Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2009, 02:49 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
That is incorrect.
The proper term is liberty. Liberty has four types: natural, personal, civil, and political.

Natural liberty = absolute freedom, limited only by the laws of nature, and restrained only in that they do not violate the rights of another.
Personal liberty = right of locomotion, right to travel upon public roads and waterways.
Civil liberty = permission (license) granted by government to do that which would otherwise be a tort, a trespass, or otherwise not allowed.
Political liberty = permission by government to vote and hold office.

Socialism, which converts private property (absolute ownership) into collective ownership (qualified ownership), is anathema to U.S. law.
In fact, America's national socialism is 100% voluntary. There is no law compelling participation nor punishing those who do not participate.

The Constitution guarantees nothing but that the servant government will not trespass upon the rights of the people. Those rights existed BEFORE the USCON, not because of it.
"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "
Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.
Where did you go to school? The "Public" has no rights. The term "public" comprises a plurality. A plurality is an abstraction. It is a Socialist Term. And it is a fiction. That is why the Patent Office will not issue a patent to a Corporation, only to an Individual. Because if an invention is real, it had to of come from a natural source, that is, a source with a brain. A Corporation has no brain, hence no natural existence. (BTW, if Corporations had a brain, we wouldn't be having an economic meltdown.)

There is no Public. And, there is no Society.

The "Public" is a Corporation. That the 14th Amendment attempts to convert Individuals into Corporations only works when one is a member of a group (Corporation).

The 14th Amendment also gives Corporations the status of "Person".

But an Individual does not necessarily have to be a "Person".

I am an Individual who is not a member of the Military, a group (Corporation). Therefore, I am not under the jurisdiction of the Military.

That is why they better not f**k with me. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Martial Law. Yeah, I know - Tell that to the dead at Waco! F**k Clinton!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2009, 02:56 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,025 posts, read 14,205,095 times
Reputation: 16747
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPSF View Post
Oh and by the way, if you include obligations like Social Security and Medicare in the public debt the number soars to a horrifying $52.7 trillion. And this number is probably $1 trillion too short, what with the new trillion dollar "stimulus package."

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08446cg.pdf
here's the link
Those figures are misleading.

Part of the problem is that they're denominated in "dollars" but actually refer to Federal Reserve Notes. FRNs are not dollars. They are promises to pay dollars - in the future. But in 1933, Congress repudiated that promise. They are worthless IOUs. They only have legal tender status because of 300 million "human resources" pledged as collateral under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act of 1935.

The national debt, denominated in dollars, is not payable with "dollar bills" (Title 12 USC Sec 411 defines a Federal Reserve Note as a debt obligation of the U.S.) because a dollar bill has less than zero value. It is a negative. You cannot pay a debt with a debt. Minus plus a minus is just deeper red ink.

Based on the law on the books, the ten trillion national debt is unpayable. If you recompute the debt in terms of lawful money, the amount of gold bullion necessary is 500 billion ounces, 100 times as much as the WHOLE WORLD KNOWN SUPPLY OF GOLD (5 billion ounces).
At current mining rates, it would only take 877,000 years to mine enough - if the debt was frozen right now.

(Fort Knox depository only has about 3 billion dollars worth of gold bullion = 147 million ounces)

To top off this insanity, the 14th amendment states that the public debt cannot be questioned.

YUP, we're in deep dung.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 02:59 AM
 
Location: Houston Texas
2,915 posts, read 3,517,094 times
Reputation: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukester View Post
I think that if the following states should go for it. Lets see, let us start with Kentuck, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma. This would rid us of the age old republican deep south ideologies. With out the menitoned States we Dems would do just fine. Economically you don't bring a lot to the table, thats for sure.
Texas is the 2nd most economically powerful state in the country. I'd say that is "bringing alot to the table". I think that those states as their own nation would do just fine without all the other states . I think most would agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 03:00 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,025 posts, read 14,205,095 times
Reputation: 16747
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Where did you go to school? The "Public" has no rights. The term "public" comprises a plurality. A plurality is an abstraction. It is a Socialist Term. And it is a fiction. That is why the Patent Office will not issue a patent to a Corporation, only to an Individual. Because if an invention is real, it had to of come from a natural source, that is, a source with a brain. A Corporation has no brain, hence no natural existence. (BTW, if Corporations had a brain, we wouldn't be having an economic meltdown.)

There is no Public. And, there is no Society.

The "Public" is a Corporation. That the 14th Amendment attempts to convert Individuals into Corporations only works when one is a member of a group (Corporation).

The 14th Amendment also gives Corporations the status of "Person".

But an Individual does not necessarily have to be a "Person".

I am an Individual who is not a member of the Military, a group (Corporation). Therefore, I am not under the jurisdiction of the Military.

That is why they better not f**k with me. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Martial Law. Yeah, I know - Tell that to the dead at Waco! F**k Clinton!
You have been confused by Socialist propaganda. That is to be expected.
Frankly, all victims of the government "excess" have given consent, or otherwise impaired their status at law.

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary

What's wrong with socialism?

It's collective ownership.

What's wrong with collective ownership?

It's qualified ownership.

"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. " - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

What's wrong with qualified ownership?

It abolishes absolute ownership by individuals - aka private property.

"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels." - - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with
wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'. Webster's Dictionary.

Both Socialism and Communism espouse collective ownership, and seek to abolish private ownership.

And since the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects private property, socialism and communism are anathema to American law.

To get around the law, national socialism, in 1935, was instituted by VOLUNTARY enrollment.

There is no law requiring one to enroll before working in America. Nor is there any law that punishes Americans who do not enroll.

Yet millions of Americans are misled to believe that they have to have THE NUMBER before they can legally work in their own country.

FOOLS.
Socialist SLAVES.
Ignorant serfs.
(expletive deleted!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 06:01 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,059 posts, read 12,971,196 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacknblue View Post

Maybe you should tell them yourself. I don't take orders from you.
...and I don't take orders from the Federal Government.

See how that works?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 06:49 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,495,840 times
Reputation: 11351
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Articles of Confederation, 1777
FWIW - the Articles were never repealed nor abolished, and were incorporated by reference into the U.S. Constitution, via Article 6.

Any state that signs up for a perpetual Union has no "right" to secede.
Article 7 of the Constitution:

Quote:
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same
They dissolved that union, the Constitution was only binding on those states that agreed to it. The others if they decided not to accept it, would have simply become independent countries...

And Article 6 has nothing to do with the Articles of Confederation remaining binding, but rather, that the new union would still pay all debts. But even if you were right, Article II of the Articles of Confederation says:

Quote:
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 07:13 AM
 
8,630 posts, read 9,137,436 times
Reputation: 5990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacknblue View Post
I'm proud to be a citizen of "The United States of America" and I resent the idea that you would split my inheritance in two and deny me half of it. I was born into a country with 50 states, not one less.
When I was born there was only 48 States. All relative perhaps?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 10:52 AM
 
37 posts, read 86,555 times
Reputation: 26
Wow okay I think this thread has really gone pretty far out there. Let me just say that I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so don't confuse me with some others who may or may not be conspiracy theorists. Okay well, I'll type more on the thread in a few hours, just wanted to clear my name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,050 posts, read 34,603,290 times
Reputation: 10616
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
the Constitution was only binding on those states that agreed to it. The others if they decided not to accept it, would have simply become independent countries...
You use the word "if." Please tell me which states decided not to ratify the Constitution? I may not remember everything from history class, but it seems to me that when the Constitution was put on the table for ratification, the United States was born with all 13 states ratifying--not seven or eight for and five or six against. And every state that has joined the union since then has also accepted it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 06:18 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,495,840 times
Reputation: 11351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
You use the word "if." Please tell me which states decided not to ratify the Constitution? I may not remember everything from history class, but it seems to me that when the Constitution was put on the table for ratification, the United States was born with all 13 states ratifying--not seven or eight for and five or six against. And every state that has joined the union since then has also accepted it.
You missed the point entirely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:16 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top