Back to the basics please
Arlo-Payne
The Feds. should only be involved with the following issues:
1. National defense
2. All foreign relations and issues
3. Postal
4. Currency
5. Interstate commerce and transportation
6. State disputes
All other issues should be handled by the states according to each states
laws.
The federal government appears to have a great desire to take away all
states rights.
_______________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
risky biz
> Federal Government please get back to the beginning basics.
>
> The Feds. should only be involved with the following issues:
> 1. National defense
> 2. All foreign relations and issues
> 3. Postal
> 4. Currency
> 5. Interstate commerce and transportation
> 6. State disputes
>
> All other issues should be handled by the states according to each states
> laws.
> The federal government appears to have a great desire to take away all
> states rights.
Pure genius, "Arlo".
________________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
ramashiva
> Federal Government please get back to the beginning basics.
> The Feds. should only be involved with the following issues:
> 1. National defense
> 2. All foreign relations and issues
> 3. Postal
> 4. Currency
> 5. Interstate commerce and transportation
> 6. State disputes
> All other issues should be handled by the states according to each states laws.
> The federal government appears to have a great desire to take away all states rights.
Your opinion is noted.
You should note that this right-wing libertarian point of view is
shared by only a tiny minority, even within the Republican Party.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Paul Popinjay
news:c032baca-3141-4026-a0f6-
> You should note that this right-wing libertarian point of view is
> shared by only a tiny minority, even within the Republican Party.
That's because the republicans who do not share this view, suck.
FL Turbo
<arlo_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Federal Government please get back to the beginning basics.
>
>The Feds. should only be involved with the following issues:
>1. National defense
>2. All foreign relations and issues
>3. Postal
>4. Currency
>5. Interstate commerce and transportation
>6. State disputes
>
>All other issues should be handled by the states according to each states
>laws.
>The federal government appears to have a great desire to take away all
>states rights.
>
I think you nailed it right there.
Unfortunately the concept of states rights has been severely damaged
in the process of the Civil Rights movement.
It was a totally righteous movement in its day.
It did however, bring its own Unintended Consequences.
Even today all these years later, any suggestion that the States have
any rights at all to oppose the Federal government brings a whole
batch of knee jerk reactions.
"What? Should we bring back slavery?"
"What? Should we bring back segregation?"
"What? Should we bring back Separate but Equal?"
"What? Should we bring back miscegenation laws?"
"What? Should we let everyone pollute as much as they want?"
And last but not least, the Granddaddy of them all.
"You raaaaacist !!!"
In the meantime, the CongressCritters have abandoned even the pretense
that they are paying any attention at all to their Constitutional
mandate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism.
But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of
the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist
nation, without knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas
U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948
ramashiva
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:c032baca-3141-4026-a0f6-
No, it's because most Republicans realize that adopting this extreme
libertarian agenda would result in the destruction of the Republican
Party.
You want Goldwater/Johnson replayed, but with a much more lopsided
outcome? Nominate Ron Paul or a similar whacked out nutcase for
President.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
johnny_t
I remember, this is a warmed over posting a couple of years old. And my
recollection was...
3. POSTAL? As out number 3 obligation? What pre-constitutional
leaflet did you get this list from?
Why Postal in deference to all other communication modes?
In the 21st century almost all billing comes from within your state.
Almost all packages from services other than the USPS.
The fact that this is even on this list, means that you're purposely
ignoring tons of things that are more important than Postal. Drug
Approval, Patent office, Meat Inspection, Environmental laws. Or is
what you are saying. No, I mean that only things *I* like should belong
in number 5. Or you are saying, that drugs in California are totally ok
to be different than drugs in Oregon.
While re-thinking the republic is a good a noble cause. I think you
will have a tough time really believing that having 50 sets of
environmental laws are good for anybody. That for the most part, what
you instead see is 50 overlapping bureaucracies regulating and enforcing
the exact same things. That this uneveness in regulation costs tax
payers a tremendous portion of there overall tax burden for... What?
The right to protest and be different? Is the government and country
better suited because credit card companies all come from the state that
allows the most usurious rates, so that even though the majority of
the citizens in the supermajority of the states say this is wrong, it
still happens?
That 10,000 corporations are all formed in the same office in the same
office complex in Deleware. For the deception of companies, individuals
and the government alike (elite LLC). This is somehow better for the
country.
This isn't a racism, or liberal point. This is an argument for smaller,
more transparent, more predictable, cheaper government.
Postal, was only on that list, because there was a recognition of the
basic interconnectedness of communication and technology. And as surely
as the telegraph, interstate highway, and the internet has come along,
this interconnectedness is even greater. We are more US citizens any of
us than a citizen of any state. We move, our dollars go beyond our
neighborhood and state. We all care about the bigger picture. We are
not the republic we have born into. It no longer takes 3 weeks for a
message to get from Washington DC to California, indeed I can download a
movie from the Netherlands in a flash, and play poker on servers from
canada to the Rock of Gibralter.
EVERYTHING is interstate. EVERYTHING is related, and it is time for the
end of uneven, torturous, unfair, and ridiculous differences in state
regulations and enforcement. California shouldn't be allowed to spin
off into never never land any more than louisiana should be prevented
from educating their children. These don't make our country stronger
to allow all these smart people to do all these stupid things.
Back to the basics please? How about we all stop playing this game?
Follow
> Your opinion is noted.
>
> You should note that this right-wing libertarian point of view is
> shared by only a tiny minority, even within the Republican Party.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Because no one wants their cheese taken away.
Follow :)
risky biz
> Arlo-Payne wrote:
> > Federal Government please get back to the beginning basics.
> >
> > The Feds. should only be involved with the following issues:
> > 1. National defense
> > 2. All foreign relations and issues
> > 3. Postal
> > 4. Currency
> > 5. Interstate commerce and transportation
> > 6. State disputes
> >
> > All other issues should be handled by the states according to each states
> > laws.
> > The federal government appears to have a great desire to take away all
> > states rights.
> >
Hey, you're taking "Arlo" seriously, aren't you?
----�
K9way
> Federal Government please get back to the beginning basics.
>
> The Feds. should only be involved with the following issues:
> 1. National defense
> 2. All foreign relations and issues
> 3. Postal
> 4. Currency
> 5. Interstate commerce and transportation
> 6. State disputes
>
> All other issues should be handled by the states according to each states
> laws.
> The federal government appears to have a great desire to take away all
> states rights.
American citizens lost more of our rights under Bush , than any other
president in our history
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
risky biz
> On Nov 21 2009 11:32 AM, Arlo-Payne wrote:
>
> > Federal Government please get back to the beginning basics.
> >
> > The Feds. should only be involved with the following issues:
> > 1. National defense
> > 2. All foreign relations and issues
> > 3. Postal
> > 4. Currency
> > 5. Interstate commerce and transportation
> > 6. State disputes
> >
> > All other issues should be handled by the states according to each states
> > laws.
> > The federal government appears to have a great desire to take away all
> > states rights.
>
> American citizens lost more of our rights under Bush , than any other
> president in our history
Not counting Lincoln?
-------�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Follow
>> American citizens lost more of our rights under Bush , than any other
>> president in our history
>
> Not counting Lincoln?
>
Wow, that's the very first commendable post I've seen come from you,
Risky. Congrats.
Follow :)
risky biz
You probably don't like Lincoln because he was associated with the end of
slavery in America.
FL Turbo
wrote:
Is there any policy at all, where you DON'T think the Feds should be
able to dictate policy to the states?
Is there any place at all where you DON'T think Citizens have to do
what the Federal government tells them they must do, or what they
cannot do?
Follow
> On Nov 21 2009 9:32 PM, Follow wrote:
>
>> risky biz wrote:
>>
>>>> American citizens lost more of our rights under Bush , than any other
>>>> president in our history
>>> Not counting Lincoln?
>>>
>> Wow, that's the very first commendable post I've seen come from you,
>> Risky. Congrats.
>>
>>
>>
>> Follow :)
>
> You probably don't like Lincoln because he was associated with the end of
> slavery in America.
Then you have to go and make a comment like that and ruin it all, Risky.
Ah well, it was nice to have you make sense for a second while it lasted.
Follow :)
johnny_t
> Is there any place at all where you DON'T think Citizens have to do
> what the Federal government tells them they must do, or what they
> cannot do?
Well, since the federal government *is* us. We should have that "right"
all the time to control the federal government. But I am not sure what
the underlying question here is. What is special about the word
federal in here. What if it is state, or city?
Or are you saying that it would be ok to have an uneven enforceable
morality set across the country. And I think that is a quaint notion of
a bygone era, that the unifomity of enforcement of commerce and behavior
is more appropriate in a world where we are closer and more
interconnected. It simply isn't the type of world that it used to be.
There was an underlying logic that made sense that Postal and Interstate
commerce that was put in to our constitution. That logic has been
followed through with the civil war, the civil rights act, title 9, the
fda, the ftc, and really poorly with some others. It is the fact that
we are not a collective of individuals, in small towns, areas,
religions, and states. That we are not a collective of massive
differences brought together for the common good. But that indeed, that
we are more a uniform country, with uniform expectations on how we treat
each other, and the country side. And that uniformity comes from the
federal government, and not the state or the city.
Paul Popinjay
news:00a905cb$0$12317$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> Well, since the federal government *is* us. We should have that "right"
> all the time to control the federal government. But I am not sure what
> the underlying question here is. What is special about the word federal
> in here. What if it is state, or city?
>
The federal is NOT us, you fucking dope, Johnny. The state is us. The
federal is, the federal. Don'tcha know nothing about what this country was
founded on?
Alim Nassor
Remember when the United States was referred to as "These United
States" and not "The United States"? There is a difference.
Paul Popinjay
news:a6c09478-44e3-4e75-9698-
> Remember when the United States was referred to as "These United
> States" and not "The United States"? There is a difference.
The states created the fed, not the other way around.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people."
Is Johnny T. fucked up in the head or what? Johnny T. is one of the
weirdest of all regular RGPers I can think of. He's right up there with
Bryan Kimmes and Boise/RGP Loner.
I predict Johnny will not say a fucking thing about this post. Sure, when I
made a long post and asked nobody to respond to it, THEN he had to make
several remarks. But on this, he knows he is full of shit, and will
certainly keep his big mouth shut.
johnny_t
This is too stupid for words.
johnny_t
Wow.
Yes I know that line.
And if you have any clue as to the history and logic behind the
Interstate commerce clause. You have any clue as to the history and
logic behind the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, The EPA, The
Clean Air Act, The FDA, and the FCC. You will understand that for many
many reasons we no longer live in a collection of "These United States",
and that wishing us back there, does not make sense.
The founders were correct in their judgement of why there needed to be
that clause, and the logic behind the Postal Service being federal. It
was an unassailable logic. The logic of the seperated states has
completely washed away. It is no longer that time nor geography. We
now spend countless billions of dollars in our economy to maintain an
anachronistic system of overlapping bureaucracies that simply do not
have to be there. We need smaller not bigger governments. We do not
need thousands of bureaucrats enforcing 50+ different laws over the same
things.
This is not good for the citizens, the businesses that want to survive
in this country, and the businesses that want to interact with this
country. It is not good for security, economy, or political will of the
individual.
Unlike you, whom add really no thought to this thread at all. I
actually applauded the point of the thread to rethink the republic.
Unlike the original posters rehashed thoughts which really don't
contribute much, but point out that the founders understood the logic of
interdependence REQUIRES federal loci of services. If you apply that
logic, you realize that the correct view is not to go back to the
future, but instead, go forward in the future.
It is time for us to remove the tyrannies of tin-horn state regulations.
That apply differently. The whole thing with credit cards and usury
laws are a perfect example of how the people of 49 states are screwed in
defiance of their OWN state determinations, because state 50 in the
desperate plea for income has decided to do so. Why? Because of a weak
application of the ICC. The Usury laws should be federal, not state
by state!
Incorporation laws should be federal. It should make absolutely no
sense that we all go to deleware. This is State Law becoming defacto
federal Law. But a citizen in Wyoming has nothing to say about it.
Again yet another example of the failure of this system.
We have airports and ports controlled by state authorities even though
the security problems are federal. You have local corruption, because
there is no watch dog above them.
At one time, this federation made sense based on size, distance,
communication, and huge lack of interconnectedness. It doesn't as much
any more.
Now, kindly shut the fuck up about trying to divine motivations and
actions about me. It doesn't make you look smarter, and I am pretty
sure you have never been correct about me.
Pepe Papon
"We the people".
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Paul Popinjay
>
> This is too stupid for words.
What are you trying to say, you braindead cretin? That the federal is the
people, yet the state is not? After the federal "protects" us from the
abuses of the states, who will protect us from the abuses of the fed?
You're right, this is too stupid for words. You're too stupid for words.
You, and your co-dummy, Pepe, who is even stupider than too stupid for
words. Stupid!
Alim Nassor
>
> - Show quoted text -
I disagree. I strongly oppose a strong Fed and DO desire a return to
"These Untied States". There are no plausible reasons why the
citizens of each state should not be free to make all the
determinations they wish to make within the bounds of the Constitution
and the Tenth Amendment. Just because you yearn for a huge Fed
controlling all the sovereign citizens of each state does not make it
right.
What then is the use of a Governor and State House when all decision
making is left to Washington? Surely the wants and needs of the 50
disparate states should be left to them to decide. The wants and
needs of the State of Idaho are vastly different than the wants and
needs of the State of Connecticut. And that is why they have State
government.
Some day soon the people are going to rebel against the power grabbing
Fed.
FL Turbo
wrote:
>FL Turbo wrote:
>
>> Is there any place at all where you DON'T think Citizens have to do
>> what the Federal government tells them they must do, or what they
>> cannot do?
>
>Well, since the federal government *is* us. We should have that "right"
>all the time to control the federal government. But I am not sure what
>the underlying question here is. What is special about the word
>federal in here. What if it is state, or city?
>
Well, everyone (almost) has heard the saying "you can't fight City
Hall".
Maybe hard to do, but it can be done if enough Citizens are fed up and
march with pitchforks and torches.
Next step up is the State government.
Even harder for a group of average citizens to control their elected
representatives.
When you get up to the Federal government, it gets damn near
impossible for the average citizen to get the CongressCritters to do
anything besides what the Party Elites, and the DeCee insiders are
determined to do.
Actually, the really, really scary part is that enormous alphabet soup
of bureaucratic institutions that is an integral part of the Federal
government.
The CongressCritters over the years have set them up to sit there and
make countless Rules and Regulations that affect every single Citizen.
One Size fits All regulations.
The same speed limits on highways for crowded little States like Rhode
Island as speed limits on States like Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, etc,
that have miles and miles of wide open spaces.
We have enormous bureaucracies like the EPA, that are beholden to no
one but themselves.
A Mandarin Class.
In effect, we have lost our "right" to control the Feds.
>Or are you saying that it would be ok to have an uneven enforceable
>morality set across the country. And I think that is a quaint notion of
>a bygone era, that the unifomity of enforcement of commerce and behavior
>is more appropriate in a world where we are closer and more
>interconnected. It simply isn't the type of world that it used to be.
>
>There was an underlying logic that made sense that Postal and Interstate
>commerce that was put in to our constitution. That logic has been
>followed through with the civil war, the civil rights act, title 9, the
>fda, the ftc, and really poorly with some others. It is the fact that
>we are not a collective of individuals, in small towns, areas,
>religions, and states. That we are not a collective of massive
>differences brought together for the common good. But that indeed, that
>we are more a uniform country, with uniform expectations on how we treat
>each other, and the country side. And that uniformity comes from the
>federal government, and not the state or the city.
Yes, we are all expected to think alike, according to how the Feds say
we should.
Tyranny, some would say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
�We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the
stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while
the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the
darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.�
�author Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
johnny_t
What differences do you think there should be? Different economic
rules, Different usury rules, different drug rules, different civil
rights? different enviromental regulations? Different stock trading
rules? Different civil rights?
Wow, we don't live that far apart anymore. It is only minutes away, it
used to be weeks away from each other.
We are no longer a republic of individual states, and we are not that
disparate ,and we shouldn't be.
But wish away dude. This isn't even a fight to be won. We are already
there. We ain't going back. People are fighting for an end of bizzare
state tyranny. ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!
But I really wouldn't think that you were a proponent of HUGE government
and that we should have a 50 state overlap of bureaucracies. WOW.
johnny_t
the possibility of revolt and overthrow.
Huh.
So Treason first??? Really?
Sorry, we are way beyond that already. I am not sure that we really
want to be Iraq. Or Zimbabwe. As a matter of fact, I think this is the
fundamental difference between a first world nation and one that isn't.
Ayn Rands future is not the inevitable outcome, and I am sure glad we
don't have to worry about the sheriff from Smokey and the Bandit.
Pepe Papon
I thoroughly pwned you. Expecting you to admit it is probably stupid.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>Well, everyone (almost) has heard the saying "you can't fight City
>Hall".
>Maybe hard to do, but it can be done if enough Citizens are fed up and
>march with pitchforks and torches.
>
>Next step up is the State government.
>Even harder for a group of average citizens to control their elected
>representatives.
>
>When you get up to the Federal government, it gets damn near
>impossible for the average citizen to get the CongressCritters to do
>anything besides what the Party Elites, and the DeCee insiders are
>determined to do.
>
>Actually, the really, really scary part is that enormous alphabet soup
>of bureaucratic institutions that is an integral part of the Federal
>government.
Why so you think that using silly, derogatory words, phrases, and
spellings like "CongressCritters", "DeCee" and "alphabet soup" add any
credence to your arguments?
Paul Popinjay
>
> What differences do you think there should be? Different economic rules,
> Different usury rules, different drug rules, different civil rights?
> different enviromental regulations? Different stock trading rules?
> Different civil rights?
>
> Wow, we don't live that far apart anymore. It is only minutes away, it
> used to be weeks away from each other.
>
> We are no longer a republic of individual states, and we are not that
> disparate ,and we shouldn't be.
>
> But wish away dude. This isn't even a fight to be won. We are already
> there. We ain't going back. People are fighting for an end of bizzare
> state tyranny. ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!
>
> But I really wouldn't think that you were a proponent of HUGE government
> and that we should have a 50 state overlap of bureaucracies. WOW.
You are one sick fuck, man. One, sick, FUCK!
Alim Nassor
>>Different usury rules,
Yes if the citizens want.
>different drug rules,
Yes if the citizens want.
> different civil rights?
Up to a point. States should have the right to establish the what
constitutes a marriage. A return to slavery? No. Changes to
affirmative action? Sure.
>different enviromental regulations?
Yes, if the citizens want
>Different stock trading rules?
Yes if the citizens want and it is not covered by ICC
> Wow, we don't live that far apart anymore. It is only minutes away, it
> used to be weeks away from each other.
Distance has no place in the debate. It wasn't distance that was the
reason for state sovereignty.
>
> We are no longer a republic of individual states, and we are not that
> disparate ,and we shouldn't be.
Just because you say so? What is wrong with the people of Hawaii
having different needs that then people of Oklahoma? Why shoud the
Fed make rules that both states have to follow that fulfill the needs
of neither?
>
> But wish away dude. This isn't even a fight to be won. We are already
> there. We ain't going back. People are fighting for an end of bizzare
> state tyranny. ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!
Actually the fight to once again follow the Constitution and 10th
Amendment is ongoing and gaining steam. 38 states have introduced
resolutions to reaffirm the principles of delegated powers under the
Constitution and the 10th Amendment.
12 states have introduced or passed Firearms Freedom Act Legislation.
14 states have introduced or passed legislation in defiance of Federal
marijuana laws.
In regard to the Real ID act of 2005, 25 states have passed
resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing the implement the
Bush-era law which many expressed concerned about privacy, funding and
more. While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation
has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state
resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.
11 states are considering legislation to effectively nullify any
future national health care plan.
7 states have introduced legislation to reassert the authority of
governors over guard troops
5 states have introduced State-Level Constitutional Tender laws that
seek to nullify federal legal tender laws in the state by authorizing
payment in gold and silver or a paper note backed 100% by gold or
silver.
>
> But I really wouldn't think that you were a proponent of HUGE government
> and that we should have a 50 state overlap of bureaucracies. WOW.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace.
We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may
posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Jerry Sturdivant
"Pepe Papon"
A good example of fed over state was when Oregon voted for the Death With
Dignity Act, (Doctor Assisted Suicide). The self-appointed religious wing of
our government, the Religious Right, (RR; Christian Coalition) stepped in.
They came to Oregon and forced another vote. They spend money campaigning
against it; telling us it was their god's job to kill people.
We passed it by an even larger margin. So the RR went back to Washington and
passed a federal law against doctors issuing fatal prescriptions. Oregon
took it to the Supreme Court and won. ie. Oregon was grandfathered in. The
people of Oregon - and only Oregon - are in control of their own lives. At
least those with terminal cancer.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Visualize whirled peas. Give pizza chants...
FL Turbo
<hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:52:53 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Well, everyone (almost) has heard the saying "you can't fight City
>>Hall".
>>Maybe hard to do, but it can be done if enough Citizens are fed up and
>>march with pitchforks and torches.
>>
>>Next step up is the State government.
>>Even harder for a group of average citizens to control their elected
>>representatives.
>>
>>When you get up to the Federal government, it gets damn near
>>impossible for the average citizen to get the CongressCritters to do
>>anything besides what the Party Elites, and the DeCee insiders are
>>determined to do.
>>
>>Actually, the really, really scary part is that enormous alphabet soup
>>of bureaucratic institutions that is an integral part of the Federal
>>government.
>
>Why so you think that using silly, derogatory words, phrases, and
>spellings like "CongressCritters", "DeCee" and "alphabet soup" add any
>credence to your arguments?
It helps to keep some people's eyes from glazing over through a
completely dead serious argument.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:09:22 -0800, Pepe Papon
><hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:52:53 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Well, everyone (almost) has heard the saying "you can't fight City
>>>Hall".
>>>Maybe hard to do, but it can be done if enough Citizens are fed up and
>>>march with pitchforks and torches.
>>>
>>>Next step up is the State government.
>>>Even harder for a group of average citizens to control their elected
>>>representatives.
>>>
>>>When you get up to the Federal government, it gets damn near
>>>impossible for the average citizen to get the CongressCritters to do
>>>anything besides what the Party Elites, and the DeCee insiders are
>>>determined to do.
>>>
>>>Actually, the really, really scary part is that enormous alphabet soup
>>>of bureaucratic institutions that is an integral part of the Federal
>>>government.
>>
>>Why so you think that using silly, derogatory words, phrases, and
>>spellings like "CongressCritters", "DeCee" and "alphabet soup" add any
>>credence to your arguments?
>
>It helps to keep some people's eyes from glazing over through a
>completely dead serious argument.
And yet, when referring to state or local governments, you seem to see
no need to prevent glazing.
Paul Popinjay
news:hojpg5pmd15olt76q...@4ax.com...
>
> And yet, when referring to state or local governments, you seem to see
> no need to prevent glazing.
Didn't you go to school, you stupid mutherfucker? Turbo is exactly correct
throughout this thread. You and Johnny T. could learn a thing or two from
him, if you wanted to learn anything. You're both very stupid people. I
sense you will remain very stupid people.
johnny_t
You're the self professed ignoramous. And you call us stupid? You have
one tune. My way or the highway. And you purposely ignore everything
that may be counter to that.
This whole paragraph that you just spit out, describes YOU, you stupid
motherfucker. Nothing more stupid than failing to expand, telling
others what to do, and not educating yourself on purpose.
Ignoramous.
FL Turbo
<hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
Look at it this way.
If a local government tries to maintain control of all aspects of your
life, you can easily move to another locality.
If a State government tries to maintain control of all aspects of your
life, you can move to another State.
If the Federal government tries to maintain control of all aspects of
your life, you have nowhere to go but to another country.
We won't even go into the scary prospect of a worldwide government
like the UN would be like if they get their way.
The upcoming Copenhagen summit should give you a clue as to how they
are trying to be everyone's Big Mama, and set up new rules and
regulations to apply to everybody on the Planet.
Luck for us, there are a whole lot of independent Nations that are not
willing to go along with the Program.
As for President Obama, I'm not so sure about him.
Paul Popinjay
And you purposely ignore everything
> that may be counter to that.
>
But Fl Turbo is spelling it out for you in plain black and white English,
and you morons STILL don't get it. So what chance do I have of
straightening you or Pepe out when Turbo, who is a far more eloquent
mutherfucker than I am, can't?
johnny_t
Actually FL, is presenting reasonable and cognizant points. It
certainly isn't any more particularly damning to central government,
then my points to the collective governance of the republic.
He has actually given food for thought, and for me and hopefully the
readers, they can take in the entire argument, and come to thoughtful
conclusions, and further questions.
You on the other hand, are just a parroting ignoramus who gives very
little to the conversation, other than name calling, and "I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
FL is a strong and thoughtful believer. Fights hard. But he is
thoughtful. And his points are required to be dealt with. We come from
different centers. But I do honor his sincerity.
You're right you don't have a chance.
Pepe Papon
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:hojpg5pmd15olt76q...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> And yet, when referring to state or local governments, you seem to see
>> no need to prevent glazing.
>
>
>Didn't you go to school, you stupid mutherfucker? Turbo is exactly correct
>throughout this thread.
He's correct that he needs to use words like "CongressCritter" and
DeCee", but only when referring to those at the Federal level? And
all this time, I'd been under the impression that you were capable of
following a simple train of thought.
>You and Johnny T. could learn a thing or two from
>him, if you wanted to learn anything. You're both very stupid people. I
>sense you will remain very stupid people.
We long ago established what you think of my intelligence. Fear not,
Paulie, as I can assure you that your opinion gets all the
consideration it deserves.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
So, go to another country. Don't let the door hit you.
>We won't even go into the scary prospect of a worldwide government
>like the UN would be like if they get their way.
>
>The upcoming Copenhagen summit should give you a clue as to how they
>are trying to be everyone's Big Mama, and set up new rules and
>regulations to apply to everybody on the Planet.
The UN lacks the power to do any such thing.
>Luck for us, there are a whole lot of independent Nations that are not
>willing to go along with the Program.
Another way of saying that the UN is powerless.
>As for President Obama, I'm not so sure about him.
That puts you ahead of most of the wingnuts here who are absolutely
positive that Obama is a Marxist intent on destroying America.
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:11:12 -0600, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:31:12 -0800, Pepe Papon
>
> >>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:48:37 -0600, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:09:22 -0800, Pepe Papon
>
> >>>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:52:53 -0600, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>
The U.N. has whatever power is ceded to it by international treaties.
Globalists have been busy pushing treaties through that infringe on
every nations sovereignty.
Things like this. http://disarmament.un.org/CAB/salw.html
>
> >Luck for us, there are a whole lot of independent Nations that are not
> >willing to go along with the Program.
>
> Another way of saying that the UN is powerless.
>
> >As for President Obama, I'm not so sure about him.
>
> That puts you ahead of most of the wingnuts here who are absolutely
> positive that Obama is a Marxist intent on destroying America.
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
>
> MySpace URL -http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide quoted text -
Pepe Papon
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >We won't even go into the scary prospect of a worldwide government
>> >like the UN would be like if they get their way.
>>
>> >The upcoming Copenhagen summit should give you a clue as to how they
>> >are trying to be everyone's Big Mama, and set up new rules and
>> >regulations to apply to everybody on the Planet.
>>
>> The UN lacks the power to do any such thing.
>
>The U.N. has whatever power is ceded to it by international treaties.
>Globalists have been busy pushing treaties through that infringe on
>every nations sovereignty.
Treaties mean nothing if the signatories choose to disregard them.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:08:09 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
>
> >> >We won't even go into the scary prospect of a worldwide government
> >> >like the UN would be like if they get their way.
>
> >> >The upcoming Copenhagen summit should give you a clue as to how they
> >> >are trying to be everyone's Big Mama, and set up new rules and
> >> >regulations to apply to everybody on the Planet.
>
> >> The UN lacks the power to do any such thing.
>
> >The U.N. has whatever power is ceded to it by international treaties.
> >Globalists have been busy pushing treaties through that infringe on
> >every nations sovereignty.
>
> Treaties mean nothing if the signatories choose to disregard them.
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
>
> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net
True, but my point was power can be granted to the UN. Given that an
administration spineless enough to cede sovereignty would probably
also abide by the treaty, then the possibilities for unpleasantness
abound.
Pepe Papon
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 3:56�pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:08:09 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
>>
>> <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >We won't even go into the scary prospect of a worldwide government
>> >> >like the UN would be like if they get their way.
>>
>> >> >The upcoming Copenhagen summit should give you a clue as to how they
>> >> >are trying to be everyone's Big Mama, and set up new rules and
>> >> >regulations to apply to everybody on the Planet.
>>
>> >> The UN lacks the power to do any such thing.
>>
>> >The U.N. has whatever power is ceded to it by international treaties.
>> >Globalists have been busy pushing treaties through that infringe on
>> >every nations sovereignty.
>>
>> Treaties mean nothing if the signatories choose to disregard them.
>True, but my point was power can be granted to the UN. Given that an
>administration spineless enough to cede sovereignty would probably
>also abide by the treaty, then the possibilities for unpleasantness
>abound.
There are lots of things that can happen in theory but won't happen in
practice. The US voluntarily ceding sovereignty is one of those.
And when I say "sovereignty", what I mean is that it's, well,
sovereign.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Alim Nassor
> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I used to think that. But I'm not so sure now.
Paul Popinjay
news:5d052e18-9459-4af7-9351-
> I used to think that. But I'm not so sure now.
Oh this is rich, Pepe talking about how we're never going to cede
sovereignty, as it's happening right under his nose now and has been since
the inception of the UN, that's the PURPOSE of the UN, what a fucking idiot.
Why, Alim, do you choose some of the dumbest mutherfuckers on this newsgroup
to have lengthy discussions with? Enjoying your inetellectual exchange with
Beldin this morning?
FL Turbo
<hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
It is counter productive for any Wingnut, right or left, to declare
that their opposition wants to "destroy" America.
They do not see it that way at all.
They are firmly convinced that all they want to do is to "improve"
America.
They can 100% truthfully declare that they do not want to destroy
America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
�America is �, uh, is no longer, uh � what it could be, what it once
was. And I say to myself, I don�t want that future for my children.�
Pepe Papon
Dear Paul,
I eagerly await the day when you actually contribute something
substantial and meaningful to a discussion. I realize it's a
longshot that this will ever occur, but I remain forever hopeful.
Yours truly,
Me
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Paul Popinjay
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> I eagerly await the day when you actually contribute something
> substantial and meaningful to a discussion. I realize it's a
> longshot that this will ever occur, but I remain forever hopeful.
>
> Yours truly,
>
Many RGPers know that I have contributed much to substantial and meaningful
discussion on this forum. It's just that I do not do so with YOU. I happen
to think you are a simpleton, so why bother. Nothing personal.
ramashiva
> "Pepe Papon" <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:n25ch59fl2i00c54a...@4ax.com...
> > Dear Paul,
> > Yours truly,
After that comment by Pepe, I have to agree with you. Only a
simpleton would fail to understand that you consistently make
substantial and meaningful contributions to discussions on a wide
range of topics.
I suggest you have our Honorable Ass Coordinator monitor Pepe's posts
to see if there are grounds for revoking Pepe's confirmation number.
There are too many simpletons posting to this newsgroup. We need to
start weeding them out.
William Coleman (ramashiva)