Poser for Mickey McMickey

[George M. Middius]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the
others."

I'm sure you've heard that quote before. Will you skate out on the
thin ice and claim that anarchy is a form of government? Anarchy is
what you seem to want, if I've deciphered your babbling with any
accuracy.

BTW, how would the likes of you fare in an anarchic society? Would you
lead a gang of ruthless cutthroats in order to keep a roof over your
head? Or (more likely) would you be one of the first to be gutted and
hung from somebody else's roof, your pelf pilfered and your innards
splattered?

[Cloud Hobbit]

What I want is a government that follows its own Constitution, which is not what we have now. If the people through their elected representatives wish to change the government there is a process by which to do it. I want the maximum amount of freedom that is possible without chaos. I especially would like to see the 10th amendment followed and the Feds should stay out of things that are the responsibility of the states.

I have no wish to live in anarchy. So I guess you haven't been able to understand the clear language I have posted. Perhaps you should spend some time with a reading comprehension course. You obviously have a vocabulary in place that could allow you to express your self and understand others better.

Why is following the Constitution and following the law such a big deal for so many people? If we followed the Constitution we would not have a DEA wasting time and money over something the Constitution does not allow them to arrest people for using substances that other people might not wish to use.

If we followed the Constitution we would have no FCC wasting money making rules they have no Constitutional authority to make.

There are so many things being done by the government that they simply do not have the authority to do.

I consider the Constitution to be the greatest founding document ever written. I do not understand why more people are not upset by the fact that the Federal government doesn't seem to care about it that much.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 3:51:58 PM UTC-8, Glanbrok wrote:

The way I heard that quote was: " Democracy is a poor form of government, it's just that all the thers are worse.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

I always thought you were an idiot.

But now I see you are a Constitutional scholar. When did you get your degree?

[Cloud Hobbit]

I('m not claiming to be a Constitutional scholar at any level other than that of an ordinary citizen who can read. part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it written so that if you read, you can understand it.

Is it wrong to want the Federal government to follow the constitution?
Do you have any idea of how much money the federal government spends on things it is not Constitutionally authorized to do?

The whole idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government. The only place it is given any real power is in the area of commerce between the states, which they have broadened far beyond what many feel was the intention of the Founding Fathers.

For anything else a Constitutional Amendment is required.

Am I missing something? Is your interpretation different than mine, and if so how?

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 12:32:23 AM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 7:51:54 PM UTC-7, Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:
> > On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 12:58:25 AM UTC-6, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 3:51:58 PM UTC-8, Glanbrok wrote:
> > > > "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the
> > > > others."
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure you've heard that quote before. Will you skate out on the
> > > > thin ice and claim that anarchy is a form of government? Anarchy is
> > > > what you seem to want, if I've deciphered your babbling with any
> > > > accuracy.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, how would the likes of you fare in an anarchic society? Would you
> > > > lead a gang of ruthless cutthroats in order to keep a roof over your
> > > > head? Or (more likely) would you be one of the first to be gutted and
> > > > hung from somebody else's roof, your pelf pilfered and your innards
> > > > splattered?
> > >
> > > The way I heard that quote was: " Democracy is a poor form of government, it's just that all the thers are worse.
> >
> > I always thought you were an idiot.
> >
> > But now I see you are a Constitutional scholar. When did you get your degree?
>
> I('m not claiming to be a Constitutional scholar at any level other than that of an ordinary citizen who can read. part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it written so that if you read, you can understand it.

Obviously not the case...

> Is it wrong to want the Federal government to follow the constitution?

They do.

> Do you have any idea of how much money the federal government spends on things it is not Constitutionally authorized to do?

According to...

> The whole idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government.

Incorrect. The whole idea was to reach a compromise that all states would agree to. I think the founders would laugh at you.

> The only place it is given any real power is in the area of commerce between the states, which they have broadened far beyond what many feel was the intention of the Founding Fathers.

According to...

> For anything else a Constitutional Amendment is required.

LOL! Do you really think they wrote it and figured what they wrote would not be interpreted? Were they that dumb?

> Am I missing something? Is your interpretation different than mine, and if so how?

You are missing many things, like the history of why and how the Constitution was developed. Where did you get your degree? Your professors failed you miserably.

Let me guess: you "think" Cliven Bundy's bunch are "patriots."

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:

>Let me guess: you "think" Cliven Bundy's bunch are "patriots."

Mickey reminds me of the tormented Elephant Man, shouting "I am not an
animal!" at his tormentors. Except Mickey shouts "I am not a genius!"

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

I think the Jefferson quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" suffers from the same errors in punctuation that have led to the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment recently by conservatives.

Corrected version: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of "patriots" and "tyrants."

Time to feed the tree with the likes of "patriotic" tea baggers and militiamen.

[Cloud Hobbit]

> > I('m not claiming to be a Constitutional scholar at any level other than that of an ordinary citizen who can read. part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it written so that if you read, you can understand it.
>
> Obviously not the case...
>

It is if you have at least an 8th grade education. It is clear and precise.

> > Is it wrong to want the Federal government to follow the constitution?
>
> They do.
>

Then whence Obamacare? Show me the part of the Constitution that allows the government to have any say in healthcare or that allows government to force people to buy something.

> > Do you have any idea of how much money the federal government spends on things it is not Constitutionally authorized to do?
>
> According to...
>

The published figures for the budgets of the unconstitutional agencies such as Dept. of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, FCC, etc., etc..

> > The whole idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government.
>
> Incorrect. The whole idea was to reach a compromise that all states would agree to. I think the founders would laugh at you.

It was both things.

>
> > The only place it is given any real power is in the area of commerce between the states, which they have broadened far beyond what many feel was the intention of the Founding Fathers.
>
> According to...
>

The Constitution.

> > For anything else a Constitutional Amendment is required.
>
> LOL! Do you really think they wrote it and figured what they wrote would not be interpreted? Were they that dumb?
>

I think they wrote it the way they did to keep "interpretations from happening.

> > Am I missing something? Is your interpretation different than mine, and if so how?
>
> You are missing many things, like the history of why and how the Constitution was developed. Where did you get your degree? Your professors failed you miserably.

The history of why and how is less important than what they wrote and agreed to.

>
> Let me guess: you "think" Cliven Bundy's bunch are "patriots."

I think Cliven Bundy is a racist, but that doesn't make him wrong about grazing. the federal government is not allowed to own land for any other reason than what is outlined in the Constitution. That the feds have taken things on themselves that were not Constitutionally authorized is a matter of record, that doesn't make it constitutional.

[George M. Middius]

Mickey McPoochie yapped:

>>
>> Let me guess: you "think" Cliven Bundy's bunch are "patriots."
>
I think Cliven Bundy is a racist, but that doesn't make him wrong
about grazing. the federal government is not allowed to own land for
any other reason than what is outlined in the Constitution. That the
feds have taken things on themselves that were not Constitutionally
authorized is a matter of record, that doesn't make it constitutional.

_____________

Bad grammar aside, baying at the moon is Scottie's department. Do you
have fleas?

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 4:06:02 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > > I('m not claiming to be a Constitutional scholar at any level other than that of an ordinary citizen who can read. part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it written so that if you read, you can understand it.
> >
> > Obviously not the case...
> >
> It is if you have at least an 8th grade education. It is clear and precise.

If that's the case, another of your "unnecessary" government agencies is the Supreme Court. ;)

> > > Is it wrong to want the Federal government to follow the constitution?
> >
> > They do.
> >
> Then whence Obamacare? Show me the part of the Constitution that allows the government to have any say in healthcare or that allows government to force people to buy something.

I haven't read the SCOTUS decision in detail, but I'm guessing maybe the Interstate Commerce Clause? That's also the one that allowed the Civil Rights Acts.

I don't doubt that you're with the folks who want to repeal that as "unconstitutional" though.

> > > Do you have any idea of how much money the federal government spends on things it is not Constitutionally authorized to do?
> >
> > According to...
> >
> The published figures for the budgets of the unconstitutional agencies such as Dept. of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, FCC, etc., etc..

See above. "Interstate Commerce" is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government.

> > > The whole idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government.
> >
> > Incorrect. The whole idea was to reach a compromise that all states would agree to. I think the founders would laugh at you.
>
> It was both things.

A balance exists between state and federal. That was the point.

> > > The only place it is given any real power is in the area of commerce between the states, which they have broadened far beyond what many feel was the intention of the Founding Fathers.
> >
> > According to...
> >
> The Constitution.

What I meant was who the "many they" was.

> > > For anything else a Constitutional Amendment is required.
> >
> > LOL! Do you really think they wrote it and figured what they wrote would not be interpreted? Were they that dumb?
> >
> I think they wrote it the way they did to keep "interpretations from happening.

Again, we need to kill four Federal departments then. SCOTUS, Education, and I can't remember the last two. ;)

> > > Am I missing something? Is your interpretation different than mine, and if so how?
> >
> > You are missing many things, like the history of why and how the Constitution was developed. Where did you get your degree? Your professors failed you miserably.
>
> The history of why and how is less important than what they wrote and agreed to.

It's also important to know what they thought of the finished project: "No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring changes in society which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation." -- Thomas Jefferson

You think they wrote the 10 commandments in stone. ;)

> > Let me guess: you "think" Cliven Bundy's bunch are "patriots."
>
> I think Cliven Bundy is a racist, but that doesn't make him wrong about grazing. the federal government is not allowed to own land for any other reason than what is outlined in the Constitution. That the feds have taken things on themselves that were not Constitutionally authorized is a matter of record, that doesn't make it constitutional.

Regardless, it is not HIS property. But I knew you'd side with him. I'd tell you to take the government to court, but there's no need since everything is so black and white that the SCOTUS is not needed.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:

>> It was both things.
>
>A balance exists between state and federal. That was the point.

I want Mickey to tell us the real reason Burr murdered Hamilton.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:

>> > LOL! Do you really think they wrote it and figured what they wrote would
>> > not be interpreted? Were they that dumb?

>> I think they wrote it the way they did to keep "interpretations from happening.

>Again, we need to kill four Federal departments then. SCOTUS, Education,
>and I can't remember the last two. ;)

They're burning Perry in effigy at SXSW.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

I think he'd tell you it was because Burr hated the Federal Reserve System.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:

>> >A balance exists between state and federal. That was the point.
>>
>> I want Mickey to tell us the real reason Burr murdered Hamilton.
>
>I think he'd tell you it was because Burr hated the Federal Reserve System.

Exactly. No mere criminal act stacks up against Federal overreach.
Just ask Sen. Thom "Stupid Dork" Tillis.

<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-sen-tillis-restaurants-shouldnt-force-employees-to-wash-their-hands/>

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 10:40:27 PM UTC-7, Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:

>
> If that's the case, another of your "unnecessary" government agencies is the Supreme Court. ;)
>

Not true at all. The Constitution is vague in some areas and sometimes things get crazy at the lower level courts. Sometimes it tasked with explaining why a tomato can be a vegetable.

> > > > Is it wrong to want the Federal government to follow the constitution?
> > >
> > > They do.
> > >
> > Then whence Obamacare? Show me the part of the Constitution that allows the government to have any say in healthcare or that allows government to force people to buy something.
>
> I haven't read the SCOTUS decision in detail, but I'm guessing maybe the Interstate Commerce Clause? That's also the one that allowed the Civil Rights Acts.
>

There has not been a case about the entire law, to my knowledge. Only parts of it have been challenged, although why that should stop the court from ruling it unconstitutional is beyond me.

> I don't doubt that you're with the folks who want to repeal that as "unconstitutional" though.
>

Only because it is. Nothing gives the Federal government the right to force people to buy something.

Moting gives the federal government the right to have any say in healthcare. Tenth amendment issue, not federal.

> > > > Do you have any idea of how much money the federal government spends on things it is not Constitutionally authorized to do?
> > >
> > > According to...
> > >
> > The published figures for the budgets of the unconstitutional agencies such as Dept. of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, FCC, etc., etc..
>
> See above. "Interstate Commerce" is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government.
>

Education is not Interstate Commerce. According to the left nearly everything is interstate commerce.

> > > > The whole idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government.
> > >
> > > Incorrect. The whole idea was to reach a compromise that all states would agree to. I think the founders would laugh at you.
> >
> > It was both things.
>
> A balance exists between state and federal. That was the point.

And yet the Feds seem to keep cross the line into things that are not its business.

>
> > > > The only place it is given any real power is in the area of commerce between the states, which they have broadened far beyond what many feel was the intention of the Founding Fathers.
> > >
> > > According to...
> > >
> > The Constitution.
>
> What I meant was who the "many they" was.

People like Robert Bork for one. It is a debate that has been going on a very long time, and qustions have to be asked when cases like this happen: In 1905, the Court used the Commerce Clause to halt price fixing in the Chicago meat industry, when it ruled that Congress had authority to regulate the local meat market under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It found that business done even at a purely local level could become part of a continuous "current" of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

>
> > > > For anything else a Constitutional Amendment is required.
> > >
> > > LOL! Do you really think they wrote it and figured what they wrote would not be interpreted? Were they that dumb?
> > >

I think they were trying to write the most airtight document they could, although some parts do seem vague, most of it especially that which pertains to individual liberty are especially precise.

I think they left a way to clear up such questions either through the SCOTUS or through amendments.

> > I think they wrote it the way they did to keep "interpretations from happening.
>
> Again, we need to kill four Federal departments then. SCOTUS, Education, and I can't remember the last two. ;)
>

The Supre court is as are all courts a very necessary way to insure individual rights.

Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds control over or participation in education. The same holds for the DEPT OF energy and agriculture.

Here's an idea, why not go over this A-Z list of government agencies and departments and see how many have constitutional authority to exist.
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/
Notice that it is no what one might consider a short list.

> > > > Am I missing something? Is your interpretation different than mine, and if so how?
> > >
> > > You are missing many things, like the history of why and how the Constitution was developed. Where did you get your degree? Your professors failed you miserably.
> >
> > The history of why and how is less important than what they wrote and agreed to.
>
> It's also important to know what they thought of the finished project: "No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring changes in society which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation." -- Thomas Jefferson
>

At what point have I ever said it was perfect and never needed changes? It is obvious that they thought changes would be needed and that is why the included the power to amend it as needed. The amendments can not simply be Congress writing new laws that do not conform to as it is written now.

> You think they wrote the 10 commandments in stone. ;)
>
> > > Let me guess: you "think" Cliven Bundy's bunch are "patriots."
> >
> > I think Cliven Bundy is a racist, but that doesn't make him wrong about grazing. the federal government is not allowed to own land for any other reason than what is outlined in the Constitution. That the feds have taken things on themselves that were not Constitutionally authorized is a matter of record, that doesn't make it constitutional.
>
> Regardless, it is not HIS property. But I knew you'd side with him. I'd tell you to take the government to court, but there's no need since everything is so black and white that the SCOTUS is not needed.

Your words not mine. Courts are and have always been necessary if for ot other reason than to keep lawyers from screwing people.

There are always going to be people who push things until they reach the Supreme Court. The problem is that SCOTUS has become simply a reflection of the people who nominated them and not about what the courts job is supposed to be, a protector of individual rights.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 5:07:13 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 10:40:27 PM UTC-7, Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:
>
> >
> > If that's the case, another of your "unnecessary" government agencies is the Supreme Court. ;)
> >
> Not true at all. The Constitution is vague in some areas and sometimes things get crazy at the lower level courts. Sometimes it tasked with explaining why a tomato can be a vegetable.

According to you, any eighth grader can understand the Constitution.

> > > > > Is it wrong to want the Federal government to follow the constitution?
> > > >
> > > > They do.
> > > >
> > > Then whence Obamacare? Show me the part of the Constitution that allows the government to have any say in healthcare or that allows government to force people to buy something.
> >
> > I haven't read the SCOTUS decision in detail, but I'm guessing maybe the Interstate Commerce Clause? That's also the one that allowed the Civil Rights Acts.
> >
>
> There has not been a case about the entire law, to my knowledge. Only parts of it have been challenged, although why that should stop the court from ruling it unconstitutional is beyond me.

That's because, apparently, you do not understand the Constitution as well as you think you do. ;)

> > I don't doubt that you're with the folks who want to repeal that as "unconstitutional" though.
> >
> Only because it is. Nothing gives the Federal government the right to force people to buy something.
>
> Moting gives the federal government the right to have any say in healthcare. Tenth amendment issue, not federal.

General welfare. And if companies do business in more than one state it is by definition "interstate commerce."

> > > > > Do you have any idea of how much money the federal government spends on things it is not Constitutionally authorized to do?
> > > >
> > > > According to...
> > > >
> > > The published figures for the budgets of the unconstitutional agencies such as Dept. of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, FCC, etc., etc..
> >
> > See above. "Interstate Commerce" is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government.
> >
> Education is not Interstate Commerce. According to the left nearly everything is interstate commerce.

I think education does have an affect on interstate commerce, and also on "general welfare."

> > > > > The whole idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect. The whole idea was to reach a compromise that all states would agree to. I think the founders would laugh at you.
> > >
> > > It was both things.
> >
> > A balance exists between state and federal. That was the point.
>
> And yet the Feds seem to keep cross the line into things that are not its business.

No, they don't. In the cases that happens laws get overturned. And states also get into things that "cross the line." Explain to 2pid how a majority in a state can vote in a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, for example, and have it overturned on Constitutional grounds at the federal level. See also laws in the South meant to work around the Civil Rights Act. (In fact, it appears that same strategy is being employed right now re: gays.)

> > > > > The only place it is given any real power is in the area of commerce between the states, which they have broadened far beyond what many feel was the intention of the Founding Fathers.
> > > >
> > > > According to...
> > > >
> > > The Constitution.
> >
> > What I meant was who the "many they" was.
>
> People like Robert Bork for one. It is a debate that has been going on a very long time, and qustions have to be asked when cases like this happen: In 1905, the Court used the Commerce Clause to halt price fixing in the Chicago meat industry, when it ruled that Congress had authority to regulate the local meat market under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It found that business done even at a purely local level could become part of a continuous "current" of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

In 1789 there was relatively very little interstate commerce. That's different today. Conservatives are stuck in 1789 because it suits them.

> > > > > For anything else a Constitutional Amendment is required.
> > > >
> > > > LOL! Do you really think they wrote it and figured what they wrote would not be interpreted? Were they that dumb?

> I think they were trying to write the most airtight document they could, although some parts do seem vague, most of it especially that which pertains to individual liberty are especially precise.

I think they were laying down general principles, not trying to create an "airtight" document. I also think they were searching for compromises.

> I think they left a way to clear up such questions either through the SCOTUS or through amendments.
> > > I think they wrote it the way they did to keep "interpretations from happening.
> >
> > Again, we need to kill four Federal departments then. SCOTUS, Education, and I can't remember the last two. ;)
> >
>
> The Supre court is as are all courts a very necessary way to insure individual rights.
>
> Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds control over or participation in education. The same holds for the DEPT OF energy and agriculture.
>
> Here's an idea, why not go over this A-Z list of government agencies and departments and see how many have constitutional authority to exist.
> http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/
> Notice that it is no what one might consider a short list.

There's also this "general welfare" clause. It's in the preamble too.

>
>
> > > > > Am I missing something? Is your interpretation different than mine, and if so how?
> > > >
> > > > You are missing many things, like the history of why and how the Constitution was developed. Where did you get your degree? Your professors failed you miserably.
> > >
> > > The history of why and how is less important than what they wrote and agreed to.
> >
> > It's also important to know what they thought of the finished project: "No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring changes in society which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation." -- Thomas Jefferson
> >
>
> At what point have I ever said it was perfect and never needed changes? It is obvious that they thought changes would be needed and that is why the included the power to amend it as needed. The amendments can not simply be Congress writing new laws that do not conform to as it is written now.

I don't think they do.

> > You think they wrote the 10 commandments in stone. ;)
> >
> > > > Let me guess: you "think" Cliven Bundy's bunch are "patriots."
> > >
> > > I think Cliven Bundy is a racist, but that doesn't make him wrong about grazing. the federal government is not allowed to own land for any other reason than what is outlined in the Constitution. That the feds have taken things on themselves that were not Constitutionally authorized is a matter of record, that doesn't make it constitutional.
> >
> > Regardless, it is not HIS property. But I knew you'd side with him. I'd tell you to take the government to court, but there's no need since everything is so black and white that the SCOTUS is not needed.
>
> Your words not mine. Courts are and have always been necessary if for ot other reason than to keep lawyers from screwing people.

"So clear anyone with a eighth grade education can understand it" or words to that effect. No need for interpretation, no need for the SCOTUS then.

BUT, you don't address Bundy's cattle grazing on land that isn't his.

> There are always going to be people who push things until they reach the Supreme Court. The problem is that SCOTUS has become simply a reflection of the people who nominated them and not about what the courts job is supposed to be, a protector of individual rights.

I'd say that's mainly true on one side. Protecting people's rights seems to be a predominantly liberal position.

I'll tell you a secret: for over 30 years I've been sworn to protect and defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Foreign enemy is usually pretty easy.

But I never really fully understood what a domestic enemy of the Constitution was until I saw Cliven Bundy. He crystallized it for me. I hope next time the Bundy morons on the bridge who are pointing weapons at federal agents get plugged. Time to thin the herd. Apaches or A-10s would be effective. Maybe a platoon of M-1 Abrams. I felt threatened and would "stand my ground." And I'd be happy to call them in. ;)

[George M. Middius]

Has Mickey brayed about Holy Writ of Posse Comitatus? That principle
was the only time in U.S. history that the Almighty spoke through the
mouths of mortals.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

I was, of course, referring to the militia made mention of in the Constitution, who have every right to plug domestic enemies. The National Guard has all of those things.

[George M. Middius]

__________


How about Randy Weaver and David Koresh -- weren't they in the same
category? They actually took up arms against the government. Look at
the fallout after they got what they asked for.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 12:43:33 PM UTC-5, Glanbrok wrote:

> How about Randy Weaver and David Koresh -- weren't they in the same
> category? They actually took up arms against the government. Look at
> the fallout after they got what they asked for.

Yes, they were "patriots" whose blood needed to fertilize the soil of the Tree of Liberty, just like Bundy's bunch needs to. The Tree of Liberty is getting thirsty...again.

LoL.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:

>> How about Randy Weaver and David Koresh -- weren't they in the same
>> category? They actually took up arms against the government. Look at
>> the fallout after they got what they asked for.
>
Yes, they were "patriots" whose blood needed to fertilize the soil of
the Tree of Liberty, just like Bundy's bunch needs to. The Tree of
Liberty is getting thirsty...again.

______________


I'm buying steaks from Oz next time. Bundy should choke on his cud.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 3:53:22 PM UTC-7, Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 5:07:13 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 10:40:27 PM UTC-7, Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If that's the case, another of your "unnecessary" government agencies is the Supreme Court. ;)
> > >
> > Not true at all. The Constitution is vague in some areas and sometimes things get crazy at the lower level courts. Sometimes it tasked with explaining why a tomato can be a vegetable.
>
> According to you, any eighth grader can understand the Constitution.
>

Is it difficult for you to understand that something can be clearly written, yet not contain all the information one might wish for.

On the really important parts (individual rights) it is very clear. One thing you will not find no matter how hard you try is something giving the Federal governm,ent the power to make peope buy something.

> > > > > > Is it wrong to want the Federal government to follow the constitution?
> > > > >
> > > > > They do.

> > > > > \
They don't.

> > > > Then whence Obamacare? Show me the part of the Constitution that allows the government to have any say in healthcare or that allows government to force people to buy something.
> > >
> > > I haven't read the SCOTUS decision in detail, but I'm guessing maybe the Interstate Commerce Clause? That's also the one that allowed the Civil Rights Acts.
> > >
> >
> > There has not been a case about the entire law, to my knowledge. Only parts of it have been challenged, although why that should stop the court from ruling it unconstitutional is beyond me.
>
> That's because, apparently, you do not understand the Constitution as well as you think you do. ;)
>

No, it's because the law is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give authority to the Federal government to have any say in healthcare.

> > > I don't doubt that you're with the folks who want to repeal that as "unconstitutional" though.
> > >
> > Only because it is. Nothing gives the Federal government the right to force people to buy something.
> >
> > Moting gives the federal government the right to have any say in healthcare. Tenth amendment issue, not federal.
>
> General welfare. And if companies do business in more than one state it is by definition "interstate commerce."
>

The Interstate Commerce ploy has been used and stretched so thin they should be ashamed, but being politicians, they aren't.

This seems very straight forward to me: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".....

The fact that the feds have tired and succeeded in using this for every reason under the sun does not make it right. With any luck this court will not be so creative in using the commerce clause. One can only hope.

> > > > > > Do you have any idea of how much money the federal government spends on things it is not Constitutionally authorized to do?
> > > > >
> > > > > According to...
> > > > >
> > > > The published figures for the budgets of the unconstitutional agencies such as Dept. of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, FCC, etc., etc..
> > >
> > > See above. "Interstate Commerce" is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government.
> > >
> > Education is not Interstate Commerce. According to the left nearly everything is interstate commerce.
>
> I think education does have an affect on interstate commerce, and also on "general welfare."
>

You notice how the feds pass very few "requirements" for the states schools? That's because they know if they push to hard the states will all tell them to shove it.

They do not have the authority, not even when they say they do and they know it.

> > > > > > The whole idea of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government.
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect. The whole idea was to reach a compromise that all states would agree to. I think the founders would laugh at you.
> > > >
> > > > It was both things.
> > >
> > > A balance exists between state and federal. That was the point.
> >
> > And yet the Feds seem to keep cross the line into things that are not its business.
>
> No, they don't. In the cases that happens laws get overturned. And states also get into things that "cross the line." Explain to 2pid how a majority in a state can vote in a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, for example, and have it overturned on Constitutional grounds at the federal level. See also laws in the South meant to work around the Civil Rights Act. (In fact, it appears that same strategy is being employed right now re: gays.)

I'm pretty sure he know that already.

I'm starting to get confused, are you only opposed to laws that violate our freedom when they don't bring money into the Fed treasury? You just support raping the Constitution when it would mean more money to do more unconstitutional things?

>
> > > > > > The only place it is given any real power is in the area of commerce between the states, which they have broadened far beyond what many feel was the intention of the Founding Fathers.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to...
> > > > >
> > > > The Constitution.
> > >
> > > What I meant was who the "many they" was.
> >
> > People like Robert Bork for one. It is a debate that has been going on a very long time, and qustions have to be asked when cases like this happen: In 1905, the Court used the Commerce Clause to halt price fixing in the Chicago meat industry, when it ruled that Congress had authority to regulate the local meat market under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It found that business done even at a purely local level could become part of a continuous "current" of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause
>
> In 1789 there was relatively very little interstate commerce. That's different today. Conservatives are stuck in 1789 because it suits them.
>

No, they want the Federal government to stop using it as a cash cow for any reason they can think of. While I can applaud their creativity in civil rights law, that doesn't mean they should get creative every time they want to find a new way to regulate something for no good reason.

> > > > > > For anything else a Constitutional Amendment is required.
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL! Do you really think they wrote it and figured what they wrote would not be interpreted? Were they that dumb?
>
> > I think they were trying to write the most airtight document they could, although some parts do seem vague, most of it especially that which pertains to individual liberty are especially precise.
>
> I think they were laying down general principles, not trying to create an "airtight" document. I also think they were searching for compromises.
>

Absolutely incorrect. It was crafted to make sure there were limits placed on government to prevent the federal government from making life difficult the way government had done in the past. They made some very specific rules that no politician would try and violate. The Bill of Rights for example. Some parts may be considered guidelines but most of it is clear and precise.

> > I think they left a way to clear up such questions either through the SCOTUS or through amendments.
> > > > I think they wrote it the way they did to keep "interpretations from happening.
> > >

> > The Supreme court is, as are all courts, a very necessary way to insure individual rights.

> >
> > Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds control over or participation in education. The same holds for the DEPT OF energy and agriculture.
> >
> > Here's an idea, why not go over this A-Z list of government agencies and departments and see how many have constitutional authority to exist.
> > http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/

> > Notice that it is not what one might consider a short list.

>
> There's also this "general welfare" clause. It's in the preamble too.
>

And it's your position that a bill like ACA will preserve the general welfare by ushering in higher taxes and more debt?

Far too many lies have been told by the administration to make me think anything about this has anything to do with the general welfare.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" That does not sound like an invitation to do anything that comes into the mind of the Congress.

> >

> > > >
> > > > The history of why and how is less important than what they wrote and agreed to.
> > >
> > > It's also important to know what they thought of the finished project: "No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring changes in society which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation." -- Thomas Jefferson
> > >
> >

> > At what point have I ever said it was perfect and never needed changes? It is obvious that they thought changes would be needed and that is why they included the power to amend it as needed. The amendments can not simply be Congress writing new laws that do not conform to as it is written now.

>
> I don't think they do.
>
> > > You think they wrote the 10 commandments in stone. ;)

I don't believe any of the Exodus story. There is no evidence that it ever happened. It seems a stretch to think something could go on for 400 years and leave no trace anywhere. But then Jesus probably wasn't real either.

> > > > > Let me guess: you "think" Cliven Bundy's bunch are "patriots."
> > > >
> > > > I think Cliven Bundy is a racist, but that doesn't make him wrong about grazing. the federal government is not allowed to own land for any other reason than what is outlined in the Constitution. That the feds have taken things on themselves that were not Constitutionally authorized is a matter of record, that doesn't make it constitutional.
> > >
> > > Regardless, it is not HIS property.

Nor does it belong to the government. They have no right to it at all.

But I knew you'd side with him. I'd tell you to take the government to court, but there's no need since everything is so black and white that the SCOTUS is not needed.
> >

> > Your words not mine. Courts are and have always been necessary if for no other reason than to keep lawyers from screwing people.

>
> "So clear anyone with a eighth grade education can understand it" or words to that effect. No need for interpretation, no need for the SCOTUS then.
>

As written, that doesn't stop politicians and lawyers from trying to mess it up.

> BUT, you don't address Bundy's cattle grazing on land that isn't his.

I did. I said the land does not belong to the federal government and they have no legal right to charge anybody for grazing there.

Unless there is a citizen or state agency that owns the land and Bundy is in violation of a state law, then he has not committed a federal crime.

>
> > There are always going to be people who push things until they reach the Supreme Court. The problem is that SCOTUS has become simply a reflection of the people who nominated them and not about what the courts job is supposed to be, a protector of individual rights.
>
> I'd say that's mainly true on one side. Protecting people's rights seems to be a predominantly liberal position.
>

Only if you are blind. Show me the plank in the GOP platform that says they want to dismantle any individual rights.

> I'll tell you a secret: for over 30 years I've been sworn to protect and defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
>

It's the same oath Obama and every President and military serviceman swore, including me in 1967. I don't see that this President in particular is honoring his oath.

> Foreign enemy is usually pretty easy.
>
> But I never really fully understood what a domestic enemy of the Constitution was until I saw Cliven Bundy. He crystallized it for me. I hope next time the Bundy morons on the bridge who are pointing weapons at federal agents get plugged. Time to thin the herd. Apaches or A-10s would be effective. Maybe a platoon of M-1 Abrams. I felt threatened and would "stand my ground." And I'd be happy to call them in. ;)

So people who want to stop the Federal government from abusing a power they don't really have should be shot?

I think you have some work to do on what constitutes a domestic enemy.

They guys who set of a fertilizer bomb in Oklahoma, and those 2 brothers in Boston, are examples of domestic enemies. The way some people used the law to keep people of color from voting, those were/are domestic enemies.

Cliven Bundy has so far as i know done nothing to make him an enemy, if he wins he'll be a hero to many ranchers. It's time for the government to obey the law.
They can't just claim they own something because they want to.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 10:22:50 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 3:53:22 PM UTC-7, Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:

<snip>

> > BUT, you don't address Bundy's cattle grazing on land that isn't his.
> I did. I said the land does not belong to the federal government and they have no legal right to charge anybody for grazing there.
>
> Unless there is a citizen or state agency that owns the land and Bundy is in violation of a state law, then he has not committed a federal crime.

I'll open fire on him and his followers if they point weapons at federal agents again. I felt threatened.

> > I'd say that's mainly true on one side. Protecting people's rights seems to be a predominantly liberal position.
> >
> Only if you are blind. Show me the plank in the GOP platform that says they want to dismantle any individual rights.

We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.

https://gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/

That was too easy.

> > I'll tell you a secret: for over 30 years I've been sworn to protect and defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
> >
> It's the same oath Obama and every President and military serviceman swore, including me in 1967. I don't see that this President in particular is honoring his oath.

As we see, you also have trouble understanding some pretty simple concepts.

Sheeit. Wherever you got your degree ripped you off. Is it still an accredited school?

> > Foreign enemy is usually pretty easy.
> >
> > But I never really fully understood what a domestic enemy of the Constitution was until I saw Cliven Bundy. He crystallized it for me. I hope next time the Bundy morons on the bridge who are pointing weapons at federal agents get plugged. Time to thin the herd. Apaches or A-10s would be effective. Maybe a platoon of M-1 Abrams. I felt threatened and would "stand my ground." And I'd be happy to call them in. ;)
>
> So people who want to stop the Federal government from abusing a power they don't really have should be shot?
>
> I think you have some work to do on what constitutes a domestic enemy.

Nope. Someone who doesn't acknowledge the validity of an elected government qualifies.

> They guys who set of a fertilizer bomb in Oklahoma, and those 2 brothers in Boston, are examples of domestic enemies. The way some people used the law to keep people of color from voting, those were/are domestic enemies.

Nope. They are terrorists. They denied some people their civil rights, to be sure, but they were not undermining the Constitution.

> Cliven Bundy has so far as i know done nothing to make him an enemy, if he wins he'll be a hero to many ranchers. It's time for the government to obey the law.

"But I don't recognize the United States government as even existing." -- Cliven Bundy.

(That would be the Constitutionally-elected government, by the way.)

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/05/02/militiamen-fight-over-cliven-bundys-ranch-far-over-248354.html

> They can't just claim they own something because they want to.

Better kick all the people who got ranches in the land rushes off, as well as all of those land-grant universities. It turns out the land wasn't the government's land to give. And Nellis AFB outside Las Vegas will have to close.

Duh.

[Cloud Hobbit]

I think it's a given that whenever Mr. Bundy opens his mouth, he puts his foot in it. That being said, it doesn't change the fact that there is no Constitutional authority for the feds to have any claim to the land he was grazing his cattle on. The rest is just noise.

For many things the feds have done in the past a remedy to bring it all in line with the Constitution would be more than a little troublesome.

It's hard to fix problems that have existed for decades, but it doesn't mean that it's bad to expect the feds to obry the law.

Military bases would be one of the Constitutionally authorized pieces of land constitutionally authorized.j

[George M. Middius]

Mickey blithered:

[...]

Never mind, it's the same old drivel.

Hey, look -- if you grow a brain, Mickey, you can donate your parts to
science!

<http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2013/02/appendix.jpg>

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

I guess that means we can camp wherever we want to, regardless of who owns it.

I'll be right over.

(You haven't addressed Bundy's "right" to graze on land that isn't his. How is this his "right"?)

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

Here, address this. Feel free to consult your Constitutional law attorney before responding. ;)

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/28/andrew-napolitano/napolitano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/

[Cloud Hobbit]

It seems there are several different opinions on this issue. In my opinion the SCOTUS is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 3:07:20 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> It seems there are several different opinions on this issue. In my opinion the SCOTUS is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

You apparently think the Constitution is wrong, too. Article Four is written in language for eighth graders, remember? And even the most strict reading by the most conservative people does not question the Federal Government's right to own land.

But, since you want to reach a conclusion flying in the face of all facts and evidence, I want to help you.

And I won't dare call your "differing point of view" stupid, or say that you are bordering on insanity. I know that facts, reality, rational thought, or logic don't matter when it comes to "differing points of view" (cross reference: 2pid). I see in another post you made that calling you "stupid" or "insane" may offend you.

Anyway, here's a helpful link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/bar/baradmissions.aspx

Good luck!

[Cloud Hobbit]

I never questioned that they had a right to own land, just not all of it the way the government seems to think.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 1:39:14 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> I never questioned that they had a right to own land, just not all of it the way the government seems to think.

The government, the Constitution, and virtually every law expert including that liberal Heritage Foundation. Where in the Constitution is there any limit? "The government may own no more than 11.3% of territory within a state." Duh.

So when, if ever, do you wake up from your crack-induced haze?

And who is feeding you the discredited bullshit you base your "differing POV" on?

Education. It's a thing, and it's important. Look at this moron for a perfect example why.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:

>Education. It's a thing, and it's important. Look at this moron for a perfect example why.

Good point to bring, out on, lot's.

Education: Otherwise known as Stupidity Reversal Therapy.

[MiNe109]

By rights, Bundy should be paying rent to Mexico.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:43:31 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:

> By rights, Bundy should be paying rent to Mexico.

By rights, Mikey should be apologizing to humanity.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 3:33:49 PM UTC-5, Glanbrok wrote:

> Education: Otherwise known as Stupidity Reversal Therapy.

For some, it doesn't take. Exhibit A: 2pid.

Although it could be argued he just learned a trade and wasn't educated.

[ScottW]

"MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mgkj8e$jmb$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Where do you send your check?

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 4/15/15 1:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> By rights, Bundy should be paying rent to Mexico.
>
> Where do you send your check?

I don't graze cattle.

[ScottW]

"MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:mgmbvi$t59$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

You occupy and consume resources formerly part of Mexico.
Or perhaps you'd rather pay the Republic of Texas?
Or the Confederate Union?

So many liabilities....I think you should pay them all just to cover rights.

ScottW

[Boon]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 12:39:14 PM UTC-6, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> I never questioned that they had a right to own land, just not all of it the way the government seems to think.

Your backpedaling is pathetic.

[Boon]

Where do you send yours? Because your name is nowhere when it comes to the house on Mimosa.

[Boon]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mgmbvi$t59$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> > On 4/15/15 1:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
> >> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> >>> By rights, Bundy should be paying rent to Mexico.
> >>
> >> Where do you send your check?
> >
> > I don't graze cattle.
>
> You occupy and consume resources formerly part of Mexico.
> Or perhaps you'd rather pay the Republic of Texas?
> Or the Confederate Union?
>
> So many liabilities....I think you should pay them all just to cover rights.

And San Diego has a different history, moron?

[Cloud Hobbit]

I said at the outset that the government is allowed to own land, that's not backpedaling.

Some intersting comments on this issue of land ownership by the government can be found here: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

You will see this, which I think hits the nail on the head.

Article I is the place where one would expect to find a grant of power to Congress to exercise political sovereignty over federal lands. Article IV, in contrast, which generally deals with issues of state-to-state relations (i.e., full faith and credit, privileges and immunities, extradition, repatriation of slaves, creation of new states, protection of states against invasion) would be an odd place to put such a power. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the careful drafting of the Constitution to assume that the Framers included two overlapping grants of sovereign political authority over federal lands. These structural considerations make it doubtful that the broad police-power theory is consistent with the original understanding.

Taking the structural and historical evidence together, we can infer what may plausibly have been the original understanding of the Property Clause. The Property Clause authorized Congress to exercise a general police power within the territories before they were formed into states. Once states were admitted to the union, however, Congress could exercise full police powers over federal land located in a state only in accordance with the Enclave Clause, that is, only when the land was acquired with the consent of the state in question. As to what "needful Rules and Regulations" Congress could enact respecting federal lands in a state not located in an enclave, the Northwest Ordinance suggests that at least some preemptive federal legislation was contemplated, but only if designed to protect the proprietary interests of the United States. In short, the Framers intended that the police-power theory would apply to federal land located in territories, but that the protective theory would apply to non-enclave federal land located in states.

A leading nineteenth-century exposition of the constitutional authority of the federal government over federal lands, Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1885), is generally consistent with this conclusion. There, Justice Stephen J. Field wrote that the authority of the federal government over territories is "necessarily paramount." But once a territory is organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal footing with other states, the state government assumes general sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government has the rights only of an "individual proprietor." The federal government can exercise rights of general sovereignty over property only if there has been a formal cession of sovereignty by the state under the Enclave Clause. Justice Field qualified this vision of separated sovereignty, however, by noting that if the federal government acquires land outside the Enclave Clause, any federal forts, buildings, or other installations erected on such land "will be free from any such interference and jurisdiction of the State as would destroy or impair their effective use for the purposes designed."

The judicial vision of how much power the Property Clause confers on the federal government has hardly remained constant. To the contrary, it has evolved significantly over time. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the clause was understood to be primarily a source of authority for establishing territorial governments. Once new states were admitted to the Union, the federal government became a mere trustee of any remaining federal lands, holding and protecting them, pending their sale to private persons. Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845). With the infamous decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) the Court went further, holding that the Property Clause does not permit the exercise of police powers by the federal government in territory acquired after the Founding, and in particular that it does not permit the federal government to prohibit slavery in such territory. Dred Scott v. Sandford. Because the Northwest Ordinance had included a similar prohibition, and the Property Clause was designed to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, Dred Scott is contrary to the original understanding in this respect.

It seems that this issue has been disputed and changed over time. My personal perspective is not that out of line with what is likely the intent of the founders. YMMV.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 3:28:34 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 12:49:51 PM UTC-7, Boon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 12:39:14 PM UTC-6, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > > I never questioned that they had a right to own land, just not all of it the way the government seems to think.
> >
> > Your backpedaling is pathetic.
>
> I said at the outset that the government is allowed to own land, that's not backpedaling.

> It seems that this issue has been disputed and changed over time. My personal perspective is not that out of line with what is likely the intent of the founders. YMMV.

I love it. Mikey "thinks" he can divine the "original intent" of the Founders. I'm surprised Mikey can wipe his own ass.

"While we do not undertake to say that Congress has the unlimited power to legislate against nuisances within a State, which it would have within a Territory, we do not think the admission of a Territory as a State deprives it of the power of legislating for the protection of the public lands, though it may thereby involve the exercise of what is ordinarily known as the police power, so long as such power is directed solely to its own protection. A different rule would place the public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of state legislation."

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

As I said, 2pid apparently learned a trade and was not educated.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:

>> > So many liabilities....I think you should pay them all just to cover rights.
>>
>> And San Diego has a different history, moron?
>
>As I said, 2pid apparently learned a trade and was not educated.

I think Scottie's barking in this thread because he's feeling left
out. Where is Mistress's iron hand when Pooch needs it most?

[MiNe109]

On 4/15/15 2:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mgmbvi$t59$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 4/15/15 1:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
>>> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> By rights, Bundy should be paying rent to Mexico.
>>>
>>> Where do you send your check?
>>
>> I don't graze cattle.
>
> You occupy and consume resources formerly part of Mexico. Or perhaps
> you'd rather pay the Republic of Texas? Or the Confederate Union?

Oh, you think you have a gotcha. Unlike Bundy, I'm not claiming that I'm
not subject to the law of the land so your response doesn't follow.

> So many liabilities....I think you should pay them all just to cover
> rights.

You first.

[George M. Middius]

MiNe109 wrote:

>> You occupy and consume resources formerly part of Mexico. Or perhaps
>> you'd rather pay the Republic of Texas? Or the Confederate Union?
>
>Oh, you think you have a gotcha. Unlike Bundy, I'm not claiming that I'm
>not subject to the law of the land so your response doesn't follow.

<grrr...>

>> So many liabilities....I think you should pay them all just to cover
>> rights.

>You first.

Scottie is exempt because back when he had a job and a paycheck, he
threw a couple bucks into the collection plate every now and then.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:53:32 PM UTC-5, Glanbrok wrote:

> Scottie is exempt because back when he had a job and a paycheck, he
> threw a couple bucks into the collection plate every now and then.

Your a antichristian homophobe, LoL.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:

>> Scottie is exempt because back when he had a job and a paycheck, he
>> threw a couple bucks into the collection plate every now and then.
>
>Your a antichristian homophobe, LoL.

Scottie is one of those cowardly "agnostics" who claim they don't
necessarily believe in Heaven and Hell. He tiptoes along the line
between realism and belief in the supernatural because ... well, just
in case the myths are true.

I'll have to tell Jim that I'm now a homophobe. He'll be as surprised
as I was to learn it.

[ScottW]

"MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:mgmp4b$tvf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 4/15/15 2:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
>> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:mgmbvi$t59$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On 4/15/15 1:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
>>>> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> By rights, Bundy should be paying rent to Mexico.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you send your check?
>>>
>>> I don't graze cattle.
>>
>> You occupy and consume resources formerly part of Mexico. Or perhaps
>> you'd rather pay the Republic of Texas? Or the Confederate Union?
>
> Oh, you think you have a gotcha. Unlike Bundy, I'm not claiming that I'm
> not subject to the law of the land so your response doesn't follow.

If only follows your response which was apparently...just BS.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <glan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f6viadcl70skblfn...@4ax.com...

>
> Shhhh! I'm listening to reason! wrote:
>
>>> Scottie is exempt because back when he had a job and a paycheck, he
>>> threw a couple bucks into the collection plate every now and then.
>>
>>Your a antichristian homophobe, LoL.
>
> Scottie is one of those cowardly "agnostics" who claim they don't
> necessarily believe in Heaven and Hell. He tiptoes along the line
> between realism and belief in the supernatural because ... well, just
> in case the myths are true.

Nah, we'll all find out soon enough.
It's people like you who need some moral guidance via commandments and fear etc.
Your own internal guidance system failed you so very long ago.

>
> I'll have to tell Jim that I'm now a homophobe. He'll be as surprised
> as I was to learn it.

Are we adding that to your femphobe, heterophobe, religiousphobe, conservative
phobe, and humanphobe list?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <glan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c1mtia9rae3d23rka...@4ax.com...

I'm amused that you think equating California history with Texas is
an indicator of your level of education. Well I suppose it is, though not the
positive indicator as you apparently think.

ScottW

[Boon]

I'm an agnostic as well, but not to cover all my bases. I'm an agnostic because we are too fucking stupid to figure it all out for ourselves, and I disagree with theists and atheists who believe they're smart enough to know for certain one way or another.

I don't know, and you don't know. Let's just wait patiently and see what happens, and let's stop making shit up.

[Boon]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 11:53:03 AM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mgmp4b$tvf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> > On 4/15/15 2:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
> >> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:mgmbvi$t59$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >>> On 4/15/15 1:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
> >>>> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>>> By rights, Bundy should be paying rent to Mexico.
> >>>>
> >>>> Where do you send your check?
> >>>
> >>> I don't graze cattle.
> >>
> >> You occupy and consume resources formerly part of Mexico. Or perhaps
> >> you'd rather pay the Republic of Texas? Or the Confederate Union?
> >
> > Oh, you think you have a gotcha. Unlike Bundy, I'm not claiming that I'm
> > not subject to the law of the land so your response doesn't follow.
>
> If only follows your response which was apparently...just BS.

I don't know why you feel the urge to offer such lame, weak responses...other than the fact that you're a last word freak. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, which you don't, feel free to fuck yourself during your copious "alone" time.

Moron.

[Boon]

I may have sounded a bit cranky there. But there are two kinds of agnosticism--strong and weak. What you're talking about, George, is weak agnosticism: "I'm not sure if I believe or not, but I'm going to pretend just in case." Strong agnosticism is what I follow, where it's entirely foolish to pretend that we know what happens to us after we die, so we might as well do our best in this life and not believe we are going to be rewarded in the afterlife.

I've heard people come up with different versions of atheism as well. I maintain that an atheist does not believe in a higher being, while some have argued with me that atheists merely choose to live their lives without God...which sort of sounds like weak agnosticism to me.

[ScottW]

"Boon" <vinylana...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6db41cb8-404e-40d9...@googlegroups.com...

> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 11:53:03 AM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
>> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:mgmp4b$tvf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> > On 4/15/15 2:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
>> >> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:mgmbvi$t59$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> >>> On 4/15/15 1:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
>> >>>> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>>
>> >>>>> By rights, Bundy should be paying rent to Mexico.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Where do you send your check?
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't graze cattle.
>> >>
>> >> You occupy and consume resources formerly part of Mexico. Or perhaps
>> >> you'd rather pay the Republic of Texas? Or the Confederate Union?
>> >
>> > Oh, you think you have a gotcha. Unlike Bundy, I'm not claiming that I'm
>> > not subject to the law of the land so your response doesn't follow.
>>
>> If only follows your response which was apparently...just BS.
>
> I don't know why you feel the urge to offer such lame, weak responses..

and I thought it was so obvious. It's because it brings out the best and
brightest you have to offer. See?....

>.other than the fact that you're a last word freak. If you don't have anything
>intelligent to say, >which you don't, feel free to fuck yourself during your
>copious "alone" time.

I gotta give you credit. For you, this is quite impressive.


ScottW

[George M. Middius]

yappity-yappity.... <whimper>

>>.other than the fact that you're a last word freak. If you don't have anything
>>intelligent to say, >which you don't, feel free to fuck yourself during your
>>copious "alone" time.
>
> I gotta give you credit. For you, this is quite impressive.

Really? I would have worked in a "doghouse" reference. Like, now that
you're homeless, wifeless, and moneyless, it's lucky you hung on to
that little doghouse poor Jayna got for you way back when.

[George M. Middius]

ProjectionBorgJr yapped:

>> Scottie is one of those cowardly "agnostics" who claim they don't
>> necessarily believe in Heaven and Hell. He tiptoes along the line
>> between realism and belief in the supernatural because ... well, just
>> in case the myths are true.
>
>Nah, we'll all find out soon enough.

Told ya! Hah!

>It's people like you who need some moral guidance via commandments and fear etc.
>Your own internal guidance system failed you so very long ago.

You're hot on the Krooborg's trail now.

>> I'll have to tell Jim that I'm now a homophobe. He'll be as surprised
>> as I was to learn it.
>
>Are we adding that to your femphobe, heterophobe, religiousphobe, conservative
>phobe, and humanphobe list?

And "homophobe" goes onto the List Of Common Shit Scottie Don't Know.

[Boon]

Thanks for proving my point. You have nothing to say, but that doesn't stop you from saying it.

[George M. Middius]

Boon wrote:

>> Scottie is one of those cowardly "agnostics" who claim they don't
>> necessarily believe in Heaven and Hell. He tiptoes along the line
>> between realism and belief in the supernatural because ... well, just
>> in case the myths are true.

I'm an agnostic as well, but not to cover all my bases. I'm an
agnostic because we are too fucking stupid to figure it all out for
ourselves, and I disagree with theists and atheists who believe
they're smart enough to know for certain one way or another.
>
I don't know, and you don't know. Let's just wait patiently and see
what happens, and let's stop making shit up.

_____________


I don't need to know, unlike the goofy religionists who make the shit
up. I'm perfectly content to dismiss all religious dogma as
speculation at best or brainwashing at worst.

[Boon]

That's a long fucking list.

[Boon]

Neither do I. This is the battle that Bill Maher has been fighting, that Islam isn't evil as much as ALL organized religion is evil. And, quite frankly, utter bullshit.

[George M. Middius]

Boon wrote:

I've heard people come up with different versions of atheism as well.
I maintain that an atheist does not believe in a higher being, while
some have argued with me that atheists merely choose to live their
lives without God...which sort of sounds like weak agnosticism to me.

___________

The latter daffynishion was clearly cooked up by somebody who is
deeply drenched in dogma. I'm sure we've all met people who claim they
can't imagine a "life without god". They come in two varieties: the
stoic kind who incorporate their faith into their lives, and the
obnoxious kind who can't shut their stupid yaps about "God" even at
the point of a gun.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <glan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e9p2ja9k2oblo2coq...@4ax.com...

I'm sorry if Boon remains inadequate to you. He's trying.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <glan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ahp2jat8549gi0hrf...@4ax.com...

Definitely brainwashing....but there was a time when electro-shock therapy was
thought to be necessary on the likes of you. Humanity has been forced to resort
to some rather extreme measures at times.
It must be a cruel irony to know that you are in many ways a descendant of those
who inspired religion and the need to provide mankind a stronger moral guidance.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Boon wrote:

>> I don't need to know, unlike the goofy religionists who make the shit
>> up. I'm perfectly content to dismiss all religious dogma as
>> speculation at best or brainwashing at worst.
>
Neither do I. This is the battle that Bill Maher has been fighting,
that Islam isn't evil as much as ALL organized religion is evil. And,
quite frankly, utter bullshit.

_____________


Maher is one my cultural heroes. But it's my impression that he
believes Islam is worse than Jesusinanity. He keeps citing a survey of
"ordinary" Muslims that showed most embrace the idea of murdering
anybody who draws a picture of Mohammed.

[MiNe109]

On 4/17/15 12:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mgmp4b$tvf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 4/15/15 2:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
>>> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mgmbvi$t59$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 4/15/15 1:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
>>>>> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> By rights, Bundy should be paying rent to Mexico.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you send your check?
>>>>
>>>> I don't graze cattle.
>>>
>>> You occupy and consume resources formerly part of Mexico. Or
>>> perhaps you'd rather pay the Republic of Texas? Or the
>>> Confederate Union?
>>
>> Oh, you think you have a gotcha. Unlike Bundy, I'm not claiming
>> that I'm not subject to the law of the land so your response
>> doesn't follow.
>
> If only follows your response which was apparently...just BS.

Incoherent and mean-spirited. Well-done!

[Cloud Hobbit]

As I said this topic has been contentious for awhile. I don't think I can know the minds of the founders except when they have spoken on a topic and made clear their thoughts. One can infer from other things and how those were treated, how they might have thought about something else. I favor a government that does not own anything other than property needed to serve the interests of all of the people. There really is no good reason why the government needs as much land as they own in the west.

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

Translation: "I don't think the government should have any more land than I think they need. (In the meantime, please feel free to break any law you disagree with, regardless of whether or not it's been hashed over for 150 years and is now considered settled law. It remains contentious because I disagree with it.)

cf: "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier... as long as I'm the dictator. Hehehe." --George Bush.

[George M. Middius]

MiNe109 wrote:

>> If only follows your response which was apparently...just BS.
>
>Incoherent and mean-spirited. Well-done!

Hmmm.... Scottie, was Stephen's comment a compliment or an insult?

[George M. Middius]

Boon wrote:

>> And "homophobe" goes onto the List Of Common Shit Scottie Don't Know.
>
>That's a long fucking list.

Agreed.(tm) In fact, the list is so cumbersome that nobody is willing
to keep it updated anymore.

[George M. Middius]

Another lesson lost in the maelstrom of Scottie's Perfect Vacuum.

>> I think Scottie's barking in this thread because he's feeling left
>> out. Where is Mistress's iron hand when Pooch needs it most?
>
>I'm amused that you think equating California history with Texas is
>an indicator of your level of education.

For the 288th time, Witless, we Normals can't hear the voices in your
head. We post and reply in the real world. When you feel the need to
snap at your imaginary tormentors, stay away from your keyboard.

[Boon]

Is this your alcoholism talking, or are you whacking it again while dreaming of a world where I am not your superior in every conceivable way?

[Boon]

Oh, so you think that ECT was an acceptable way to "treat" homosexuality? Gee, that's even more despicable than your support of NFL players beating their wives.

Nobody here wants to know pieces of shit like you exist. I can't imagine how fucked up your life must be to spend so much time at a place where you are so reviled, pitied and humiliated. What the fuck is wrong with you, loser, other than the fact that you've lost your house, your family and your job?

[Boon]

But I have heard him repeat the fact that when it comes to pure evil and killing people in the name of a higher bring, Islam is still a distant second to Christianity.

[George M. Middius]

Boon wrote:


Nobody here wants to know pieces of shit like you exist. I can't
imagine how fucked up your life must be to spend so much time at a
place where you are so reviled, pitied and humiliated. What the fuck
is wrong with you, loser, other than the fact that you've lost your
house, your family and your job?

______________

I used to wonder about that too, but some years ago, Scottie provided
an answer. He claimed that what he sought was the opportunity to make
Normals get angry. If that's the whole story (at least as Scottie sees
it), it does explain why he keeps bashing his empty head against the
same wall, year after year after year.

[George M. Middius]

Boon wrote:

>> Neither do I. This is the battle that Bill Maher has been fighting,
>> that Islam isn't evil as much as ALL organized religion is evil. And,
>> quite frankly, utter bullshit.
>> _____________
>>
>> Maher is one my cultural heroes. But it's my impression that he
>> believes Islam is worse than Jesusinanity. He keeps citing a survey of
>> "ordinary" Muslims that showed most embrace the idea of murdering
>> anybody who draws a picture of Mohammed.
>
But I have heard him repeat the fact that when it comes to pure evil
and killing people in the name of a higher bring, Islam is still a
distant second to Christianity.

______________


If you go back 1500 years, sure.

Remember when Obama made the same comparison? Scottie took deep
offense at the suggestion that christians are less than perfect.

[Boon]

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 12:34:19 PM UTC-6, Glanbrok wrote:
> Boon wrote:
>
> >> Neither do I. This is the battle that Bill Maher has been fighting,
> >> that Islam isn't evil as much as ALL organized religion is evil. And,
> >> quite frankly, utter bullshit.
> >> _____________
> >>
> >> Maher is one my cultural heroes. But it's my impression that he
> >> believes Islam is worse than Jesusinanity. He keeps citing a survey of
> >> "ordinary" Muslims that showed most embrace the idea of murdering
> >> anybody who draws a picture of Mohammed.
> >
> But I have heard him repeat the fact that when it comes to pure evil
> and killing people in the name of a higher bring, Islam is still a
> distant second to Christianity.
> ______________
>
>
> If you go back 1500 years, sure.

Or if you go back to the lynchings in the South from 1865-1964. A lot of that was done in the name of Jesus. The KKK has always had close ties to religious institutions throughout the US.

>
> Remember when Obama made the same comparison? Scottie took deep
> offense at the suggestion that christians are less than perfect.

...yes, all while maintaining that he does not follow Christianity. That's perhaps the biggest whopper he's told here.

[MiNe109]

Anger is an energy...

No wonder he's so tickled when the relatively mild-mannered RAO remnants
tell him off. He can claim a win for one outburst versus decades of
moderate posts. Whether it's reasonable to expect people to stay calm
while insulting them to their faces is another question.

[Boon]

He's far too cowardly to insult any of us to our faces.

[George M. Middius]

Boon wrote:

>> Whether it's reasonable to expect people to stay calm
>> while insulting them to their faces is another question.
>
>He's far too cowardly to insult any of us to our faces.

He should get himself one of them Jeebus shields.

[ScottW]

"MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:mh02sg$cu1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 4/18/15 1:30 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
>> Boon wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nobody here wants to know pieces of shit like you exist. I can't
>> imagine how fucked up your life must be to spend so much time at a
>> place where you are so reviled, pitied and humiliated. What the fuck
>> is wrong with you, loser, other than the fact that you've lost your
>> house, your family and your job?
>>
>> ______________
>>
>> I used to wonder about that too, but some years ago, Scottie provided
>> an answer. He claimed that what he sought was the opportunity to make
>> Normals get angry. If that's the whole story (at least as Scottie sees
>> it), it does explain why he keeps bashing his empty head against the
>> same wall, year after year after year.
>
> Anger is an energy...
>
> No wonder he's so tickled when the relatively mild-mannered RAO remnants tell
> him off. He can claim a win for one outburst versus decades of moderate posts.

Is it an insult to note the level of delusion demonstrated by this absurdity?
Just wondering.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

From his own peculiar dimension, Witless yapped:

>> No wonder he's so tickled when the relatively mild-mannered RAO remnants tell
>> him off. He can claim a win for one outburst versus decades of moderate posts.
>
>Is it an insult to note the level of delusion demonstrated by this absurdity?
>Just wondering.

I probably shouldn't bother saying this, but have you already
forgotten that we Normals don't have ready access to the maelstrom of
bizarro thoughts and images you mistake for reality?

[Boon]

I'm sure you wonder about a lot of things, such as why you lost your job and family, why you are alone and no one wants anything to do with you, why everyone thinks you are a moron and why your luck has turned bad.

Hint: it's you.

[MiNe109]

No, when he declares me dishonest with no evidence or Jen immoral
he's completely insulting.

[MiNe109]

On 4/19/15 12:10 PM, ScottW wrote:
> "MiNe109" <pianof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> No wonder he's so tickled when the relatively mild-mannered RAO remnants tell
>> him off. He can claim a win for one outburst versus decades of moderate posts.
>
> Is it an insult to note the level of delusion demonstrated by this absurdity?
> Just wondering.

IKYABWAI

[Boon]

That's what he has written on his tramp stamp.

[George M. Middius]

Boon wrote:

>> > Just wondering.
>>
>> IKYABWAI
>
>That's what he has written on his tramp stamp.

TMI!

[MiNe109]

He may have his name branded on his belt for similar reasons.

[George M. Middius]

MiNe109 wrote:

>>>> IKYABWAI
>>>
>>> That's what he has written on his tramp stamp.
>> TMI!

>He may have his name branded on his belt for similar reasons.

You mean, words to live by? Or an acronym, anyway.

[MiNe109]

The stamp is a warning for others, the belt name is to reorient himself
after a session of self-exploration or "fact-finding."

[George M. Middius]

MiNe109 wrote:

>>>>>> IKYABWAI
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what he has written on his tramp stamp.
>>>> TMI!
>>
>>> He may have his name branded on his belt for similar reasons.
>>
>> You mean, words to live by? Or an acronym, anyway.
>
>The stamp is a warning for others, the belt name is to reorient himself
>after a session of self-exploration or "fact-finding."

It never would have occurred to me that bimbos expect people to take
away a message from their tramp stamps. Besides, doesn't Scottie's dog
collar bear some pithy sayings?

[Shhhh! I'm listening to reason!]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 12:19:01 PM UTC-5, Glanbrok wrote:

> Besides, doesn't Scottie's dog collar bear some pithy sayings?

"If found, please do not return to owner"