I need the government to subsidize my job so that I don't have to go to work and still get enough money to afford to have sex...

[BeamMeUpScotty]

If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
are technically prostituting themselves because they are being paid by
us with birth control so they will have sex..... isn't that more of a
business being subsidized by taxpayers?


Another question is, why NOT provide a *FREE dental plan* also as it is
needed for "other" forms of birth control. A healthy mouth and teeth
are part of the birth control options.


Then there are the vibrators and palm vagina's that can be used as BIRTH
CONTROL, can we buy those for the people requesting birth control?


Also if I give a girl $50 for "birth control" and request sex, is that
considered buying a prostitute by the courts? Yet the government wants
to tax or mandate me to just that, making all U.S. women de facto
prostitutes.


It seems that "government sponsored entities" (GSE's) include the
sponsoring of Prostitution business, "I like the idea" but if the
Federal laws sponsor prostitution why can the States then arrest the
prostitutes. It would seem the Federal laws would be the supreme law
of the land and THIS subsidy of prostitution is a blanket Federal
protection for all Prostitution.


I need the government to subsidize my job so that I don't have to go to
work and still get enough money to afford to have sex all day long
without going hungry.... I can't afford to have sex and stay home and
use all the free birth control unless they pay me to stay home to use
the birth control and have sex at least 3 times a day and I'll be too
tired to work if I get to use the free birth control.


--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.

[Tim Crowley]

On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,

Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.

Why did you choose to lie again?


hint: it's perfectly clear why you lie and why you're forced to hide
in fear and shame.

why are all racists such ignorant cowards?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Then ObamaCare isn't a mandate that you have to have insurance and pay
into the collective pool of money.....?


And Obama isn't trying to force all insurance to cover all birth control?


Explain how that works, if I am paying into an insurance that forcibly
covers all birth control, how am I *NOT* paying for Birth control. And
isn't it time to force the Muslims to pay interest on all borrowed money
since the IRS requires that even gifts are taxed, otherwise they are
violating the standard business practice of this society. And they are
receiving a gift and it's just a religious nutcase idea of Muslims who
don't get to choose how to spend their money.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:

Then ObamaCare isn't a mandate that you have to have insurance and pay
into the collective pool of money.....?

And Obama isn't trying to force all insurance to cover all birth

control? And why stop ate Birth control pills, why NOT pay for the pads
and tampons that come with the birth cycle and buy calendars so the
women have chart for the 28 day cycle? Obviously Food Stamps should
include Birth control and tampons and calendars....

Explain how that works, if I am paying into an insurance that forcibly
covers all birth control, how am I *NOT* paying for Birth control. And
isn't it time to force the Muslims to pay interest on all borrowed money
since the IRS requires that even gifts are taxed, otherwise they are

violating the standard business practice of this society. And Muslims
are receiving a gift of no interest loans and it's just a religious
nutcase idea of Religious zealots who Obama says he won't allow to
choose how to spend their money.... IF THEY ARE CHRISTIANS.

Why I remember just a month or two ago Obama decided to use the courts
to invade the privacy of every single Californian to look for "gifts"
that parents were giving to their children so that Obama could have the
IRS collect an INCOME TAX and get all those penalty fees. What about
the NO interest Muslim "gifts" that Obama is ignoring for a religious
reason.

Well why hasn't Obama gone after the Muslims that avoid GIFT tax, they
give loans without interest which is a clear violation of business and
is a way to hide a gift and hide from the gift TAX.

It's time Obama went after the Religions that hide behind their
religious freedom like he is going after the Catholics on the issue of
paying for birth control. If Obama is going to violate one Religion then
he must be equal and go after all religions. Lest he is favoring one
religion and making it a National Religion, is Obama making
*Islam OUR NATIONAL RELIGION* ? Is that Obama's plan, to so destroy
the other Religions that Islam is the only Religion left standing? Would
you expect anything less from a Mauritian candidate President who says
he's NOT a Socialist yet follows the dictates of a Socialist and says
he's NOT anti American yet he tells us who his enemies are and they turn
out to be Christian and Jewish Americans every time.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/3/2012 10:13 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>
>>
>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>>
>> Why did you choose to lie again?
>>
>>
>> hint: it's perfectly clear why you lie and why you're forced to hide
>> in fear and shame.
>>
>> why are all racists such ignorant cowards?

Liberals and Socialists are just that way... what else can we tell you?


maybe they'll see the error of their ways and get past their stupidity
and racist tendencies but don't hold your breath.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:

you expect anything less from a Manchurian candidate President who says

he's NOT a Socialist yet follows the dictates of a Socialist and says
he's NOT anti American yet he tells us who his enemies are and they turn
out to be Christian and Jewish Americans every time.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:

> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>
>
> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.

Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.


Which is NOT to say I wouldn't donate to contraceptive charity that
would provide "YOU" with all we can supply. I'm NOT religious and I
don't mind you having all the contraceptives you want, I'm against you
forcing other to pay for your personal needs.

By your standards I should be buying your toilet paper also..... lest
you spread disease and get sick yourself. But I will NOTE that the
Soviet Union and Cuba where State production and supply was tried, they
never could get the hang of supplying enough toilet paper to all their
citizens, it was something that capitalism did much better.

Once again it boils down to the Socialists wanting to throw out
Capitalism in favor of their system that we have seen fail time and again.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>
>>
>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>>
>> Why did you choose to lie again?
>>
>>
>> hint: it's perfectly clear why you lie and why you're forced to hide
>> in fear and shame.
>>
>> why are all racists such ignorant cowards?
>
>
>Then ObamaCare isn't a mandate that you have to have insurance and pay
>into the collective pool of money.....?
>
>
>And Obama isn't trying to force all insurance to cover all birth control?
>
>
>Explain how that works, if I am paying into an insurance that forcibly
>covers all birth control, how am I *NOT* paying for Birth control.

You are paying for insurance. No more and no less. What the
insurance company does with the money you pay them is none of your
business, so long as they fulfill their contractual relationship to
cover certain of your expenses.

Just like when you go to the grocery store, you aren't paying for the
grocery clerk's birth control, even if the store in question provides
it as an employee benefit.

>And isn't it time to force the Muslims to pay interest on all borrowed money

Muslims are under the same laws as everyone else.

>since the IRS requires that even gifts are taxed,

under certain circumstances, yes.

But in fact, certain gifts are not only not taxed, but they are tax
deductible.

>otherwise they are violating the standard business practice of this society.

So what? It is not a law that you follow all "standard business
practices", just the ones specifically identified in the laws.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>
>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>>
>> Why did you choose to lie again?
>>
>>
>> hint: it's perfectly clear why you lie and why you're forced to hide
>> in fear and shame.
>>
>> why are all racists such ignorant cowards?
>
>Then ObamaCare isn't a mandate that you have to have insurance and pay
>into the collective pool of money.....?

There isn't one collective pool of money, and in the case of
employer-provided insurance, you only pay into it if the employer
requires you to do so.

>And Obama isn't trying to force all insurance to cover all birth
>control?

No. The law requires that certain contraceptive medications be
covered.

>And why stop ate Birth control pills, why NOT pay for the pads
>and tampons that come with the birth cycle and buy calendars so the
>women have chart for the 28 day cycle?

Because the law doesn't include those as medical expenses, and never
has, whereas contraceptive medications are considered medical
expenses, and hence should be covered by MEDICAL insurance.

>Obviously Food Stamps should include Birth control and tampons and calendars....

Do you eat them? Gross.

>Explain how that works, if I am paying into an insurance that forcibly
>covers all birth control, how am I *NOT* paying for Birth control.

For the same reason that if you are paying for groceries, you are not
paying for all the expenses of the grocery company. And if you pay
for gasoline, you are not paying for the mechanic on duty (even though
he is paid out of the same pool of money as the wholesale gasoline
provider).

>Why I remember just a month or two ago Obama decided to use the courts
>to invade the privacy of every single Californian to look for "gifts"
>that parents were giving to their children so that Obama could have the
>IRS collect an INCOME TAX and get all those penalty fees.

I suspect that you are misremembering (or lying). I presume that you
refer to
http://www.bnasoftware.com/News/Tax_News/Articles/IRS_Asks_Court_to_Release_Property_Tax_Records_to_Catch_Gift_Tax_Nonfilers.asp

which is looking for state records regarding real estate transfers in
certain years, and hence is NOT violating the privacy of any
California who did not transfer property during those years, not that
giving state property records to the IRS is necessarily a violation of
property in any event.

"Spoor said while taxpayers will argue they have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, that argument is not likely to be upheld by
the court because when public records are filed, there can be no
expectation of privacy."

>What about
>the NO interest Muslim "gifts" that Obama is ignoring for a religious
>reason.

Why would there be interest on a "gift"?

You probably are misconstruing this as well.

>Well why hasn't Obama gone after the Muslims that avoid GIFT tax,

Prove that they are "avoiding GIFT tax", and that the law forbids
whatever form of avoidance is being practiced (since lots of tax
avoidances are perfectly legal).

>they give loans without interest which is a clear violation of business

No, it isn't.

>and is a way to hide a gift and hide from the gift TAX.

It isn't a gift unless repayment isn't required.

There are tax consequences involving imputed interest for certain
kinds of interest-free loans. You have given too little information
to determine whether a particular interest-free loan requires imputed
interest.

>It's time Obama went after the Religions that hide behind their
>religious freedom like he is going after the Catholics on the issue of
>paying for birth control.

Donations to religious institutions should be taxed?

Obama isn't going after anyone. His administration is issuing a
regulation that does not exempt religious institutions from one
particular law, merely because a religious institution is involved,
unless the institution is SOLELY involved in religious activities. The
case in question involves hospitals and educational institutions that
employ and provide services to non-Catholics. Those non-Catholics
have freedom of religion too, so they are not obliged to follow
Catholic teachings as a condition of employment. Since medical
insurance is considered part of the employment agreement, it has
nothing to do with religious practice.

It is the norm that laws implemented for secular purposes apply to
religious institutions. Thus polygamy is illegal because polygamy
laws are considered secular. And Satan-worshippers cannot practice
virgin sacrifice because murder laws are secular as well.

>If Obama is going to violate one Religion

Obama is violating no religion. He is providing for equal protection
under the law.

>then he must be equal and go after all religions.

No. And the law cannot specifically target one religion or all
religions. But if the religious institution is engaged in an activity
regulated by a law affecting non-religious activities, then it may
have to follow that law.

>Lest he is favoring one
>religion and making it a National Religion, is Obama making
>*Islam OUR NATIONAL RELIGION* ?

No.

>Is that Obama's plan, to so destroy
>the other Religions that Islam is the only Religion left standing?

No.

>Would you expect anything less from a Mauritian candidate President

None of our presidents have been Mauritian, and I'm not sure any of
them have even visited Mauritius, which is a dinky island nation in
the Indian Ocean half the size of Rhode Island with a comparable
population. The US has probably had an embassy there since it became
independent from Britain in 1968, but other than appointing an
ambassador, it probably never gets any presidential attention.

>who says he's NOT a Socialist

He isn't.

>yet follows the dictates of a Socialist

No.

>and says he's NOT anti American yet he tells us who his enemies are

That was Richard Nixon.

There is no evidence that Obama has an "enemies list", or that he has
called anyone "his enemies".

>and they turn out to be Christian and Jewish Americans every time.

Nonsense.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>
>>
>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>
>
>Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.

You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
like it or not, or face the legal consequences.

[Tom Kunich]

"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:u94hl7dc2i4hmclbn...@4ax.com...

> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>>
>>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.

Sorry but it does. Including Birth Control or any other sex increasing drug
increases the cost of medical insurance for ALL of us.

>>Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>>refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>
> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.

Yes, and that's why we have to throw out this Democrat government (as
opposed to DemocratIC) and get a government that taxes us for real
government and not socialism disguised as democratic process.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 5:06 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>>>
>>> Why did you choose to lie again?
>>>
>>>
>>> hint: it's perfectly clear why you lie and why you're forced to hide
>>> in fear and shame.
>>>
>>> why are all racists such ignorant cowards?
>>
>>
>> Then ObamaCare isn't a mandate that you have to have insurance and pay
>> into the collective pool of money.....?
>>
>>
>> And Obama isn't trying to force all insurance to cover all birth control?
>>
>>
>> Explain how that works, if I am paying into an insurance that forcibly
>> covers all birth control, how am I *NOT* paying for Birth control.
>
> You are paying for insurance. No more and no less. What the
> insurance company does with the money you pay them is none of your
> business,

You really are that big an idiot.... Why would I buy insurance that
covers pregnancy when I can't get pregnant?

Why would I buy car insurance when I don't own a car?

Why would I buy fire insurance when I don't own a building or belongings
that can burn.

> so long as they fulfill their contractual relationship to
> cover certain of your expenses.

I would be paying far to much if they cover too many things and I don't
need any of those coverages, they could cover every little thing, while
I don't have 99% of those needs, which means I pay for all this coverage
I will never use. Why would I want to pay for other people every little
concern and use the insurance for only the one thing I might eventually
need?


Do I need HAIR insurance, a model that does hair care commercial might
see a need for that, a pianist may need insurance on their hands and
ears, or a singer might need insurance on their vocal system.

Why would I buy insurance that covers all that? I don't make a living
at any of that and none would need special insurance, I would be
*wasting MY MONEY* to buy it.....


Why do think you have a RIGHT to *waste MY MONEY* ?

> Just like when you go to the grocery store, you aren't paying for the
> grocery clerk's birth control, even if the store in question provides
> it as an employee benefit.

That is because I have knowingly paid for the items from that business
and I relinquish any responsibility for that money once I *choose* to
spend my money there. I am NOT being forced to buy from the grocery it
is MY CHOICE.


You are confusing Capitalism and CHOICE, with Socialism and a central
Government mandates.

--
Bread and beer increased prosperity to a level that allowed time for
development of other technology and contributed to the building of
civilizations.[19][20][21][22]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 6:01 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>>
>>
>> Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>> refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>
> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.

ONLY it's NOT legal. So you will be violating the constitution and
MY RIGHTS.


It's NOT me breaking the law it's you.

[jane]

On Mar 8, 5:06 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
> >> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> >> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>
> >> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name.  You know full and well it
> >> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>
> >> Why did you choose to lie again?
>
> >> hint: it's perfectly clear why you lie and why you're forced to hide
> >> in fear and shame.
>
> >> why are all racists such ignorant cowards?
>
> >Then ObamaCare isn't a mandate that you have to have insurance and pay
> >into the collective pool of money.....?
>
> >And Obama isn't trying to force all insurance to cover all birth control?
>
> >Explain how that works, if I am paying into an insurance that forcibly
> >covers all birth control, how am I *NOT* paying for Birth control.
>
> You are paying for insurance.  No more and no less.  What the
> insurance company does with the money you pay them is none of your
> business, so long as they fulfill their contractual relationship to
> cover certain of your expenses.
>

Consider the employer who is self employed. The employer is DIRECTLY
paying for his employee's medical expenses AND directly paying for her
birth control.

The employer is providing this medical benefit in exchange for her
labor. Why do we have to make Federal regulations dictating what the
exchange for labor should be? We don't (currently) allow the Federal
government to dictate the EXACT wage that she must receive for her
specific job title.

Why not allow the employer and employee to negotiate the terms of
their agreement? Why not allow the employer to pay her all of her
compensation in monetary wages and allow her to buy whatever insurance
policity that she wants? There is a strong likelyhood that the policy
that she wants is extremely different from the policy that I would
buy.

> Just like when you go to the grocery store, you aren't paying for the
> grocery clerk's birth control, even if the store in question provides
> it as an employee benefit.
>
> >And isn't it time to force the Muslims to pay interest on all borrowed money
>
> Muslims are under the same laws as everyone else.
>
> >since the IRS requires that even gifts are taxed,
>
> under certain circumstances, yes.
>
> But in fact, certain gifts are not only not taxed, but they are tax
> deductible.
>
> >otherwise they are violating the standard business practice of this society.
>
> So what?  It is not a law that you follow all "standard business
> practices", just the ones specifically identified in the laws.
>
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist

> loj...@lojban.org   Lojban languagewww.lojban.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 5:06 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>>>
>>> Why did you choose to lie again?
>>>
>>>
>>> hint: it's perfectly clear why you lie and why you're forced to hide
>>> in fear and shame.
>>>
>>> why are all racists such ignorant cowards?
>>
>>
>> Then ObamaCare isn't a mandate that you have to have insurance and pay
>> into the collective pool of money.....?
>>
>>
>> And Obama isn't trying to force all insurance to cover all birth control?
>>
>>
>> Explain how that works, if I am paying into an insurance that forcibly
>> covers all birth control, how am I *NOT* paying for Birth control.
>
> You are paying for insurance. No more and no less. What the
> insurance company does with the money you pay them is none of your
> business,

You really are that big an idiot.... Why would I buy insurance that
covers pregnancy when I can't get pregnant?

Why would I buy car insurance when I don't own a car?

Why would I buy fire insurance when I don't own a building or belongings
that can burn.

> so long as they fulfill their contractual relationship to
> cover certain of your expenses.

I would be paying far to much if they cover too many things and I don't
need any of those coverages, they could cover every little thing, while
I don't have 99% of those needs, which means I pay for all this coverage
I will never use. Why would I want to pay for other people every little
concern and use the insurance for only the one thing I might eventually
need?


Do I need HAIR insurance, a model that does hair care commercial might
see a need for that, a pianist may need insurance on their hands and
ears, or a singer might need insurance on their vocal system.

Why would I buy insurance that covers all that? I don't make a living
at any of that and none would need special insurance,

I would be *wasting MY MONEY* to buy it.....

Why do you think you have a RIGHT to *waste MY MONEY* ?

> Just like when you go to the grocery store, you aren't paying for the
> grocery clerk's birth control, even if the store in question provides
> it as an employee benefit.

That is because I have knowingly paid for the items from that business
and I relinquish any responsibility for that money once I *choose* to
spend my money there. I am NOT being forced to buy from the grocery it
is MY CHOICE.


You are confusing Capitalism and CHOICE, with Socialism and a central
Government mandates.

[Tom Kunich]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4f58dfee$0$2974$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

> On 3/8/2012 6:01 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>
> ONLY it's NOT legal. So you will be violating the constitution and
> MY RIGHTS.
>
> It's NOT me breaking the law it's you.

He effectively believes that if we vote for slavery it will be legalized
again..

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Obviously he believes that government has no limits.

What you say sounds very much like he's someone who believes in
unlimited government.

The only question is who he thinks government should enslave this time?

[Tom Kunich]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4F594F11...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

>
> The only question is who he thinks government should enslave this time?

You and me of course.

In the bay area all you have to do is look at the TV. On the news channels
they've replace almost every white man with either a black man, an Asian man
or a woman of any race.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

So... Why has the economy come to a grinding halt?

[Tom Kunich]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4F598C86...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

>>
> So... Why has the economy come to a grinding halt?

On Dec 17, 2009, I received a head injury that wasn't treated properly until
June of 2011. I was essetially walking and talking but wasn't there. My
brother finally found out what was happening and got me to the proper doctor
who treated me in June of 2011.
After I came to myself after getting the proper medication the whole world
had changed.

So I have no idea of how the economy got trashed.

As for myself - I've had 32 calls to go back to work at the most prestigious
places in the world such as both of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratories and
every major electronics firm in the San Francisco bay area.

And my memory is trashed and I can't hardly remember what I did let alone be
able to do it.

So whether I like it or not I'm retired.

And I have to look around me and wonder what the hell happened to the
economy. And what the hell happened to the Democratic Party sonce JFK.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The Socialists have jumped onto the "Democratic" band wagon and it is
NOW a buzz word or code for Socialism.......


When they say they want Democratic this and that, they are really just
saying they are Socialists trying to get their agenda passed under the
guise/Facade of being Democrats when it really is a Socialist with a
Socialist plan.


The Average Democrat is too stupid to see the nuance of the language and
the wink-wink nod-nod of the "fellow travelers".

> and get a government that taxes us for real
> government and not socialism disguised as democratic process.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 6:01 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>>
>>
>> Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>> refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>
> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.

Or I could just sit down on a side walk and let you pay for all of it
and you can step over me too.

We call it Civil Disobedience and when college kids do it, we
romanticize it and tell stories of their great battle with authority....

Keep up the good work and you will get that job you want as a
*JACK BOOTED THUG* that beats old ladies and steals their money while
telling yourself it is a tax so it is the right thing to do.

Keep your Brown shirts cleaned and pressed and make sure you get all the
blood stains out.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/8/2012 5:06 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>>>
>>> Why did you choose to lie again?
>>>
>>>
>>> hint: it's perfectly clear why you lie and why you're forced to hide
>>> in fear and shame.
>>>
>>> why are all racists such ignorant cowards?
>>
>>
>> Then ObamaCare isn't a mandate that you have to have insurance and pay
>> into the collective pool of money.....?
>>
>>
>> And Obama isn't trying to force all insurance to cover all birth control?
>>
>>
>> Explain how that works, if I am paying into an insurance that forcibly
>> covers all birth control, how am I *NOT* paying for Birth control.
>
> You are paying for insurance. No more and no less. What the
> insurance company does with the money you pay them is none of your
> business, so long as they fulfill their contractual relationship to
> cover certain of your expenses.
>
> Just like when you go to the grocery store, you aren't paying for the
> grocery clerk's birth control, even if the store in question provides
> it as an employee benefit.

Then government mandating that you buy prayer books or a "Jesus fish"
for your car is OK, because once that money goes to the sale of a book
or emblem, you have no business worrying what is done with the money and
if it goes to the church then that is NONE of your business.


That means that government can mandate that each of you buy a plaque of
the TEN COMMANDMENTS and place it on your front door.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/9/2012 10:10 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> message news:4F598C86...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>>
>> So... Why has the economy come to a grinding halt?
>
> On Dec 17, 2009, I received a head injury that wasn't treated properly until
> June of 2011. I was essetially walking and talking but wasn't there. My
> brother finally found out what was happening and got me to the proper doctor
> who treated me in June of 2011.
> After I came to myself after getting the proper medication the whole world
> had changed.

I feel your pain....

> So I have no idea of how the economy got trashed.
>
> As for myself - I've had 32 calls to go back to work at the most prestigious
> places in the world such as both of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratories and
> every major electronics firm in the San Francisco bay area.

great.

> And my memory is trashed and I can't hardly remember what I did let alone be
> able to do it.

That sucks.

> So whether I like it or not I'm retired.

Sort of like me.... how we got to Obamaville I don't know, I woke up
and the whole NATION was suffering from terminal stupidity. I decided
I can't function on lies and Socialism so I have been on a 4 year
vacation. I may or may not go back to work when Obama is out and all
his legacy has been repealed. The government will have to convince me
that I'm NO LONGER their enemy, because I don't work to make someone
stronger that sees me as their enemy.

It would be like working hard to make Stalin more powerful when he's
sending me to the gulags. It wouldn't make sense?

A great time for opting out since most people are being forced out, I
simply chose to get out. I like having choices, unlike the Socialists
that love to make all your CHOICES for you.

> And I have to look around me and wonder what the hell happened to the

> economy. And what the hell happened to the Democratic Party since JFK.

You got it, the question is, where did the Democrats go?

NEWS WEEK SAID IT, *THEY'RE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW*

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/8/2012 5:06 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

>> You are paying for insurance. No more and no less. What the
>> insurance company does with the money you pay them is none of your
>> business,
>
>You really are that big an idiot.... Why would I buy insurance that
>covers pregnancy when I can't get pregnant?

Because the insurance company doesn't offer separate products that
exclude pregnancy coverage.

>> so long as they fulfill their contractual relationship to
>> cover certain of your expenses.
>
>I would be paying far to much if they cover too many things and I don't
>need any of those coverages, they could cover every little thing, while
>I don't have 99% of those needs, which means I pay for all this coverage
>I will never use.

Tough.

>Why would I want to pay for other people every little
>concern and use the insurance for only the one thing I might eventually
>need?

Because no one will sell you such an individually tailored policy.

>Why do think you have a RIGHT to *waste MY MONEY* ?

I don't.

The state, on the other hand, has the authority to require you to do
things, some of which you might feel to be a waste of your money to
comply with.

>> Just like when you go to the grocery store, you aren't paying for the
>> grocery clerk's birth control, even if the store in question provides
>> it as an employee benefit.
>
>That is because I have knowingly paid for the items from that business
>and I relinquish any responsibility for that money once I *choose* to
>spend my money there. I am NOT being forced to buy from the grocery it
>is MY CHOICE.

You are forced to buy from SOME grocery, unless you have the means to
be entirely independent of all other human beings (since anyone you
pay money to may choose to go to a grocery store, which by your logic
apparently means that your money is going to said grocery store).

In which case you have chosen not to be a part of our society. So get
lost, will you.

>You are confusing Capitalism and CHOICE, with Socialism and a central
>Government mandates.

I am not confusing anything. Capitalism does not necessarily entail
choice, and a legal mandate may not necessarily come from a "central
government".

[Bob LeChevalier]

Because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce,
and Congress has determined that medical insurance is inherently an
interstate business.

>We don't (currently) allow the Federal
>government to dictate the EXACT wage that she must receive for her
>specific job title.

They do, however, dictate a minimum wage. Contraception coverage
becomes part of that minimum, for qualifying employers.

>Why not allow the employer and employee to negotiate the terms of
>their agreement?

Because "we the people" have chosen otherwise, through our elected
representatives.

>Why not allow the employer to pay her all of her
>compensation in monetary wages and allow her to buy whatever insurance
>policity that she wants?

I believe that some employers are allowed to do that.

>There is a strong likelyhood that the policy
>that she wants is extremely different from the policy that I would
>buy.

So what?

If it falls under government regulation, then you must buy a policy
that complies with said regulation.

And in the case of health insurance, where certain emergency room
services are provided even if you don't have insurance or the means to
pay, at government or hospital expense, we all are "buying insurance"
merely by living in this society. Of course you are free to leave
this society.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/8/2012 5:06 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>
>>> Explain how that works, if I am paying into an insurance that forcibly
>>> covers all birth control, how am I *NOT* paying for Birth control.
>>
>> You are paying for insurance. No more and no less. What the
>> insurance company does with the money you pay them is none of your
>> business, so long as they fulfill their contractual relationship to
>> cover certain of your expenses.
>>
>> Just like when you go to the grocery store, you aren't paying for the
>> grocery clerk's birth control, even if the store in question provides
>> it as an employee benefit.
>
>Then government mandating that you buy prayer books or a "Jesus fish"
>for your car is OK,

No, it isn't.

>because once that money goes to the sale of a book
>or emblem, you have no business worrying what is done with the money and
>if it goes to the church then that is NONE of your business.

It doesn't matter, since mandating that you buy the prayer books is
already a constitutional violation regardless of whether money is
involved. Government cannot give you prayer books for free.

>That means that government can mandate that each of you buy a plaque of
>the TEN COMMANDMENTS and place it on your front door.

No.

Prior to the 14th amendment however, state governments could so
mandate (though in fact all states had ended established religion by
1831).

[Bob LeChevalier]

"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:u94hl7dc2i4hmclbn...@4ax.com...
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>>>
>>>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>>>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>
>Sorry but it does. Including Birth Control or any other sex increasing drug
>increases the cost of medical insurance for ALL of us.

Actually, it almost certainly does not.

For the simple reason that a single pregnancy is far more expensive
than a lifetime supply of contraceptives.

Furthermore, contraceptives have other medical uses besides "sex
increasing".

>>>Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>>>refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>>
>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>
>Yes, and that's why we have to throw out this Democrat government

It doesn't matter what political party is in charge. You still are
obliged to follow the law.

>(as
>opposed to DemocratIC) and get a government that taxes us for real
>government and not socialism disguised as democratic process.

For loonytarian and right wing extremists, every government is
"socialism".

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/8/2012 6:01 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>>>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>>> refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>>
>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>
>ONLY it's NOT legal.

That is for the courts to decide. And precedent rather strongly
supports it being legal.

[Bob LeChevalier]

It would take a constitutional amendment, but indeed if such a
constitutional amendment were passed, slavery would again be legal.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/8/2012 4:26 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>> message news:4f58dfee$0$2974$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>> On 3/8/2012 6:01 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>>>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>>>
>>> ONLY it's NOT legal. So you will be violating the constitution and
>>> MY RIGHTS.
>>>
>>> It's NOT me breaking the law it's you.
>>
>> He effectively believes that if we vote for slavery it will be legalized
>> again..
>
>Obviously he believes that government has no limits.

Government has practical limits.

Historically, those limits have been considerably more constraining
than our current government.

Our government has in addition certain constitutional limits. But
during the civil war, property was confiscated without recompense, and
freedom of speech and the press were restricted, so clearly even
constitutional limits can be violated in practice under some
conditions.

[Bob LeChevalier]

And this has what to do with "enslavement", racist?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/15/2012 9:00 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 4:26 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>> message news:4f58dfee$0$2974$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>>> On 3/8/2012 6:01 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>>>>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>>>>
>>>> ONLY it's NOT legal. So you will be violating the constitution and
>>>> MY RIGHTS.
>>>>
>>>> It's NOT me breaking the law it's you.
>>>
>>> He effectively believes that if we vote for slavery it will be legalized
>>> again..
>>
>> Obviously he believes that government has no limits.
>
> Government has practical limits.

Our government has constitutional limits.... unfortunately Socialist
scum think they can ignore those limits.

--
Bread and beer increased prosperity to a level that allowed time for
development of other technology and contributed to the building of
civilizations.[19][20][21][22]

He has the most who is most content with the least.
Diogenes

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/15/2012 8:56 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 6:01 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:28 AM, Tim Crowley wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 1, 10:25 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> If these college girls that need "us" to pay for "their" birth control,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you lie about the issue, no-name. You know full and well it
>>>>> has nothing to do with "us" paying for birth control.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>>>> refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>>>
>>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>>
>> ONLY it's NOT legal.
>
> That is for the courts to decide. And precedent rather strongly
> supports it being legal.

Your position is that government can break the laws of the constitution
because it has broken those laws before.....


You should be in a mental facility.

--
Bread and beer increased prosperity to a level that allowed time for
development of other technology and contributed to the building of
civilizations.[19][20][21][22]

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>>>>> refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>>>>
>>>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>>>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>>>
>>> ONLY it's NOT legal.
>>
>> That is for the courts to decide. And precedent rather strongly
>> supports it being legal.
>
>Your position is that government can break the laws of the constitution
>because it has broken those laws before.

That is not my position. The courts have the authority to decide
whether the government has broken the law, not you.

>You should be in a mental facility.

You ARE in a mental facility. The bubble that constitutes your
perversion of reality.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/15/2012 9:00 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2012 4:26 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:4f58dfee$0$2974$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
>>>>> On 3/8/2012 6:01 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>>>>>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY it's NOT legal. So you will be violating the constitution and
>>>>> MY RIGHTS.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's NOT me breaking the law it's you.
>>>>
>>>> He effectively believes that if we vote for slavery it will be legalized
>>>> again..
>>>
>>> Obviously he believes that government has no limits.
>>
>> Government has practical limits.
>
>Our government has constitutional limits.

The courts decide what those are.

>... unfortunately Socialist scum think they can ignore those limits.

You ignore the constitutional clause the gives the power to the courts
to interpret the laws and apply them to cases. That is a
constitutional limit as well. Are you claiming to be a Socialist
because you ignore that limit?

Ideologues in general tend to ignore the limits imposed by reality.

[Who Is John Galt]

On 3/23/2012 11:05 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>>>>>> refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>>>>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>>>>
>>>> ONLY it's NOT legal.
>>>
>>> That is for the courts to decide. And precedent rather strongly
>>> supports it being legal.
>>
>> Your position is that government can break the laws of the constitution
>> because it has broken those laws before.
>
> That is not my position. The courts have the authority to decide
> whether the government has broken the law, not you.
>

You missed the point here... It's the Courts that are violating the laws.



If what you say was true, then the system has already failed when the
courts started their unconstitutional activity.


The constitutional default is for me to now rise up and throw off the
tyranny. We gave the system its chance to follow the constitution and
the system failed so the courts that are violating the constitution must
be held accountable by "we the people".

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/23/2012 11:08 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> You ignore the constitutional clause the gives the power to the courts
> to interpret the laws and apply them to cases.

I have never seen that clause.... please cite the text.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/23/2012 11:08 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> You ignore the constitutional clause the gives the power to the courts
> to interpret the laws and apply them to cases.

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 3/23/2012 11:08 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> You ignore the constitutional clause the gives the power to the courts
>> to interpret the laws and apply them to cases.
>
>
>I have never seen that clause..

Yes you have, since I've posted it before in response to the same
question.

>.. please cite the text.


Article III

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to
time ordain and establish.

"interpret the laws and apply them to cases" is synonymous with
"judicial power".

[Bob LeChevalier]

Who Is John Galt <MenOfT...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/23/2012 11:05 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>>>>>>> refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>>>>>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY it's NOT legal.
>>>>
>>>> That is for the courts to decide. And precedent rather strongly
>>>> supports it being legal.
>>>
>>> Your position is that government can break the laws of the constitution
>>> because it has broken those laws before.
>>
>> That is not my position. The courts have the authority to decide
>> whether the government has broken the law, not you.
>
>You missed the point here... It's the Courts that are violating the laws.

Your assertion and reality have nothing in common.

The courts decide who is violating laws. No one else has the
authority to do so. The Supreme Court has no appeal to its decisions,
though individuals on the court may be subject to impeachment

>If what you say was true, then the system has already failed when the
>courts started their unconstitutional activity.

Since the courts have never ruled their activity unconstitutional, and
only they have the authority to do so, your claim is fictional.

>The constitutional default is for me to now rise up and throw off the
>tyranny.

Nothing in the constitution empowers such a thing.

>We gave the system its chance to follow the constitution and
>the system failed so the courts that are violating the constitution must
>be held accountable by "we the people".

Since there are no courts violating the constitution, that is trivial.

And "We the people" are in general quite satisfied with our courts,
which are much more highly respected than you are.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/24/2012 4:35 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Who Is John Galt <MenOfT...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/23/2012 11:05 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>>>>>>>> refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>>>>>>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ONLY it's NOT legal.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is for the courts to decide. And precedent rather strongly
>>>>> supports it being legal.
>>>>
>>>> Your position is that government can break the laws of the constitution
>>>> because it has broken those laws before.
>>>
>>> That is not my position. The courts have the authority to decide
>>> whether the government has broken the law, not you.
>>
>> You missed the point here... It's the Courts that are violating the laws.
>
> Your assertion and reality have nothing in common.
>
> The courts decide who is violating laws.

Yet the founders decided that the Kings courts were corrupt and they
threw them and the king out of these United States didn't they.



I think I see a "LEGAL PRECEDENT"

[Bob LeChevalier]

Who gave the founders the power to do that? It wasn't in the
constitution that didn't yet exist. Nor was it a granted power under
the British unwritten constitution.

Nor were the founders "we the people".

>I think I see a "LEGAL PRECEDENT"

Nope. That was in fact an ILLEGAL precedent.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/25/2012 1:57 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 3/24/2012 4:35 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> Who Is John Galt <MenOfT...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/23/2012 11:05 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Good, then we have no disagreement, I won't and no other person that
>>>>>>>>>> refuses to pay for birth control for others will be forced to do that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You'll pay for what the government legally requires you to pay for,
>>>>>>>>> like it or not, or face the legal consequences.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ONLY it's NOT legal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is for the courts to decide. And precedent rather strongly
>>>>>>> supports it being legal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your position is that government can break the laws of the constitution
>>>>>> because it has broken those laws before.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not my position. The courts have the authority to decide
>>>>> whether the government has broken the law, not you.
>>>>
>>>> You missed the point here... It's the Courts that are violating the laws.
>>>
>>> Your assertion and reality have nothing in common.
>>>
>>> The courts decide who is violating laws.
>>
>> Yet the founders decided that the Kings courts were corrupt and they
>> threw them and the king out of these United States didn't they.
>
> Who gave the founders the power to do that?

The Creator did it with with their Unalienable RIGHTS. They tell you all
about it in the Declaration of Independence.


Read it, you may learn something.



--
*WHO IS JOHN GALT*

[Bob LeChevalier]

Nope. The Creator did nothing relevant.

>They tell you all about it in the Declaration of Independence.

Which has no legal standing. And no Creator has legal standing under
our Constitution.

[Gary Forbis]

On Mar 26, 5:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> >The Creator did it with with their Unalienable RIGHTS.
>
> Nope.  The Creator did nothing relevant.
>
> >They tell you all about it in the Declaration of Independence.
>
> Which has no legal standing.  And no Creator has legal standing under
> our Constitution.

Besides, "the Creator" includes natural selection even though not
specifically identified as such. Thomas Jefferson has been claimed
to be a diest but he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. My
understanding
of his book leads me to believe his view of natural rights doesn't
rest
upon the existance of any diety.

This website covers it pretty well:
http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco08.htm

I don't hold any rights as inallienable. While the maintenance of
certain rights by a society serve the greater good no specific
rights are necessary for either the existance or maintenance
of a society. Coming from the Age of Enlightenment Jefferson
didn't have the necessary framework to establish a robust theory
of rights but what he did was very good.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Then use the 5th and 14th amendments.
[5]["nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation."]

[14]["nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."]




You can't take my property/money without "just compensation".... where
is my ObamaCare just compensation from the Federal government for taking
my property with a law that is unconstitutional. I want to be reimbursed.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/26/2012 9:56 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On Mar 26, 5:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> The Creator did it with with their Unalienable RIGHTS.
>>
>> Nope. The Creator did nothing relevant.
>>
>>> They tell you all about it in the Declaration of Independence.
>>
>> Which has no legal standing. And no Creator has legal standing under
>> our Constitution.
>
> Besides, "the Creator" includes natural selection even though not
> specifically identified as such. Thomas Jefferson has been claimed
> to be a diest but he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.

I'm NOT sure I see your point, you're repeating what I said.... what
ever your creator, you received or were endowed, with unalienable rights
(basically you were given free will). These rights are inherent in all
human life... It is "self evident" (again meaning we were all given the
same free will) and that is why no matter what your creator, we still
believe that you have these rights. Because you are here and you do
have free will and it can NOT be given by other men.

Those rights appear in the constitution in the 5th amendment and the
14th amendment and in the Declaration of Independence as Life, Liberty
and happiness. The constitution narrows the idea to physical reality
rather than philosophical terms like "happiness" as it should, being a
"legal" document it needed to be more precise and physically based.

*Life, Liberty and Property*


You seem to attribute my post to being religious and yet I have NO
religious overtones in this post.... You have the choice of any
creator, I could care less about who you make your creator or why you do it.


--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> On Mar 26, 5:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> The Creator did it with with their Unalienable RIGHTS.
>>
>> Nope. The Creator did nothing relevant.
>>
>>> They tell you all about it in the Declaration of Independence.
>>
>> Which has no legal standing. And no Creator has legal standing under
>> our Constitution.

You would use laws from other Nations as the courts now say they can,
while you ignore our own LEGAL documents that were created in the making
of this NATION...


How did you ever come to hate the United States of America so much?


WOW did government schools fail you... the money would have been better
spent sending you to Cuba or Russia for your education.


--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 5:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> The Creator did it with with their Unalienable RIGHTS.
>>>
>>> Nope. The Creator did nothing relevant.
>>>
>>>> They tell you all about it in the Declaration of Independence.
>>>
>>> Which has no legal standing. And no Creator has legal standing under
>>> our Constitution.
>
>You would use laws from other Nations as the courts now say they can,

The courts have recognized laws from other nations since the earliest
days. In particular, the early US courts respected laws of Great
Britain that applied before independence, and they respected the
common law from that period as well.

Treaties ratified by the Senate are binding in this country, and this
is explicitly stated in the Constitution. They are also laws of other
nations as well.

If you mean something other than these, you'll have to be more
specific, and I'm sure you'll have incorrect information.

>while you ignore our own LEGAL documents that were created in the making
>of this NATION...

No. In particular, the DofI was not such a legal document.

>How did you ever come to hate the United States of America so much?

Why do you keep beating your five wives three times daily?

[Bob LeChevalier]

Guess what. A court decision is inherently the result of due process
of law, unless something UNdue happened in that process.

>You can't take my property/money without "just compensation".

You get to continue to live here.

>... where
>is my ObamaCare just compensation from the Federal government for taking
>my property with a law that is unconstitutional. I want to be reimbursed.

Taxes are constitutional, and taken in due process.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

AAhhhhhh.... you mean like the court NOT having jurisdiction but
saying that they do, and it is inferred jurisdiction and NOT actual text
that spells out their jurisdiction?


--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[Bob LeChevalier]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>> Then use the 5th and 14th amendments.
>>> [5]["nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
>>> of law;
>>
>> Guess what. A court decision is inherently the result of due process
>> of law, unless something UNdue happened in that process.

>AAhhhhhh.... you mean like the court NOT having jurisdiction but
>saying that they do,

The court has the final say as to whether they have jurisdiction,
since the decision about jurisdiction is a judicial one.