We're Taking Back Our Government, and This Is What We Have To Say

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by NuroSlam
]I get it. Capitalism is evil and the root of all of mans horror.

Did I say that?

No I said it. I have played your word games, answered your questions and each time I have done that, you have substituted your concepts of capitalism with a free market. I have answered all of your questions yet you refuse to answer a single one of mine. So enough of the troll show. Go vote for Perry and live life as the slave you are.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
you refuse to answer a single one of mine

Which question have I failed to answer?

Here is your chance

I PROMISE to answer any question you ask -


I would be happy to do so

Ask away...

reply to post by NuroSlam


Your problem, my friend is that you carry around your concepts of how things should be, but ignore how they manifest when applied to reality. Corruption is a quality in mankind that will always corrupt any idea you apply
to governance. You seem to think the state you strive for is going to be inherently free of hierarchy and power, oddly enough, the Marxists made the same summation, I am sure you would agree. Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans, if your checklist ain't working you have to wake up and adapt. Am I wrong? if so, tell me how?

reply to post by Janky Red

Corruption is a quality in mankind that will always corrupt any idea you apply to governance...

Holy COW we agree on another concept!

One reason why it is useful to keep government small. Then you have only small time crooks to deal with.

Unfortunately we as a people fell asleep at the switch and let the power hungry slowly steal our freedom and build a bigger and bigger and more corrupt government.

Now they have moved the power base out of our reach to "International Institutions" that only they have control over. As we watch they are consolidating their power juggling for position and building a one world government with THEM (not us) in absolute control.

I am wondering if they plan to cripple China and India too by collapsing the USA???

Originally posted by crimvelvet

Unfortunately we as a people fell asleep at the switch and let the power hungry slowly steal our freedom and build a bigger and bigger and more corrupt government.

Now they have moved the power base out of our reach to "International Institutions" that only they have control over. As we watch they are consolidating their power juggling for position and building a one world government with THEM (not us) in absolute control.

I am wondering if they plan to cripple China and India too by collapsing the USA???

edit on 6-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)

The very methods of the take over of this country is written into to constitution itself, the general welfare clause, which exempts them from protecting individuals rights over the rights of the mob. And the interstate commerce clause, which gives them total control of the economy. Even returning to the constitution would just mean another 200 years of BS building up to today.

reply to post by NuroSlam


The interstate commerce clause, we got stuck with thanks to FDR twisting the arms of the Supreme Court with threats to pack the court and not from the Constitution its self. It was supposed to keep the states from using tariffs or other barriers to interstate commerce.

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.” .... www.lawandliberty.org...

Again it would seem the phrase "General Welfare" is a problem because it has been taken out of context and twisted out of recognition.

reply to post by crimvelvet

It was supposed to keep the states from using tariffs or other barriers to interstate commerce.

I thought you loved tariffs? I'm surprised that you don't want California to tariff the hell out of Maryland.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.” .... www.lawandliberty.org...

Again it would seem the phrase "General Welfare" is a problem because it has been taken out of context and twisted out of recognition.

Oh I agree, but the fact that this was debated at the time shows that, at least to me, they knew what was going to happen.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

When you figure out how to get 300 million people to revolt... or even 30 million... or even 3 million... then your letter will be impressive.

Human nature dictates that the intelligent, greedy few will control the stupid majority.
Until we evolve out of this as a species, nothing will ever change.

edit on 6-8-2011 by DeReK DaRkLy because: ...

The Art of War.
Apply moderately.
???
Prosper

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by civilchallenger

 

To take your premise.
Currently a nun wants to build a school.
Currently a nut does not want her to build that school.
With the people leading the government, there are laws and enforcement in place to either prevent him from stopping her or punishing him for his attempt.

Anarchy.
Nun wants to build a school.
Nut does not want her to build that school.
Both leaders, they decide to solve it themselves.
Nut uses gun.
Nun uses bleeding to death.

Who is leading now?

Wrong. Here is your scenario, corrected:

Scenario A:
Democracy.
Nun wants to build a school.
Nut does not want her to build that school.
Both leaders, they decide to solve it themselves.
Nut uses gun.
Nun uses bleeding to death.

Anarchy.
Nun wants to build a school.
Nut does not want her to build that school.
Both leaders, they decide to solve it themselves.
Nut uses gun.
Nun uses bleeding to death.

Notice how in both scenarios the security forces have about an equal chance of stopping the lone nutter from killing the nun. Lets look at another scenario though:

Scenario B, under Current Government:
Currently a person wants to build a mosque.
Currently a nut does not want him to build that mosque.
Currently, with the politicians leading the people, there are laws and enforcement in place to shoot the person building a mosque of they insist on doing so without the proper permit.

Scenario B, under any democracy, including majority rule or anarchy:
A person wants to build a mosque.
A nut does not want him to build that mosque.
With the people leading the government, and a set of rules or laws and security/police agencies in place, the people can either protect the person building the mosque or they can become nutters themselves and shoot the mosque builder.

reply to post by civilchallenger


You did not correct it, you just twisted it completely out of reality. Only one situation allows a person to shoot the other without legal repercussion. This right here is just nonsense.

Scenario B, under Current Government:
Currently a person wants to build a mosque.
Currently a nut does not want him to build that mosque.
Currently, with the politicians leading the people, there are laws and enforcement in place to shoot the person building a mosque of they insist on doing so without the proper permit.

First of all, building without a permit is a violation of the law so that hardly applies but more importantly, there are no laws and enforcement in place that allows for SHOOTING someone for building without a permit. I would love a detailed explanation of how I could possible have that wrong.

reply to post by NuroSlam

Go vote for Perry and live life as the slave you are.

Ah...Slick Rick.. Perry gets my vote...actually...I wish Bush would run again as he's slightly better.

Maybe he'll pick Cheney for VP...then it won't matter...

Until you all wake up and realize VOTING is a crime and here is the law to back it up, and start to correct your status in law, this USA de facto which is NOT a Country but a Union of the several States/Countries de jure, that’s correct the State you where born in is your rightful Country and what you are in rebellion against when you vote. Start getting the education we all have been denied and stop this madness NOW.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

15e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:

i) You will not use your membership in the Websites for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, petitions, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.

Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Thread closed.