberty.org/misc/KerryRoberts-RonPaul.jpg
Kerry meeting with Ron Paul at Rand's primary election night party

Kerry Promoting End The Fed
Kerry promoting Ron Paul's book "End The Fed" at a 2010 debate


IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE TN CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY TOO VISIT THIS PAGE:
http://www.CampaignForLiberty.org





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-642@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Matt Collins (matt@ultrasonicdesigns.com) from The Murfreesboro Ron Paul Campaign For Liberty Meetup Group.
To learn more about Matt Collins, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0
Your kind of help ?? I think not... I keep what I kill and decide who gets some and how much. As to following you... well I prefer ALWAYS having everything I need and being able to give that which I feel is correct to whom I feel it is correct to receive it.

As to aww, too bad... not really. As to the Platypus; it is a PERFECT creation if you discount adaptability. As to humans being a Solitary Species... indeed it is, there is NO proof that other than defense (of something) do people join together on a permanent basis and no proof that it is even possible.

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM, the daily search <thedailysearch@gmail.com> wrote:
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT A SOLITARY SPECIES, ASSFACE!!!!!!!  Try to keep up with the evolution of humanity, platypus.

Can't follow me???? Aww, too bad!!!! Wish I could help you.


On Saturday, March 19, 2011 7:21:54 PM UTC-4, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
Thats right ...... I, me, myself, yo, Ich, mi mismo, moved them around..... if that is how you want to think about it.

Why should YOU get a piece of what ......I, me, myself, yo, Ich, mi mismo.... did. 

Why are YOU on your fat ass looking to.....I, me, myself, yo, Ich, mi mismo....for a reward from MY labor and looking for a job with ME.

MY idea, MY labor, MY sacrifice... why do you deserve anything from I make happen ??

When can I move into OUR house and start doing OUR wife and daughters ?? Its just a slight movement of resources that belong to no one according to you.  We have equal rights to all...and everything...regardless of thought, labor or love...  

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:11 PM, the daily search <thedail...@gmail.com> wrote:
Because you didn't earn anything!!! You just moved resources around!!!

Try to wrap your brain around that one, cretin! You'll never get it, though.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fila Coffee

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fila Coffee

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0
more proof that you are envious evil smear of slime you cowardly nameless whore

you imagine that you have contributed something to the planet and that people who invent things and find natural resources etc etc should be your slaves

you are a parasite and should be exiled from human society like the lame diseased  dog you are

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM, the daily search <thedailysearch@gmail.com> wrote:
No. The rich posses most of the wealth. Nobody said anything about them making their wealth. They don't make shit. They just move around the earth's resources, that were already there to begin with, people being one of them. They'd have nothing, nothing without other people.


On Saturday, March 19, 2011 11:47:27 AM UTC-4, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
Kinda like the "Favorite Bill Maher" clip that you have posted......
yes the rich make most of the money... they also invest most of the
money, pay the most taxes and employ the most people... yet these
"minor" items seem to escape both you and Maher. How many people have
applied for jobs with broke companies and or broke individuals ?? Only
Government can hire when its broke and all that does is put MORE
burden on everybody.

On Mar 19, 6:35 am, the daily search <thedail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, duh, Bruce. Lies are much more entertaining than the truth. And
> perhaps, like the purveyors of these emails, you'd rather be ignorant but
> entertained. We already know that, buddy.
>
> Yes, I could entertain you and everyone reading by telling you to "EAT SHIT
> AND *DIE*" in a foam-flecked response. But I *want* people like you, with a
> low tolerance for dry, reasoned political discussion, to be bored out of
> existence.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0
 When the lion is done eating others get the scraps... and NOTHING MORE. 

It is the same in EVERY species... the stronger, smarter, faster and most ingenious get fed first and most while the rest wait on the scraps.

Your method is trying to make us into a SOLITARY and different species that is something outside the basic natural laws... 

Y

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM, the daily search <thedailysearch@gmail.com> wrote:
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT A SOLITARY SPECIES, ASSFACE!!!!!!!  Try to keep up with the evolution of humanity, platypus.

Can't follow me???? Aww, too bad!!!! Wish I could help you.


On Saturday, March 19, 2011 7:21:54 PM UTC-4, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
Thats right ...... I, me, myself, yo, Ich, mi mismo, moved them around..... if that is how you want to think about it.

Why should YOU get a piece of what ......I, me, myself, yo, Ich, mi mismo.... did. 

Why are YOU on your fat ass looking to.....I, me, myself, yo, Ich, mi mismo....for a reward from MY labor and looking for a job with ME.

MY idea, MY labor, MY sacrifice... why do you deserve anything from I make happen ??

When can I move into OUR house and start doing OUR wife and daughters ?? Its just a slight movement of resources that belong to no one according to you.  We have equal rights to all...and everything...regardless of thought, labor or love...  

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:11 PM, the daily search <thedail...@gmail.com> wrote:
Because you didn't earn anything!!! You just moved resources around!!!

Try to wrap your brain around that one, cretin! You'll never get it, though.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fila Coffee

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Fila Coffee

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.