 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Notes:
1. The questions that so dearly affect our temporal salvation are set aside so as to attack me personally, which is standard, routine, practice for those who wish to avoid answering the questions that so dearly affect our temporal salvation.
2. I do not protest. I volunteer for jury duty. I attempt to deliberate with other people - just for fun - on matters that affect our temporal salvation, and I do so because my viewpoint is improved when I can find viewpoints that offer answers to questions that affect our temporal salvation, such as an answer to the questions concerning why some people got away with subsidizing slavery for 20 years into the future from the date 1789, when those criminals managed to get that usurpation, that crime, perpetrated.
"Well isn’t that nice."
Why has a deliberate exchange of information concerning matters that affect our temporal salvation turned into a personality contest: a pissing contest?
"Let’s see, uhm, with all history to pick from…let’s pick the Ukrainians in cattle cars being shipped to Siberia on 15 minutes notice. Happy faces everyone…let’s make the best of what we face."
How can you not get it?
"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.
"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html
"To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp
You want to now turn the subject matter to what is happening in Europe, some time ago, and your choice of events is so far removed from the local matters in America, as to be only linked, possibly, by the flow of money flowing to the criminals in Serbia, flowing from the criminals in America. How can you fail to see that the events you now place on the discussion table are financed because the criminals in America took-over in 1789?
I'd like to know how anyone can fail to see what was abundantly clear when it happened.
"Nature abhors a vacuum…your politics are clear…and a lot of your politics I agree with…but when the U.S. Constitution is gone which is seeming what you want what will replace it? Are you really that delusional to think it is going to be a smooth segue? That your switches and faucets will keep working?"
You make claims that are demonstrated as false, as to what my "politics" are, or are not, as if you assume this power to know arbitrarily. You want to have this power, so you arbitrarily assume that you do have this power, and in fact, you do not have this power, so what can be done about it?
You can go on assuming powers that you do not have, until you, on your own, realize that fact.
Apparently, you have this idea that the power to keep "switches and faucets" working is a power dependent on something other than the individuals who know how to keep switches and faucets working. You apparently think that the Constitution of 1789 is in some way this power that keeps switches and faucets working.
My view is such that the State Constitutions are independent recipes for people to volunteer for our mutual defense, and the better State Constitutions have working Bills of Rights, whereby common law, with trial by jury, still rules the day, and the people still consent to, or do not consent to, any government, by any means, of any kind, anywhere, anytime, with, or without a Constitution.
"I want to hear now about how you face REALITY? Acquiring calories and conserving calories. The last breath of many a person who died hard from hunger, thirst, heat and cold was spent uttering, “I did the best I could do.”
Somehow you have painted this picture of someone incapable of surviving without the Constitution of 1789, and if this dependent, poor soul, you have created get's the wish you put in this poor souls mind, then this poor soul will no longer survive, and that poor soul you create has my name on it.
Where did the conversation about matters of our temporal salvation turn into this straw man creation routine, where a personal attack is the means to the obvious end of character assassination?
"But let us not forget that violence does not and cannot exist by itself: It is invariably intertwined with the lie. They are linked in the most intimate, most organic and profound fashion: Violence cannot conceal itself behind anything except lies, and lies have nothing to maintain them save violence. Anyone who has once proclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose the lie as his principle. At birth, violence acts openly and even takes pride in itself. But as soon as it gains strength and becomes firmly established, it begins to sense the air around it growing thinner; it can no longer exist without veiling itself in a mist of lies, without concealing itself behind the sugary words of falsehood. No longer does violence always and necessarily lunge straight for your throat; more often than not it demands of its subjects only that they pledge allegiance to lies, that they participate in falsehood."
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1974
Is your next move to declare that I am a terrorist for the thoughts you place in my head?