 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
There is your evidence, thanks for proving my point. Now anyways back to your original contentions:
Anyone,
Failing to communicate can be proven as a deliberate effort to falsify the facts.
A question can be dodged, or a question can be answered. When a question is not answered, and instead the question is quoted and said to be an example of "proviing my point", then the question quoted is not answered, rather, the question quoted is dodged. The failure to communicate is willful. The person failing to answer the question willfully dodges the question, but that is not enough, the question asked is propped up, falsely, as a claim of some nebulous proof of some other false representation.
What is the point?
The point here is an obvious case of someone having an interest in maintaining a false perspective concerning a specific document, that was a deliberate usurpation by specific criminals who confess their crime in secret meetings, but their crimes were discovered, and reported, for anyone having an interest in knowing the truth, to know.
Those who have an interest in not knowing the truth, tend to resort to character assassination, deceit, and other things, so as to preserve the abject belief is a false perspective.
Dodging questions are par for the course, and misrepresentation such as the claim of "proof" of some earlier misrepresentation is also the default mode of operation on that path.
There is your evidence, thanks for proving my point. Now anyways back to your original contentions:
What is the point? If the point here is a defense of a belief in some nebulous good in The Constitution, would the defender need to resort to misrepresentation?
If the point is to discuss the facts, why would someone choose to ignore the facts instead?
As I said before a militia no longer exists so this is quite irrelevant but I will address it anyways.
Saying something does not make something true. The militia may or may not exist, and diverting attention down that path dodges the point. The point being that The Constitution was designed to suppress rebellions such as Shays's Rebellion before the usurpation, and The Whiskey Rebellion after the usurpation. How does the topic manage to dodge the original point as if the original point never existed, what is the point of erasing history as if it never existed?
Who does those things, and why do those people do those things? What is the point?
The calling forth of a militia to execute the laws of the union is necessary.
The warnings from the opponents of The Constitution included warnings about people who make up new meanings for the words written into The Constitution, meanings such as the version above, but that is another dodge, since the specific meaning of the original challenge I offered concerned "suppression of Insurrection" which must have sounded a whole lot like "suppression of rebellion" which was something that was quite fresh in the minds of the people who rebelled against the criminals who were executing the laws of the criminal British government, and fresh in the minds of those same veterans of that police action, who then rebelled against the tax collecting usurpers in the State of Massachusetts, and then fresh in the minds of the veterans who then rebelled against the tax collectors of the newly formed consolidated national police state enforcers. But to some people, obviously, those are irrelevant facts, as those facts fail to support the false belief.
If 50% of the people decided to run around raping, murdering, and razing cities would you just sit by and twiddle your thumbs hoping it sorts itself out or call upon a militia?
Anyone,
This person is ratcheting up the personal attacks, to a much higher degree.
After the legal criminals tortured and mass murdered the innocent victims, including pregnant mothers, in Waco Texas I worked, against my wife's pleas, with her having to raise or two children, with me being our only source of income, I worked to join the armed march on Washington that was offered by Linda Thomson as a workable response to those unspeakable crimes. Finding out that the effort was not powerful enough to deter violence, cooler heads prevailed.
I then ran for congress, got on the ballot, still working over 60 hours a week, still the only source of income, still raising 2 children, getting on the ballot, but failing to buy the election. I ran on the "it isn't nice to legally torture pregnant women and burn babies alive" ticket.
If this forum has moderators, let them moderate. If they find cause to censor me, which is most likely your plan, then so be it.
I have personally talked to a person who claimed to have survived Waco, and she answered my question:
"If you could go back in time, what would you do differently?"
She said: "I would have gone back in the fire to help save someone else."
It is your power that perpetuates legal torture, as more and more of your type add to the total power focused toward what you are doing right now. It is this abject refusal to know the facts, and this contorted disinformation campaign of willful production of falsehood that covers the true nature of the crimes, not limited to willful torture, not limited to willful mass murder, and reaching for the extinction of the human species.
The same goes with an insurrection, if there was a small group of radical communists, Islamists, whatever-ists who decided to start murdering and destroying everything, who would suppress them?
Anyone,
Does anyone else see the dodge going on here? The twisting of facts? The willful distortions? The so called government, from day one, covered up their abuse of the law power with The Constitution. Today isn't any different, it is the same thing, what was then, is now, and it isn't a surprise. All the bad, of what is now, was reported to be what will be by the people who opposed The Constitution. This is what the thing was made to do, this is the result of the plan, as it was planned to occur.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
The workable solution, proven to work is such examples as the Swiss Republic, and the Federated Democratic Republic that was working under The Articles of Confederation, is a government that preserves the force of competition between competing governments, where the competing governments are separate and sovereign legal entities, and the tax base, the people who support the operation of the various State governments, because they have the power to do so, the power to create surplus wealth, that tax base, are free to vote with their feet, and a lower quality State government will become weaker, and weaker, if it grows more and more oppressive, relative to a higher quality, and lower cost, State nearby.
This is not news, but this may be unwelcome news for someone who willfully chooses ignorance, so as to maintain a false belief, or for whatever reason someone might dream up for willfully choosing ignorance.
Would you rather them run wild until the movement fizzles out as they usually do? And you would also not support the formation of a militia to repel invasions from foreign troops?
That person appears to be arguing with his imagination. His words have nothing to do with me. His Constitution is foreign to me. It is false, it is a legal fiction, an organized crime agreement among fellow criminals, to be used, or not used, in the willful commissions of crimes upon the innocent, or anyone in their sights, anyone questioning their power to do as they please, when they please.
What I will do is what is withing my power to do, and no more, and right now it is in my power to avoid having my name, my being, associated with false things by anyone, including this person who is having a one sided argument with his imaginary being.
I'm no Constitutional lawyer but this seems pretty clearly not just applicable to slavery or indentured servitude. If a person is held to serve or labour in one state (which could be a contract or debt of some kind) they cannot flee into another state and due to a law or regulation in the second state have the contract or debt be voided. This prevents two states with conflicting laws having the problem of people walking over the border to nullify a debt or contract.
Does anyone understand the concept of collective punishment? When a despotic power wishes, power is focused on punishment, that is what happens, and it isn't an accident, and it isn't a mistake, it is a willful employment of power, by which the use of power is meant to punish everyone, the excuses, or cover stories, vary, the purpose is to punish everyone, with few exceptions, but there are exceptions, of course, and those excepted, generally, also have to pay a price.
What is that price?
Blind obedience, or just a willful effort to be ignorant, for now?
In quoting this are you attempting to say that the United States should be held responsible to pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States? So if the previously mentioned exemplar group of extremists runs around destroying cities and murdering thousands of people the people of the united states should shoulder the debt incurred by those damages?
The price that may have to be paid, for acceptance into the club of those who are exceptional, those who are, at least for a time, not on the list, to be punished, collectively, the price for that exceptional treatment, may be a requirement, for the petitioner, to parrot the cover stories, to add to the power that employs collective punishment, perpetuating it.
I was asking for a second opinion concerning what someone else thinks that the words in question mean. What do those words mean? Why twist that question that asks for a competitive interpretation of meaning, twisting that question into what appears to be a false advertisement campaign to recruit members to join the army of people ready, willing, and more than able to punish collectively, to punish all who are on that collective punishment list, and do so with a smile, with glee?
Oh boy, lets all gather round and fabricate fictional enemies and beat each other up in the effort to defend against our own imaginary beings? That has nothing to do with me.
I'm in the fact based community.
Where are these bogey men, these terrorists lurking in the shadows, this impending doom being projected onto the minds of the targeted victims of those lies, those lies that are now being parroted right here in this forum?
What does that have to do with me? What does that have to do with my report that transfers the message from those who uncovered the true motive behind the Constitution to anyone?
That whole doom day parade, with those lurking fictional terrorists, is not in my world. I don't accept that legal fiction, because it is false, it is a false front, and I know what the false front covers up. A little bird didn't tell me, the criminals confessed, and fellow friends of liberty uncovered and reported those facts.
Please do not associate me with the fictions reported by the other forum member, it has nothing to do with me. I made the mistake of connecting to someone who resorts to character assassination as a means of accomplishing whatever that person desires.
There is a serious problem with the forum medium, as it does connect people, as it is not a one way medium, it is a multi-directional medium, a person may end up being connected to someone who lies, and does so on purpose, and does so despite pleas that are communicated in the effort to defend against being victimized in that way.
There is a very serous advantage with the forum medium, as it does offer a micro-political illustration of how the macro-political network works.
...and you've still yet to point out how the original Constitution "continues to be the police state, or consolidated government, or dictatorship". Furthermore how do you know what the constitution was intended to be? That is pretty presumptuous of you, especially when you provide three pieces of source material all of which fail to make your point clear.
My point is clear to me, and my point can be clear to anyone who has the power to know the truth, the point was abundantly clear even within the small sample of references offered. The point I offer was abundantly clear to those people who confessed their true motives, in secret, and those people who blew that whistle.
I see no point in beating this dead horse, this has become a defense against willful character assassination by someone who is abusing the forum to accomplish that task. No longer is it a report of the facts. Nor is this an example of a discussion.
The character assassin is following orders, as he has already confessed.
There is no “birther” debate here, it is a debate between those who unquestioningly support the Constitution, and those who seek to subvert it.
It says so right there in The Constitution, "shall not be questioned" and the lie above is a confession, a warning as to what will happen to someone who dares to question the Constitution.
There can never be admission of the facts, no such thing can exist, either you are with us, or you are a terrorist. I can now read that loud and clear.
I can't subvert the Constitution, I have nothing to do with it, it does not apply to me, I am not a criminal, I do not seek to punish everyone collectively, I do not seek to destroy competition, I will not resort to deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence as a means of governing the power supply down to a scarce manageable level, a level that can keep the power flowing from those who create it to those who steal it.
And if the assassin continues to work forward in this work he has chosen, so be it, and if the moderators choose to employ collective punishment, so be it, that is the nature of things, the default, the first resort, the knee jerk reaction, going with the flow, business a usual, and to be expected almost everywhere, perhaps here too.